20000801 Ver 1_Complete File_20000616

.I-
,,. sTaF
?i
X162001
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 13, 2001
State Project: 8.1340801 (U-3472)
F. A. No.: STP-42 (1)
Contract: C105538
County: Wilson
Description: NC 42 (Tarboro Street) from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) in Wilson
MEMORANDUM TO: Steven D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi L. Oglesby, P? e
Division Construction Engine
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the preconstruction conference for
the above project, which was held on January 23, 2001. The minutes were approved by the
Contractor, S. T. Wooten Corporation, as recorded.
/t
Attachment
c: John Wadsworth (FHWA)
John Holley (DEEM, Land Quality Section)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
John Hennessy (NC DEHNR)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
City of Wilson (City Engineer, Tim Farmer)
Sprint
Time Warner
Benchmark Communications
Willie Bryant
Eric Alsmeyer (US Army Corps of Engineers)
ec:Cecil L. Jones (Randy Pace)
Ted Sherrod
Tom Tumage
Lynn Ward, PE
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
S. D. Dewitt, PE
February 13, 2001
Page 2
David Cox (NCWRC)
John Rouse, PE
Andy Pridgen
Jim Grady, Jr., PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Dennis Jernigan, PE
Jimmy M. Lynch, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
W. D. Johnson
W. L. Moore, III
John Alderman
Judith Johnson (NCWRC)
Jimmy Marler
Robin Little
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
Aydren Flowers
David R. Henderson, PE
Richard Chrisawn
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE MINUTES
State Project: 8.1340801 (U-3472)
Contract No.: C105538
F. A. Number: STP-42 (1)
County: Wilson
Description: NC 42 (Tarboro Street) from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) in Wilson
The preconstruction conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division office on January
23, 2001, with the following persons in attendance:
NAME REPRESENTING
Jon Wallace S. T. Wooten Corp.
Bobby Cox S. T. Wooten Corp.
Joe Hollis S. T. Wooten Corp.
William Wooten S. T. Wooten Corp.
Jonathan Bivens S. T. Wooten Corp.
Bill Henegar S. T. Wooten Corp.
William Sawyer Sawyer's Land Developing, Inc.
Maurice Macky Sawyer's Land Developing, Inc.
Danny Frazier Benchmark
Tim Farmer City of Wilson/Engineer
Ronnie Dew City of Wilson/Water Resources
Robert Raper City of Wilson/Water Resources
Rick Anderson City of Wilson/Electric
Heather Joyner DOT - R/W Utilities
Dean Argenbright DOT - Geotechnical Unit
Jay Twisdale DOT - Hydraulics Unit
Chris Rivenbark DOT - PDEA
John Rouse DOT - Bridge Const. Engineer
Warren Walker DOT - Roadway Const. Engineer
Bryant Bunn DOT - Division Maint. Engineer
Don. C. Smith DOT - Div. Roadside Environmental
Lloyd Johnston DOT - Division Right of Way
Dennis W. Jernigan DOT - Resident Engineer
Kenneth P. Cates DOT - Asst. Resident Engineer
J. M. Long DOT - Construction
Vance L. Burnett DOT - Construction
Andy Pridgen DOT - Div. QA Supervisor
Ms. Wendi Oglesby, Division Construction Engineer, presided over the Conference. She asked those
present to introduce themselves and their project affiliation.
Mr. Bobby Cox will act as Project Superintendent and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Contractor.
Mr. Vance Burnett will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the DOT on this
project.
Ms. Oglesby asked when and where does the Contractor plan to begin work. The Contractor stated we
would like to begin clearing wherever we can, bring the subcontractor in this week and get signs up the
week of 1/29/01, starting at I-95 coming back into town and start at Airport Road and back into town.
The Contractor advised he would need to get information concerning building removal.
Ms. Oglesby advised she understood that the Contractor would be constructing this project as two
sections. The Contractor advised, when clearing operations and storm drain work is complete, it will
become a day and night operation. Ms. Oglesby asked how long before this will occur, and the
Contractor advised it will probably be around May or June 2001.
A letter naming persons authorized to sign supplemental agreements was presented.
The Contractor presented his progress schedule and he was advised it would be checked and he would be
advised if satisfactory. By copy of these minutes we are advising the Contractor his progress schedule
has been checked and is approved as submitted.
The preconstruction conference is being held from the proposal form, as the executed contract has not
been received. If there are any differences between the proposal and contract, the contract will govern.
RIGHT OF WAY
At this point, Ms. Oglesby called on Lloyd Johnston with our Division Right of Way Unit, to cover the
right of way for this project. Mr. Johnston presented a letter to the Resident Engineer with copy of
agreements that cover all of the right of way and easements necessary for this project that were acquired
by negotiation. Right of way on the following parcels was acquired by condemnation: Parcels, 1, 2, 14,
17, 26, 28, 29, 36, 39, 40, 44, 49, 50B, 51, 51A, 53, 54, 55, 60, 63, 81, 88, 102, 104, and 109.
Agreements of Entry were obtained on Parcels 12 and 18 (Deans Oil property and Deans family
property), and Mr. Johnston advised they anticipate reaching a settlement with them soon.
Improvements in the right of way have been.inspected for asbestos and are in the process of being abated.
Mr. Johnston advised the paperwork should possibly be received by next week. He will furnish to the
Resident Engineer and Contractor as soon as possible. Some of the buildings to be removed are in the
way of the structure lines. As soon as the buildings are removed the Contractor plans to begin clearing.
The Contractor advised that some of these structures would be burned down as a training operation for
the City of Wilson Fire Department.
On page 4 of the contract, Mr. Johnston called attention to the Specification "Delay in Right of Entry"
advising the Contractor that he will not be allowed right of entry to the parcels listed before June 1, 2001,
unless otherwise permitted by the Engineer.
Mr. Johnston advised he would like to call the Contractor's attention to another possible problem.
Problems have been encountered with Parcel 29 (Deborah Mitchell), as part of her septic lines are in the
right of way. Right of Way has reached a stalemate with her. She has been made aware, in writing; if the
septic lines are cut Wilson County may cond,:mn her property.
Ms. Oglesby cautioned the Contractor to contain his operations within the right of way or construction
limits of the project. Should the need arise to perform work outside these limits, written authorized from
the property owner shall be acquired prior to performing the work.
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
& CONFLICTS
Mr. Jernigan covered this portion of the contract on pages 114 thru 124.
The following utility companies have facilities that are in conflict with this project:
City of Wilson Electric (Distribution) -Electrical work can not be started until the buildings in conflict are
demolished. Some of the pole locations are dependent on the building removal items.
City of Wilson (Gas) -Work in progress. Work scheduled to be completed in approximately 3 weeks.
City of Wilson (Water)/(Sewer)-Representatives advised they do not have a set of plans for water &
sewer lines. Advised they will need a curb cut on NC 42 to get access to their sewer line. Mr. Jernigan
advised he had not received authorization for City to perform work on water and sewer.
Ms. Joyner with our Utility Section in Raleigh advised she has construction drawing for water and sewer
and she will forward to the Resident Engineer and City of Wilson personnel.
Time Warner CATV - No authorization has been received for this Company to perform work on the
project.
Benchmark Communications (Telephone) -No authorization has been received for this Company to
perform work on the project.
Sprint Carolina (Telephone) -Will start work when City starts work. Estimated completion June 2001.
Resident Engineer will need to follow up with a letter.
Mr. Jernigan advised there is water and sewer construction in the contract. He advised his office has
been furnished with a set of as built plans for water and sewer lines that were installed for the new
Springfield School.
The Contractor advised that all appropriate parties should meet on the project site early next week to
discuss and come up with a determination to coordinate utility work to the best interest of all concerned.
The Contractor advised he will contact the Resident Engineer to set up this meeting.
There were no further questions or comments regarding utility construction and utility conflicts.
4
At this point Ms. Oglesby advised she would deviate from the normal format of discussion and cover
permits at this time. She asked all to turn to page 257 of the contract.
PERMITS
Ms. Oglesby advised the US Army Corps of Engineers and DEHNR has issued a permit for this project
and the Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
Ms. Oglesby advised the Contractor that he and his personnel should make themselves familiar with the
conditions stipulated in the permits.
Ms. Oglesby suggested that the Contractor and his personnel review the plans to become familiar with
areas where there are wetlands, as there are pockets of wetlands throughout the project. There are no
drawings with the permit in the contract as it is a General Permit; however, the footprints as shown on
the plan dictates the work area in the wetlands.
Agents of the permitting authority will periodically inspect the project for adherence to the permits.
Should the Contractor propose to utilize construction methods (such as temporary structures or fill in
waters and/or wetlands for haul roads, work platforms, cofferdams, etc.) not specifically identified in the
permit (individual, general, or nationwide) authorizing the project it shall be the Contractor's
responsibility to coordinate with the appropriate permit agency to determine what, if any, additional
permit action is required. The Contractor shall also be responsible for initiating the request for the
authorization of such construction method by the permitting agency. The request shall be submitted
through the Engineer. The Contractor shall not utilize the construction method until it is approved by the
permitting agency. The request normally takes approximately 60 days to process; however, no
extensions of time or additional compensation will be granted for delays resulting from the Contractor's
request for approval of construction methods not specifically identified in the permit.
The permit authorized certain footprints within the waters of the US (wetlands, streams, and ponds, etc.)
as shown in the plans. The Contractor cannot perform work beyond that footprint without approval from
the Corps of Engineers. Any deviation would be in violation of the permits.
The permit does not cover waste or borrow within wetlands. Borrow or spoil areas are not authorized in
the permit for wetlands or streams. Any borrow or waste site proposed by the Contractor that impacts a
wetland would not be approved with out a permit modification. Stream crossings are not allowed.
All standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This will lessen the
change of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
Chris Rivenbark with PDEA advised that no work could be performed on two of the delay of entry sites
at Sta. 21+00 to 22+00 and Sta. 33+00 to 34+00 until date specified.
Buffer areas are shown on the plans. Any deviation in the work shown in the buffer will require a permit
modification.
If the Contractor should encounter any wetlands and/or any areas he is not sure of, he should stop
operation and contact the Resident Engineer until a determination can be made.
Contractor should keep up with sediment and erosion control day by day. After a storm the Contractor
should check all erosion control devices and correct any problems, especially in wetlands.
Division Maintenance forces will be responsible for maintaining hazardous spill.
EROSION CONTROL
Mr. Don Smith reviewed erosion control items listed on pages 125-140 in the contract.
Beginning on page 125 he reviewed the kinds of seed and fertilizer and the rates of application of seed,
fertilizer, limestone and areas to be applied. During periods of overlapping dates, the kind of seed to be
used shall be determined by the Engineer. All rates are in pounds per acre (kilograms per hectare).
Add 15# (17kg) Kobe or Korean Lespedeza on all seeded areas between June 1 and September 1.
All areas adjacent to lawns must be hand finished to give a "lawn type appearance", and the lawn seed
mix stipulated shall be applied to these areas. Remove all trash, debris, and stones 1/4 inch (19mm) and
larger in diameter or other obstructions that could interfere with providing a smooth "lawn type
appearance".
Mr. Smith pointed out, were it reads "Type I and Type II shall be separate varieties chosen from the list
below", it should read "list above".
Fertilizer shall be 10-20-20.
Hydraulic Tack - The tacking agent shall be a "hydraulic mulch" consisting of wood or paper fibers
manufactured from wood chips or recycled paper products and shall be processed as stipulated. The
tacking agent shall be applied hydraulically as an overspray on straw and have a mixing ratio of 3 lbs. Of
dry materials to 10 gallons of water (1.4 kg/hectare) and shall be applied at 1000 lbs. Per acre (dry
material) (1100 kgs per hectare).
Temporary Seeding - Sweet Sudan Grass, German Millet or Browntop Millet shall be used in summer
months and Rye Grain during the remainder of the year.
Fertilizer Topdressing-Fertilizer used for top dressing on all roadway areas except slopes 2:1 and
steeper shall be 10-20-20 grade and applied at the rate of 500# per acre (560 kg per hectare). Fertilizer
used for topdressing on slopes 2:1 and steeper and waste and borrow areas shall be 16-8-8 grade and
applied at the rate of 500# per acre (560 per hectare).
Supplemental Seeding - No centipede seed will be used in the seed mix for supplemental seeding. The
rate of application may vary from 25# to 75# per acre (28 kg to 85 kb per hectare); however, the actual
rate per acre (hectare) will be determined by the Engineer prior to the time of topdressing and the
contractor will be notified in writing of the rate per acre (hectare), total quantity needed, and areas on
which to apply
Hoiving- The minimum mowing height on this project shall be four inches (100 mm).
Crimping of Straw - Crimping will be required on this project adjacent to all sections of roadway where
traffic is to be maintained or allowed during construction. In areas within 6-feet of the edge of pavement,
straw is to be crimped and then immediately tacked with straw tack.
Culvert Diversion Channel - Contractor shall provide a culvert diversion channel to detour existing
stream around the culvert construction site at locations shown on the plans. Mr. Smith asked if there
were any questions concerning materials and construction requirements stipulated in the contract. There
were none.
Impervious Dike - Contractor shall furnish, install, maintain, and remove an impervious dike for the
purpose of diverting normal stream flow around the construction site. The impervious dike shall not
permit seepage of water into the construction site or contribute to siltation of the stream.
Acceptable materials shall include but not be limited to sheet piles, sandbags, and/or the placement of an
acceptable size stone lined with polypropylene or other impervious fabric. Earth material shall not be
used to construction an impervious dike when it is in direct contact with the stream unless vegetation can
be established before contact with the stream take place.
Specialized Hand Mowing - Paid for by man-hour.
TFaste Areas and Borrotiv Sources - Payment for temporary erosion control measures, except those made
necessary by the Contractor's own negligence or for his own convenience, will be paid for at the
appropriate contract unit price for the devices or measures utilized in borrow sources and waste areas.
No additional payment will be made for erosion control devices or permanent seeding and mulching in
any commercial borrow or waste pit.
Reforestation - Reforestation will be planted within interchanges and along the outside borders of the
road.
Seasonal Limitations - Seedlings shall be planted from November 15 thru March 15.
Seedlings shall be planted as soon as practical following permanent Seeding & Mulching and shall be
planted in a 16-ft (5 meter) wide swath adjacent to mowing pattern line.
Sh-eanibank Forestation - Seedlings shall be planted as soon as practical following permanent seeding
and mulching. Type I seedlings shall be planted along both streambanks and Type II seedlings shall be
planted in a 26 ft. (8 meters) wide swath from top of bank along both sides of stream.
Seasonal Limitations - Seedlings shall be planted from November 15 thru March 15.
Sodding (Centipede) - Contractor shall place sod under all guiderail and all guardrail sections, and it shall
be placed so that there is symmetry between the portion of the sod behind the guardrail post and in front
of the face of the guardrail. No sod shall be placed where suitable stands of centipede exist.
The Contractor shall obtain a certificate of limited permit issued by the NC Department of Agriculture
stating that the sod has been found to be free of injurious plant pests.
The sod, machine cut to the supplier's standard width and length, shall be 5/8-inch minimum
Sod shall be delivered on site within 24 hours of being cut and shall be covered by acceptable means
during delivery. A certificate from the sod producer stating the date & time of sod cutting shall
accompany the sod when it arrives at the project site.
Mr. Smith reviewed the requirements for soil preparation where sodding is to be done. He reminded the
Contractor that he is responsible for taking sufficient soil samples (at least one sample per planting are or
mile, whichever is less) for testing by the Department of Agriculture Soil Testing Division to determine
the soil pH. These samples shall be taken in the presence of the Engineer, and the Engineer from the NC
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall receive results.
Sod handling and placement shall be a continuous process of cutting, transporting and installing without
appreciable delays. It shall always be installed within 48 hours after being cut. Sod shall be watered
within 2 hours of placement.
After sod has been placed and staked (where necessary), it shall then be rolled or tamped carefully and
firmly. The Contractor shall take extreme care to prevent the installed sod from being torn or displaced.
After rolling or tamping, it shall be watered uniformly and thoroughly with a minimum of 1 inch of water
applied immediately after the installation of the sod. In no case shall the time interval between sod
placement and initial watering exceed 2 hours.
The Contractor shall be responsible for all watering and other maintenance that is required for
maintaining the health and livability of the sod from installation until completion of the 60-day
observation period. Water requirements are noted in the contract.
The Contractor shall maintain responsibility for the sod for a 60-day observation period, beginning upon
the satisfactory completion and acceptance of all work required in the plans.
In Wilson County the 60-day observation period for sod installed between September 30 and March 1,
shall not begin until March 1.
The Contractor shall be responsible for year round watering and other maintenance required to maintain
the livability of the sod.
After the first 30 days of the 60-day observation period, the Contractor and the Engineer shall meet to
review the project and identify dead or damaged sod to be replaced.
At the end of the 60-day observation period, the sod furnished and installed under contract must be in a
living and healthy condition.
Acceptance of sod will be either at the end of the 60-day observation period or at final acceptance of the
project, whichever is later.
Sodding shall be inspected by the Area Roadside Environmental Engineer to begin and end the 60-day
observation period.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas - This area shall be defined as a 50 foot (16 meter) buffer zone on both
sides of the stream (or depression), measured from top of streambank, (or center of depression). Only
clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing
operation.
The Contractor raised a question regarding clearing and grubbing in the environmentally sensitive areas,
stating there were different requirements all over the State. In some instances the Contractor advised he
is required to grub areas and sometimes not. Ms. Oglesby advised that areas might not need to be
grubbed. Each area could be reviewed with the Resident Engineer for a determination. If grubbing is
performed it cannot be done until immediately before grading.
Warren Walker advised the Contractor would need to plan when he will use fertilizer in buffer areas since
they may be allowed to fertilize once and this should be for final.
A lengthy discussion was held relative to the DOT's requirements concerning pH and PI in topsoil. The
Contractor stated that the DOT requirements and property owners concerns regarding "lawn type
appearance" do not agree. Soil that meets the pH and PI requirement may not be the type soil that
property owners will be pleased with. The Contractor advised they might be able to generate suitable
material for use as topsoil. Ms. Oglesby advised that we will be looking for lawn type appearance in
areas where there are yards, meeting the requirements as specified on page 126.
The Contractor advised that DOT personnel and his personnel need to get together and discuss this issue
and make a determination as to how this issue can be resolved. The Contractor stated he will not spend
money to generate soil.
Floating Turbidity Curtain - Contractor shall install a floating turbidity curtain to contain silt created by
the placement of fill material while constructing the bridge over Bloomers Swamp @ Station 85+20. The
curtain shall be constructed to deter silt suspension and movement of silt particles.
Stream Channel Relocation Limitations - The sequence of construction listed at the top of page 139
must be followed in the areas designated on the plans as stream relocations. Failure on the part of the
Contractor to follow this sequence, and complete each step prior to proceeding in this area as specified,
will be just cause for the Engineer to direct suspension of work.
The requirements stipulated apply to the stream channels being construction at the following stations: -L-
Sta. 99+60 Leff and -Y4- Sta. 11+20 Leff.
The Parrish Company will perform seeding operations.
There were no further comments and/or questions concerning erosion control items.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Quality Management System for Asphalt Pavements (Superpave Version) - Mr. Andy Pridgen, Division
QA Supervisor, covered pages 33-50 and pages 75-87.
Mr. Pridgen advised the Contractor that these Specifications are dated January 18, 2000. The DOT
would like for the Contractor to consider changing to Specifications dated February 2001. The main
difference is the 750 ton increment testing. He furnished the Contractor with two sample letters, 1)
Contractor agrees to switch to only the 750 ton increment testing, and 2) Contractor agrees to switch to
the February 2001 Specifications. The Contractor advised he would have to discuss this with George
Reeves and Chris Croom and get back with the Resident Engineer and Mr. Pridgen.
Mr. Pridgen asked if the Contractor had any questions regarding this portion of the contract. The
Contractor did not have any questions.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL
Ms. Oglesby advised, any of the special provisions that are not covered will be as stipulated.
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages:
Date of Availability for this contract is January 29, 2001, except that work in jurisdictional waters and
wetlands shall not begin unit a preconstruction conference is held with the regulatory agencies as
stipulated in the permits. This delay in availability has been considered in determining the contract time
for this project. The permits will be covered during this preconstruction conference.
Contract Completion Date - December 31, 2001.
Liquidated Damages - $200.00 per calendar day
Ms. Oglesby pointed out when observation periods are required by the Special Provisions, they are not a
part of the work to be completed by the completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the
contract. Should an observation period extend beyond the final completion date, the acceptable
completion of the observation period shall be a part of the work covered by the performance and payment
bonds.
10
Intermediate CorNract Time Number I and Liquidated Damages - Except for that work required under
the Project Special Provisions entitled "Planting" and/or "Reforestation", included elsewhere in this
proposal form, the Contractor will be required to complete all work included in this contract and shall
place and maintain traffic on same by November 15, 2003.
The date of availability for this intermediate contact time is January 29, 2001.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $1,500.00 per calendar day.
Upon apparent completion of all work required to be completed by this intermediate date, a final
inspection will be held and upon acceptance, the DOT will assume responsibility for the maintenance of
all work except "Planting" and/or "Reforestation". The Contractor will be responsible for and shall make
corrections of all damages to the completed roadway caused by his planting operations, whether
occurring prior to or after placing traffic thru the project.
Intermediate Contract time Number 2 and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall complete the required
work of installing, maintaining, and removing all the traffic control devices for lane closures and restoring
traffic to a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close or narrow a lane of traffic
on NC 42 (-L-), from I495 to Airport Blvd. (-Y3-) during the following time restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
NC 42 (-L-) 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
From I-95 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Airport Blvd. (-Y3) Monday thru Friday
The time of availability for this intermediate contract work will be the time the Contractor begins to
install all traffic control devices for the lane closures according to the above.
Completion time for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to
complete the removal of all traffic control devices required for the lane closures and restore traffic to a
two-lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per hour or any portion thereof.
Intermediate Contract Time Number 3 and Liquidated Damages - The Contractor shall complete the
required work of installing, maintaining and removing the traffic control devices for lane closures and
restoring traffic to a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close or narrow a lane
of traffic on NC 42 (-L-), from Airport Blvd. (-Y3-) to Forest Hills Road, during the following time
restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
NC 42 (-L-) 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
From Airport Blvd. (-Y3-) Monday thru Friday
To Forest Hills Road
The time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor begins to install
traffic control devices required for the lane closures according to the time restrictions stated above.
The completion time for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to
complete the removal of traffic control devices required for the lane closures and restore traffic to a two-
lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per hour or any portion thereof.
Intermediate Contract Time Number 4 and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall complete the
required work of installing, maintaining and removing the traffic control devices for lane closures and
restoring traffic to a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close or narrow a lane
of traffic on Airport Blvd. (-Y3-) during the following time restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
Airport Blvd. (-Y3-) 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Monday thru Friday
The time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to
complete the removal of traffic control devices required for the lane closures and restore traffic to a two-
lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per hour or any portion thereof.
Intermediate Contract time Number 5 and Liquidated Damages - The Contractor shall complete the
required work of installing, maintaining, and removing the traffic control devices for lane closures and
restoring traffic to a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close or narrow a lane
of traffic on Old Raleigh Road (-Y4-) during the following time restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
Old Raleigh Road (-Y4-) 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Monday thru Friday
Time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor begins to install
traffic control devices required for the lane closures.
Completion time for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to
complete the removal of traffic control devices required for the lane closures and restores traffic to a two-
lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated Damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per hour or any portion thereof.
12
Intermediate Contract Time Number 6 and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall compete the work
required of Phase I, Steps 6B to 6D, as described on Sheet TCP-3A and shall place and maintain traffic
on same.
Date of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the date the Contractor elects to begin the
work.
Completion date for this intermediate contract time will be the date which is 21 consecutive calendar days
after and including the date the Contractor begins this work.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $3,000.00 per calendar day.
The Contractor advised the work from Roney Williamson's store back towards Wilson is supposed to be
done at night. Due to high volumes of traffic and type of clearing operations to be done, the Contractor
expressed safety concerns for doing the clearing at night. He asked if this work could be done during the
day. The Contractor advised that a temporary lane closure would need to be put in to stop traffic during
this operation. Traffic will be stopped for approximately 5 minutes, 10 minutes top. Ms. Oglesby stated
she is not opposed trying to do this work during the day. If we try it and traffic volumes are too high and
traffic backs up, then we will have to go back to night work. Someone asked if there is a noise ordinance
in Wilson. The Contractor advised that the City has no jurisdiction over roadway construction noise at
night. Contractor advised they have a letter from the Attorney General's office that roadway
construction noise is exempt.
Recruitment of Department Employees - Ms. Oglesby reviewed these requirements and reminded the
Contractor if he did not comply with these special provisions it may be justification for disqualifying him
from further bidding. Ms. Oglesby called attention to the last sentence in the big paragraph as this is a
change in the specification.
Schedule of Estimated Completion Progress - The Contractor was advised if he anticipated accelerating
the progress shown, he should submit a request, and approval would have to be obtained should he want
payment for performing work beyond that progress noted. In the fiscal year 2001, 22% of the work is
scheduled to be completed, 43% in the year 2002, 28% in the year 2003, and 7% in the year 2004.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise - Ms. Oglesby advised that Willie Bryant with our EEO Section in
Raleigh usually covers this section of the contract. He was unable to attend so she covered the items he
asked to be discussed.
Mr. George Strickland is the Contractor's Company EEO Officer and Mr. Richard E. Vick is their
Minority Liaison Officer.
The Resident Engineer furnished the Contractor with required posters for his bulletin board. The
Contractor's EEO Policy Statement is to be posted on the project bulletin board, which should be
weather proof along with the following posters:
1. Davis-Bacon Minimum Prevailing Wage Rate Schedule,
2. "Wage-Rate Information -F/A Project", Form PR 1495,
13
3. "Notice Relating to False Statements", Form PR-1022,
4. EEO Poster -"Discrimination is Prohibited".
The Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all actions taken in complying with Equal Opportunity
of Employment Provisions, Training Provisions, and Minority Business Enterprise Provision. This
includes applicant referrals, meeting with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluation, etc.
All alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
A Contract Compliance Review will be conducted by the State and/or FHWA sometime during the life of
this contract. Therefore, fair employment practices should be maintained at all times.
Goals for this contract are established at 10.0% for DBE's. The contract was awarded with a 10.0%
participation for DBE's.
All subcontractors and suppliers are responsible for meeting the same requirements as the prime
contractor in regard to Equal Employment.
When payments are made to DBE firms, including material suppliers, contractors at all levels shall
provide the Engineer with an accounting of said payments.
Prompt Payment - Contractor at all levels shall within 7 calendar days of receipt of monies, resulting
from work performed on the project or services rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier subcontractors,
or material suppliers, as appropriate.
This provision for prompt payment shall be incorporated into each subcontract or second tier subcontract
issued for work performed on this project or for services provided.
Failure of any entity to make prompt payment as defined herein may result in: 1) withholding of money
due to that entity in the next partial payment, until such assurances are made satisfactory to this
provision; or 2) removal of an approved contractor from the prequalified bidders list or the removal of
other entities from the approved subcontractors list.
Contractor's License Requirements - If the Contractor does no hold the proper license to perform
specialized work in this contract, he will be required to sublet such work to a properly licensed
Contractor.
Domestic Steel Products - The Contractor was advised he can use only 0.1% of the contract amount or
$2,500.00, whichever is greater, of foreign steel in the project, except fasteners which will be
domestically produced.
US Department of Transportation Hotline - To report bid rigging call 1-800-424-9071.
Submission of Records - Federal Aid Projects - This project is NOT located on the National Highway
System; therefore federal form FHWA-47 is NOT required.
14
Subsurface Information - Subsurface information is available on this project.
Payments for Materials - Portable Concrete Barrier & Removable Pavement Marking Material - As
stipulated.
Plant Pest Ouarantines - The Contractor is advised to abide by the requirements noted in the contract.
Metric Documentation - Contractor shall submit all quantities on bills of lading and all other paperwork
in Standard Metric Units. The DOT will not accept any quantities on bills of lading and other paperwork,
which are in English unit only. The DOT will allow the information to be submitted with both units of
measurement being shown.
Training Requirements - The number of trainees to be trained on this project shall be one. The
Contractor advised they are now on the annual training program; therefore, there will not be a trainee
specifically for this project.
Recycled Products or Solid iVaste Materials - Should the Contractor come up with a way to utilize
recycled products or solid waste materials on the project, he should submit to the Resident Engineer for
review and if approved, a supplemental agreement will be executed.
Clearing and Grubbing - Clearing and grubbing shall be Method III.
Construction Procedure - The Contractor shall comply with the three provisions stipulated on pages 26
and the top of page 27 for construction of this project, unless otherwise directed by the Engineer.
Restrictions on Construction of Embankment - The Contractor shall observe a one-month waiting period
before beginning any work for stage one (1) end bent construction after completion of the first stage of
the embankment at each end bent. The Contractor may begin the reinforced bridge approach fill
construction after completion of the first stage of the end bent including wingwalls. No other waiting
period will be required for the approach slab construction at both end bents. The Contractor will be
required to maintain the embankments at finished graded roadway section during the waiting period.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material - Contractor shall construct the top 6 inches (150 mm) of shoulder and
fill slopes with soils capable of supporting vegetation. Contractor shall provide soil with P.I. greater than
6 and less than 25 with a pH ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. All soil is subject to test and rejection by the
Engineer, all stones and other foreign material 2 inches (50 mm) or larger in diameter shall be removed.
Material shall be obtained within the project limits or from an approved borrow source.
Certified Weight Certificates - Effective January 1, 2001,all weight tickets issued for asphalt plant mix
shall have the additional information included on the ticket noted at the bottom of page 53.
Curb and Gutter with Curb Cuts for Wieel Chair Ramps - There are no sidewalks on this project. We
will construct curb cuts but will not provide pads.
15
Guardrail to Bridge End Shoe Anchorage System - The end shoe anchorage system to attached guardrail
to bridge rail shown in Roadway Standard Drawing Number 862.03 shall not be used. Contractor shall
attach guardrail to bridge rail using the anchorage system shown in the structure plans.
Construction Surveying - Ms. Oglesby advised the Contractor that this item was deleted from the
contract.
Flowable Fill - Ms. Oglesby asked if the Contractor plans to use on this project. The Contractor advised
he is not sure at this time.
Portable Construction Lighting - Ms. Oglesby asked if there were any questions on this item. There
were none.
Permanent Seeding and Mulching -The DOT desires that permanent seeding and mulching be established
on this project as soon as practical after slopes or portions of slopes have been graded. As an incentive
to obtain an early stand of vegetation on this project, the Contractor's attention is called to the following:
For all permanent seeding and mulching that is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
requirements of Section 1660, "Seeding and Mulching" and within the percentages stated in the contract
of elapsed contract times, an additional payment will be made to the Contractor as an incentive additive.
The incentive additive will be determined by multiplying the number of acres of seeding and mulching
satisfactorily completed time the contract unit bid price per acre for "Seeding and Mulching" times the
appropriate percentage additive.
ROADWAY
Temporary Shoring -Contractor shall submit method of shoring for review and acceptance prior to
beginning construction.
Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills - The Contractor is to be guided by the Special Provisions and all
work shall be done in the presence of the Engineer or Inspector.
Select Granular Material - Class IV has been deleted. The select granular material shall be placed 1
meter above the fabric and/or backfill in water.
Shallow Undercut - Warren Walker advised this is to become a standard specification in all contracts.
The Geotechnical Report should advise where this is to occur.
1500 MM RC Pipe (By Boring and Jacking) - This pipe shall be installed by dry boring and jacking, and
shall be carefully dry bored true to the line and grade given. The bore shall be held to a minimum to
insure that there will be no settlement. Pipe that is damaged due to the Contractor's operation shall be
removed and replaced at the Contractor's expense. All voids around the outside of the pipe shall be
completely filled to the satisfaction of the Engineer.
Sluice Gate and Hazardous Waste Retention Basin - Ms. Oglesby asked if there were any questions
regarding these items. There were none.
16
Converting Existing Drop Inlet to Catch Basin - As stipulated.
Pavement Alarking General Requirements - As outlined in the contract. Ms. Oglesby asked who would
be performing pavement marking on this project. The Contractor advised Clark Pavement Marking, Inc.,
would perform this work. Drainage opening in solid pavement marking lines should be spaced every 100-
feet.
Response for Erosion Control - It was pointed out that the quantity of responses for erosion control to
be paid for will be the actual number of times the erosion control contractor moves onto the project to
perform work related to any of the items listed and provided items A thru E apply.
Special Sealed Drainage System - There is an area containing petroleum contaminated soil left and right
of-L-, Sta. 71+40 to Sta. 73+20 and left and right of -Y3-, Sta. 10+00 to 11+60. The Contractor shall
construct a special sealed system of underground storm drainage pipes and structures through this area,
including proper handling of contaminated soil and water, in accordance with these special provisions,
and with the lines, grades, dimensions, locations and details as shown on the plans or established by the
Engineer.
The Contractor shall submit catalog cuts and/or shop drawings to the Engineer for materials he proposes
to use on the project. These shall be submitted by the Engineer to the State Design Services Engineer for
review and approval. Forty days shall be allowed for the review of each submittal.
Materials which have not been approved shall not be delivered to the project. Eight copies of each
catalog cut and/or drawing shall be submitted and each shall show the information called for in the third
at the top of page 99.
Ms. Oglesby reviewed construction requirements for this sealed drainage system, trench requirements,
disposition of contaminated soils and water, testing procedures, etc. The Contractor shall comply with all
OSHA requirements and provide a competent person on site to supervise excavation at all times.
The Contractor will subcontract the pumping and hauling for this work; however, does not know at this
time who that will be. Unable to name a competent person at this time.
The Contractor shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan complying with the OSHA standard
for Hazardous Waste Operation and Emergency Response.
Removal and disposal of this soil, once stockpiled by the Contractor, shall be performed by others.
Contaminated water must be pumped into containers for disposal by the Contractor. The contaminated
soil stockpile shall be maintained as directed by the Engineer.
Traffic Signals - Ms. Oglesby advised these special provisions are standard and the Contractor should
adhere to the conditions stipulated. Contractor advised T & H Electrical would be performing signal
work.
17
Hauling Operations - The Contractor shall comply with the restrictions in the contract when performing
hauling of equipment or materials to or from the project.
Multiple vehicle hauling is defined as the hauling of equipment or materials to or from the project with
delivery at intervals of less than 5 minutes and/or results in more that one vehicle at particular work site
at one time.
HAULING DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
Multiple vehicle hauling shall not be conducted on NC 42 (-L-) during the following periods:
7:00 a.rr to 9:00 a.m.
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday thru Friday
mater Filled Barrier - Contractor has used this before and is familiar with requirements. Ms. Oglesby
reminded the Contractor to use an environmentally safe anti-freeze agent.
STRUCTURE AND CULVERTS
Mr. John Rouse covered this portion of the contract. The following was pointed out:
Drilled Piers - A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with representatives of the Contractor,
Resident Engineer, Soils & Foundation Section and pertinent persons to be present to discuss
construction details and inspection of the drilled piers.
The Contractor shall develop a construction sequence plan and submit at least 30 days prior to beginning
construction of the drilled piers for review and acceptance by the Engineer. The construction sequence
plan shall provided detailed information, including the items listed at the bottom of page 210.
On page 211 of the contract, Mr. Rouse advised the drilled piers should be within I% of the plumb
deviation for the total length of the piers. The plumbness of the drilled piers shall be measured by an
accurate procedure, such as an inclinometer on the Kelly bar or other techniques as may be approved by
the Engineer.
Drilled pier construction shall be stabilized with temporary steel casing unless otherwise approved by the
Engineer for excavation into rock. Mr. Rouse asked the Contractor if he had ever encountered rock
during drilled pier construction. The Contractor advised he had not, especially in this area of the State.
Reinforcing Steel - The cage of reinforcing steel, consisting of longitudinal & spiral bars, shall be
completely assembled and placed in the drilled pier as a unit upon completion of the drilling and
immediately prior to concrete placement. If concrete placement does not following immediately after
cage placement, the steel must be removed from the shaft unless determined otherwise by the Engineer,
and the integrity of the excavation recertified prior to reinstallation of the cage. Cage pick up shall be
done in a matter such that racking and cage distortion will not occur.
18
On page 215, Mr. Rouse called attention to the concrete nux requirements for the air content of the mix.
Contractor advised most of the time, they submit zero air content in concrete mix designs.
Pile Integrity Testing - The Contractor shall notify the Engineer of the drilled pier installation schedule
not less than 7 working days prior to the beginning of this work. The Engineer will perform P.I.T. testing
after installation of the drilled pier(s).
Driving Steel Piles - After steel piles have been driven to specified bearing, the Contractor may drive the
piles to grade in lieu of cutting off the piles provided the additional length of the pile to be driven does
not exceed 1.524 m.
Optional Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert @ Station 33+30.00-L-, & 35+56.500-L- - Design
of the precast members shall be the responsibility of the Contractor and subject to review, comments and
acceptance by the Engineer. The Contractor shall submit two sets of detailed plans for review, and the
plans shall include data stipulated in the second paragraph on page 140 of the contract. The Contractor
has not made a decision as to whether they will use precast or cast-in-place.
Pile Driving Accuracy - Drive piles so that the axial alignment is within 20 mm/m from the vertical or
batter shown in the contract documents. Horizontally, keep the pile within 75 mm of plan location
longitudinally and transversely. Maintain pile embedment in the pile cap or footing to within +75mm and
-50mm. The DOT will not pay for additional costs of increased footing dimensions due to out of
position piles.
Mr. Rouse advised the Contractor that he shall submit working drawings in accordance with
specifications outlined on pages 241-245 of the contract.
Construction Maintenance & Removal of Temporary Rock Causeivay - The Contractor will be required
to construct, maintain and afterward remove the temporary rock causeways meeting the requirements of
the plans and all applicable permits.
All causeway material, including pipes, shall be completely removed and the entire causeway areas used
during construction shall be returned to the original contours and elevations as soon as possible after their
purpose has been served.
Class II Rip Rap used in the cause way may be recycled for placement in the final rip rap slope protection
as directed by the Engineer and no payment will be made for recycled rip rap as this material is
considered incidental to the causeway placement and removal
Lateral Load Test - Test piers shall be constructed 7.62 meters apart within the test site shown on the
plans. The lateral load test frame shall be positioned so that the application of load is located 0.3m above
the ground line. Upon completion of the lateral load test, the drilled pier shall be cut off at the ground
line.
19
General
Warren Walker called attention to curb and gutter. The Contractor, Warren Walker & Dennis Jernigan
need to get together when Contractor gets ready to pour curb and gutter to make sure it is finished
properly & meets DOT requirements.
Ms. Oglesby asked the Contractor if he would need to meet with Traffic Control personnel from Raleigh
regarding Traffic Control. The Contractor advised only if a problem should arise and he and local DOT
personnel could not work out.
Contractor presented letter requesting estimate on the 29`h of the month. Mr. Jernigan advised the
Contractor that the estimate date would have to be on the 7th of the month due to their current set up of
monthly estimates. The Contractor asked if there were any way possible for it to be changed to the 29`n
Mr. Jernigan advised he would check and get back with the Contractor.
Resident Engineer will furnish the Contractor with stakeout request forms for staking needs & priority.
Survey party will document date when staking has been completed.
There being no further comments and/or discussion, the conference was adjourned.
/t
S. T. WOOTEN CORPORATION
DATE OT, APPROVAL NAME AND TITLE
Department of Environment and Natural l.esources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Duz (firm deadline):
I )qa-
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
RegionalOtfice Regional Office Area In-I louse Review
? Asheville /dAir Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ,el Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville Groundwater ,Wildlife ? Water Resources
Raleigh Vie] Land Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem w Parks & Recreation ? Other
/Water Quality
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Nfanagcr Sign-OIT%Region: Date: In-house Reviewer/Agency:
f?
?! kJ
7 V ?U P?
Response (check all applicable)
? No objcctiott to project as proposed.
? No Comment iYATEjFj 'ADS
?,a11 ?nDUp
? Insufficient infimnation to complete review rySfCI/,)r
? Other (specify or attach comments)
Rte: rURn Ter
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs

NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date -.4rWilliam D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
/2 -i4-9' c d4lm? -
Date echo L. Graf, P.E.
?? 4ivision Administrator, FHWA
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
la4 /? -'7? /2-7-qg
n am ?????,??•,?•,?
Jef y
V 1?1
Project Planning ngineer ?.?`"JH CAR01??i++
' 4d,?? / o
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
12
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
??? O'ESS/0 %Y ++??
w ?• • w
SEAL
• 17182
i
t. E41 E? r •'
++ S
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................1
A. General .........................................................................................................1
B. Transportation Plan ......................................................................................1
C. Collision Record ..........................................................................................1
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes ................................................................................2
E. Level of Service ............................................................................................2
III. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY .................................................................... 3
A. Length of Section Studied ............................................................................ 3
B. Existing Typical Section .............................................................................. 3
C. Right of Way ............................................................................................... 3
D. Structures ..................................................................................................... 3
E. Speed Limits ................................................................................................ 3
F. Sidewalks ..................................................................................................... 3
G. Access Control ............................................................................................. 3
H. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control ..................................................... 4
1. Adjacent Projects .......................................................................................... 4
J. Functional Classification .............................................................................. 4
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................................................4
A. Build Alternatives ........................................................................................4
1. Typical Section ................................................................................4
2. Alignment ........................................................................................5
B. Transportation Systems Management Alternatives .....................................5
C. "No-Build" Alternative ................................................................................6
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................ 6
A. Design Speed /Speed Limit .......................................................................... 6
B. Typical Section ............................................................................................ 6
C. Alignment .................................................................................................... 6
D. Right-of-Way ............................................................................................... 6
E. Access Control ............................................................................................. 6
F. Structures ..................................................................................................... 7
G. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................. 7
H. Cost Estimates ..............................................................................................7
1. Project Termini ...........................................................................................7
J. Utility Conflicts .......................................................................................... 7
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................7
A. Natural Systems ...........................................................................................7
1. Methodology ....................................................................................7
2. Physical Resources ...........................................................................8
3. Biotic Resources ............................................................................12
4. Jurisdictional Topics 14
B. Cultural Resources .....................................................................................22
1. Historic Properties .........................................................................22
2. Archaeological Resources ..............................................................22
C. Relocation Impacts .....................................................................................23
D. Environmental Justice ................................................................................25
E. Land Use ....................................................................................................25
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ................................................25
2. Farmland ........................................................................................26
F. Air Quality Analysis ..................................................................................26
1. CO Analysis ...................................................................................27
2. Other Pollutants .............................................................................28
G. Noise Impacts ............................................................................................. 29
1. Characteristics of Noise ................................................................. 29
2. Noise Abatement Criteria .............................................................. 30
3. Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................... 33
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ............................... 33
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .................................... 34
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ............................................... 36
7. "Do Nothing Alternative" .............................................................. 37
8. Construction Noise ......................................................................... 37
9. Summary ........................................................................................ 38
H. Hydraulic Concerns ...................................................................................38
I. Hazardous Materials Involvement .............................................................39
1. Underground Storage Tank Facilities ............................................39
2. Landfills and Other Contaminated Properties ................................40
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Alternative Typical Sections
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 4 - 1997/2025 Traffic Projections
Figure 5 - Wilson Thoroughfare Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Soils in the Project Area ................................................................. 8
Table 2 - Characteristics of Waters Impacted ....................................... 9
Table 3 - Water Resources in the Study Area ................................................ 10
Table 4 - Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters ........................................... 11
Table 5 - Estimated Impacts to Wetlands ................................................ 11
Table 6 - Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Communities ....................... 14
Table 7 - Federally-Protected Species for Wilson County ............................. 18
Table 8 - Federal Species of Concern for Wilson County ............................. 21
Table 9 - Hearing: Comparative Noise Generators ....................................... 31
Table 10 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................ 32
Table 11 - Definition of Substantial Increase ................................................. 32
Table 12 - Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................. 33
Table 13 - Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ............................................. 35
Table 14 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ......................................... 36
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Agency Correspondence
Appendix 2 - Relocation Report
Appendix 3 - Traffic Noise Exposures
Appendix 4 - Wetland Information
4
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to widen NC 42 in Wilson County, North Carolina. The 8.4 kilometer
(5.8 mile) project will widen the existing facility to a four-lane median divided
facility from I-95 to US 264 and a five-lane curb and gutter facility from US 264
to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road). This project is included in the 2000-2006 Draft
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, and construction scheduled to
begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2001. The total cost estimated in the 2000-2006
Draft T.I.P. is $ 15,100,000, which is in 1998 dollars. The current estimated cost
is $ 20,672,000, including a right of way cost $ 6,850,000, a construction cost of
$ 13,600,000, and a wetland and stream mitigation cost of $ 222,000.
2. Project Benefits - The project will have a positive impact by improving the safety
and handling capacity of NC 42. Without improvements, the existing facility is
expected to be over capacity within 6 years. The proposed improvements will
allow NC 42 to effectively serve projected traffic volumes for over 20 years after
construction.
3. Environmental Effects - Approximately 11 residences will be relocated. The
project will have an effect on natural systems consisting of impacts to
approximately 6.3 acres of pine dominated early successional, 3.2 acres of old
field (fallow field), and 41.1 acres of agricultural land. 3.5 acres of wetlands and
168 linear meters (552 linear feet) of streams will also be impacted. Wetland
acreage is the total impacted acreage from 11 sites; length of stream impacts is the
total amount from 4 crossings. One structure in the project vicinity, the
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church, is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The project will not require the acquisition of property within the
historic boundaries of the church. Six archaeological sites are located within the
Area of Potential Effect of the project. One site, 31 WL261, is recommended for
further testing to fully assess its significance in regards to eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places. Noise impacts are expected at 55 locations;
however, noise abatement measures are not considered feasible. There will be no
substantial impact to air quality. Approximately 3 facilities with underground
storage tanks may be impacted.
4. Environmental Commitments
NCDOT will conduct surveys for the endangered species dwarf wedge
mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). If the species is found within the project's Area
of Potential Effect, NCDOT will initiate Section 7 consultation with the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. All Section 7 issues will be resolved prior to the final
environmental document.
One structure in the project vicinity, the Contentnea Primitive Baptist
Church, was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
project will not require the acquisition of property within the historic boundaries
of the church. The project, as proposed, will cause no adverse effect on the
historic property. The State Historical Preservation Office will be allowed to
review and comment on median cuts.
Archaeological site 31 WL261 requires further testing to determine its
significance. Further work (stripping) will be performed to fully assess the
significance of the site in regards to eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places after right of way has been acquired.
The major stream crossings on NC 42 are within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles)
of a critical water supply intake area. Therefore, according to guidelines
developed by NCDOT and the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill
retention basins will be installed at the crossings of Shepard Branch and
Bloomery Swamp. The stream crossing at Mill Branch was included in T.I.P.
Project R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
5. Coordination - Several federal, state and local agencies were consulted during
preparation of this document. A citizen workshop was conducted to involve the
public in the planning process. Written comments were received from the
following agencies.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
City of Wilson
6. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal can be
obtained by contacting the following:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to NC 42 to a four-
lane median divided facility from I-95 to US 264 and a five-lane curb and gutter facility
from US 264 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road). The project is included in the 2000-2006
Draft Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999 and construction scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2001. The project will use federal and state funds. The total estimated cost of the project
included in the 2000-2006 Draft T.I.P. is $ 15,100,000, which is in 1998 dollars. The
project has a current estimated cost of $ 20,672,000, including a right of way cost of
$ 6,850,000, a construction cost of $ 13,600,000, and a wetland and stream mitigation
cost of $ 222,000.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
The proposed project will increase the safety and handling capacity of this section
of NC 42. Traffic volumes are projected to grow beyond the facility's current handling
capacity by 2005.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 42 is designated as a major thoroughfare on the City of Wilson Thoroughfare
Plan (see Figure 5). The proposed widening is in conformance with the thoroughfare
plan.
C. Collision Record
The collision rate for this section of NC 42 was 135.1 collisions/ per million
vehicle kilometers (co1Ul00mvk) from November 1993 to November 1996. This is
slightly above the statewide average of 134.4 coll./100mvk for similar roadways. A
recent collision not included in these statistics resulted in two fatalities.
The most prevalent type of crash along the project corridor was the rear end type
collision. The additional travel lanes and accommodations for left turning vehicles will
reduce the potential for this type of collision.
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Approximately 7,000 vehicles per day (vpd) currently travel on the western
portion of this facility (from I-95 to SR 1001). Traffic volumes are higher, approximately
12,000 vpd, on the eastern portion (SR 1001 to SR 1165). Traffic volumes are expected
to increase to approximately 13,500 vpd on the western portion and 20,000 vpd on the
eastern portion of NC 42 by 2021. Truck traffic is expected to be 5% of the total average
daily traffic. See Figure 4 for more information regarding traffic projections.
Design year traffic projections for NC 42 were determined assuming the
construction of the Wilson Bypass (US 264). Figure 6 shows this facility.
E. Level of Service
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and
passengers. Operating conditions are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are
defined and designated with letters from A to F. Level A represents the best operating
conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. Level F represents the worst operating
conditions when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the facility. At level of service F,
long queues of traffic tend to form.
A capacity analysis of the subject project yielded the following results:
1. NC 42 is currently operating at level of service (LOS) D.
2. If no improvements are made to the subject section of NC 42, the level of
service is expected to deteriorate to LOS E by the year 2005.
3. Widening NC 42 improves operating conditions to LOS A initially and
maintains operating conditions at LOS B through the design year (2021).
2
III. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied
The length of this project is 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles). In addition to this length,
approximately 383 meters (1260 feet) of NC 42 will be widened as part of T.I.P. project
R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
B. Existing Typical Section
Currently, NC 42 is primarily a two-lane undivided facility. Travel lanes are
3.0 meters (10 feet) wide plus 1.2 meters (4 feet) paved shoulders.
C. Right of Way
NC 42 has an existing right of way width of 18 meters (60 feet).
D. Structures
A double barrel 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot) reinforced concrete box
culvert (RCBC) carries NC 42 over Mill Branch. A double barrel 3.0 meter by 1.8 meter
(10 foot by 6 foot) RCBC carries NC 42 over Shepard Branch. The structure at Mill
Branch is within the project limits of T.I.P. R-1023 AB.
Bridge No. 50 carrying NC 42 over Bloomery Swamp is 18.3 meters (60 feet) in
length and 8.5 meters (28 feet) wide. The current sufficiency rating is 66 out of a
possible 100.
E. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit is 55 mph from I-95 to just beyond the future location of
the US 264 interchange. The speed limit is 45 mph for the remainer of the project length.
F. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along the project corridor.
G. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project except for the I-95 interchange
which has full control of access. The new US 264 interchange, when completed, will also
have full control of access.
H. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
Currently, traffic signals are located only at the project termini, the intersection of
NC 42 and SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). The remaining intersections are stop sign
controlled. The existing alignment of NC 42 contains a severe horizontal curve at the
intersection of SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) and SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road).
Adjacent Projects
T.I.P. project R-1023 AB proposes to provide a bypass of Wilson with US 264, a
four lane, grass median facility with full control of access. A bridge approximately
80 meters (262 feet) in length will be constructed to carry NC 42 over the new US 264
bypass. This bridge will be constructed as part of T.I.P. project R-1023 AB.
J. Functional Classification
NC 42 is classified as a minor arterial on the statewide functional classification
system.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Build Alternatives
1. Typical Section
From Interstate 95 to the US 264 interchange
From Interstate 95 to the new US 264 interchange, widening to the following
cross sections were evaluated:
Five-lane Roadway with Grassed Shoulder
This would provide a grassed shoulder facility with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel
lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane. Left turns would be
allowed throughout the project corridor. The five-lane grassed shoulder section would
have a design speed of 100 kph (60 mph). This cross section would cause 14 residential
relocations between I-95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost
(including construction, right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 19,781,000. Figure 2 shows a
five-lane grass shoulder typical section. This alternate is not recommended because it
would cause the most residential relocations and would have an adverse effect on the
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church.
Five-lane Roadway with Curb and Gutter
This would provide a curb and gutter facility with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel
lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane. Left turns would be
4
allowed throughout the project corridor. The five-lane curb and gutter section would
have a design speed of 80 kph (50 mph). This cross section would cause 6 residential
relocations between I-95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost
(including construction, right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 19,072,000. Figure 2 shows a
five-lane curb and gutter typical section. This alternate is not recommended because it
would have an adverse effect on the Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church.
Four-lane Roadway with Divided Median (Recommended)
This would provide a four-lane divided median facility with two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) travel lanes in each direction. Left turns would be allowed only at appropriate
breaks in the median. The four-lane divided median section would have a design speed
of 80 kph (50 mph). This cross section would cause 6 residential relocations between I-
95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost (including construction,
right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 20,672,000. Figure 2 shows a four-lane divided
median typical section.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined that the four-lane
divided median section would have no adverse effect on the Contentnea Primitive Baptist
Church, a property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO
determined that a five-lane section would cause an adverse effect on the historic church.
From I-95 to US 264, a four-lane divided median section is recommended because
it will have no adverse effect on the historic property.
From the new US 264 interchange to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drivel
A five-lane curb and gutter facility was the only widening alternative considered
for this section due to the intensity of development. This alternative would provide two
3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn
lane. Left turns would be allowed from the facility throughout this section of the project.
Figure 2 shows a five-lane curb and gutter typical section.
2. Alignment
The proposed alignment was developed after determining locations of wetlands
and boundaries of the historic Contentnea Baptist Church. The alignment was designed
to minimize impacts to these resources and to residents and businesses along NC 42. The
alignment proposes to straighten the severe curvature at the intersection of SR 1158 and
SR 1136 to improve the safety and efficiency of the roadway and intersection. Based on
this information, only one alignment was developed.
B. Transportation System Management Alternative
Transportation system management involves improvements designed to optimize
use of the existing facility with minimal additional construction. Due to the high traffic
volumes projected for NC 42, transportation system management alternatives would not
provide an acceptable level of service.
C. "No-Build" Alternative"
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a considerable negative
impact on traffic operations in the area. Projected increases in traffic would deteriorate
the level of service to an undesirable level. As discussed in Section II-G, the no-build
alternative would result in LOS E on the existing roadway by the year 2005. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs, increased travel times, and higher
accident potential. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been rejected.
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph).
B. Typical Section
The recommended typical cross section from I-95 to US 264 is a four-lane divided
median facility. Two 12-foot lanes in each direction will be separated by an 16-foot
grassed median with 1-foot curbs. A five-lane facility with curb and gutter is
recommended from US 264 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). Two 12-foot lanes in each
direction will be separated by a 12-foot turn lane.
C. Alignment
The alignment of NC 42 improvements is designed to minimize impacts to
adjoining properties, historical sites, and wetlands. Figure 2 reflects the proposed
alignment.
D. Right of Way
Approximately 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way will be acquired to
accommodate the proposed widening. Some temporary easements may be required
where slopes extend beyond the proposed right of way.
E. Access Control
Control of access will be provided at the new US 264 interchange and at the I-95
interchange. No control of access will be maintained along the remainder of the project.
6
F. Structures
The existing culvert at Shepard Branch will be retained and extended. The
replacement of the culvert at Mill Branch will be included in T.I.P. Project R-1023 AB.
Bridge No. 50 over Bloomery Swamp will be replaced with a bridge 30 meters (100 feet)
in length and 19.4 meters (64 feet) in width.
G. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No special bicycle provisions are proposed for this project.
H. Cost Estimate
The total project cost is estimated at $ 20,672,000. Construction is estimated at
$ 13,600,000. Right of way acquisition is estimated at $ 6,850,000. Wetland and stream
mitigation cost is estimated at $ 222,000.
Project Termini
The project will begin just east of the interchange at I-95. The bridge carrying NC
42 over I-95 will not be widened. Minimal work will occur to the ramps on the east side
of the interchange. The project will end at the intersection of NC 42 and SR 1165 (Forest
Hills Rd.) and tie into Tarboro Street, which is a five-lane curb and gutter facility.
J. Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts from SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive) to the SR 1136
is expected to be medium to high. The degree of utility conflicts from SR 1136 to I-95 is
expected to be low. Telephone lines, fiber optic cable, cable television, gas, water, and
sewer lines are located along the proposed project.
A joint project between the City of Wilson, the County of Wilson, and the Wilson
County School Board will extend water and sewer services along the NC 42 corridor to a
new school currently being built off of SR 1154 (St. Rose Church Rd.). Construction of
this project is expected to begin in the spring of 1999.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Systems
Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area
was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Wilson and Lucama), NCDOT aerial photographs of project
area (1:1200), Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps (Wilson County), Fish
7
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys for the project were conducted by NCDOT biologists Marc
Recktenwald, Dale Suiter, and Chris Rivenbark on 17 November 1997, 24 November
1997, 2 December 1997, and 6 July 1998. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques, including
habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds,
tracks and burrows).
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils
Norfolk, Gritney, and Goldsboro are the dominant soil series occurring at the
project site (Table 1). These series consist primarily of nearly level to strongly sloping,
well drained to moderately well drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil; on the
Coastal Plain uplands.
Table 1. Soils Occurring in the Project Area.
Map >Unit
Symbol. piling Unit ?-

?, Drainage,

Glas$ Slope (%) : Erosion

Hascard Hydric

Class
AaA Altavista fine sandy loam well drained 0-2 Slight NHI
AyA Aycock very fine sandy
loam well drained 0-1 Slight NH
GtB2 Gritney sandy loam well mod.-
well drained 2-5 Slight NH
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam mod. well
drained 0-2 Slight NHI
MaB Marlboro loamy sand well drained 2-5 Slight NH
NoA Norfolk loamy sand well drained 0-2 Slight NH
NoB Norfolk loamy sand well drained 2-6 Slight NH
Ra Rains sandy loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
To Toisnot loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
Tt Tomotley fine sandy
loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
Note: H denotes Hydric soils
NH denotes Non-Hydric soils
8
NHI denotes Non-hydric soils with inclusions of hydric soils.
Altavista fine sandy loam has inclusions of Tomotley;
Goldsboro sandy loam has inclusions of Rains
Most of Wilson county is located in the Piedmont physiographic region with the
exception of a small portion which lies in the Coastal Plain region. The soils in the
Piedmont region are underlain by bedrock consisting of slate and acid crystalline rock.
The project area lies in a portion of the county that is gently sloping, nearly level, and flat
Coastal Plain uplands. Topography at the project site ranges from approximately
18.3 meters (60.0 feet) to 33.5 meters (110.0 feet) above mean sea level (msl). The
parent material of the soils in the county ranges from material that weathered from
bedrock, Coastal Plain sediment, and alluvium.
2.2 Water Resources
Field surveys revealed that both jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
located within the project area (see Table 2).
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Characteristics of surface waters located within the project study area are
provided in Table 2. Impacts to Mill Creek fall under T.I.P. project R-1023 AB.
Table 2. Characteristics of waters impacted.
Name 'Avg.: epth . ; i h : 1? :Width ;: ?-.'S >ibshmte Flow
Ut (Contentnea Creek)* 10.2 0.91 meters sand,silt Slow
centimeters (3.0 feet)
(4.0 inches)
Ut (Contentnea Creek)* 5.1 0.31 meters sand Slow
centimeters (1.0 feet)
(2.0 inches)
Mill Branch 0.46 meters 0.91 meters sand, silt Slow
(included in T.I.P. (1.5 feet) (3.0 feet)
R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch 0.46 meters 3.0 meters sand,silt,cobble Slow
(1.5 feet) (9.8 feet)
Bloomery Swamp 0.91 meters 16.8 meters sand,silt,cobble Moderate
(3.0 feet) (55.0 feet)
*Ut - Unnamed Tributary to Contentnea Creek
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality. These classifications along with their index numbers are provided in Table 3.
9
i wie ?j. junsaicuonai wafer resources wimin me sway area.
Name Basin DWQ Index DWQ Class Date
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Mill Branch (T.I.P. Neuse 27-86-(5.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch Neuse 27-86-(5.7) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Bloomery Swamp Neuse 27-86-6-(3) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Primary Classifications
Class WS-IV refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds; local programs to control nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable for
Class C uses.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Supplemental Classifications
NSW refers to waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
2.2.3 Water Ouality
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES report lists no permitted dischargers
within 1.0 kilometer (1.6 miles) of the project area.
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. However, there are no BMAN
sites within the project vicinity.
The entire project area is in a protected water supply watershed. A critical water
supply watershed exists approximately 131 meters (430 feet) south of NC 42. This area
encompasses the Wiggins Mill Reservoir as well as part of Contentnea Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
10
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to both surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project (see Tables 4 and 5). The entire right-of-way was used in
the calculation of estimated surface water impacts. The entire right-of-way will probably
not be impacted, therefore actual impacts to water resources may be considerably less.
Impacts to Mill Branch and Wetland Sites 8 and 9 are included in T.I.P. Project R-1023
AB and will not be included in T.I.P. Project U-3472. Estimated impacts for
jurisdictional wetlands are provided in Appendix 4.
Table 4. Estimated impacts to surface waters within the proiect area.
?, .
E imm*w4inear:meterioinearfeet).,
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 45.7 (150.0)
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 45.7 (150.0)
Mill Branch (included in Project R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch 37.0 (121.0)
Bloomery Swamp 40.0 (131.0)
Total 168.4 (552.0) (impacts to Mill Branch not included)
i apie o. tsumaiea impacts to wevanas
Wetland. Estimatedlmpacts':Lectares,(acres)
1 0.04 (0.1)
2 0.05 (0.1)
3 0.10 (0.3)
4 0.10 (0.3)
5 0.04 (0.1)
6 0.08 (0.2)
7 0.26 (0.6)
8 0.15 (0.4) not included in total
9 0.41 (1.0) not included in total
10 0.12 (0.3)
11 0.17 (0.4)
12 0.12 (0.3)
13 0.32 (0.8)
Total 1.40 (3.5)
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any action
that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although
most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary, some
environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long term or irreversible.
Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or extension of
culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
11
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
- Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
- Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
- Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions will be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources
in the study area. According to guidelines developed by NCDOT and the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill retention basins will be installed at the crossings
of Shepard Branch and Bloomery Swamp. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced throughout the
construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances must be strictly enforced.
Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between
vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are cited,
along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community. Animals
observed during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor evidence
are equated with sightings of individuals. Common names are used for plant and animal
species described.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities, maintained roadside, pine dominated early
successional, old field (fallow field) communities, and agricultural communities exist
within the project area, and will be impacted by the subject project. The maintained
roadside community consists of the highly maintained shoulders and some less
intensively managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural communities.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application, keep this community in an early successional state. As a result, the
vegetation of this community is dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the maintained roadside
community include fescue, wild onion, clover, and plantain. In the areas which receive
lower levels of maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. This community
was populated by aster, Japanese honeysuckle, Queen Anne's lace, dog fennel, trumpet
creeper, bush clover, rose, grape, and privet.
12
Pine dominated early successional communities consisted of areas that had been
disturbed allowing pioneer vegetation to dominate in several portions of the project area.
Species found in this community include loblolly pine, red maple, river birch, willow
oak, Northern red oak, muscadine, greenbrier, Virginica creeper, ebony spleen wort,
poison ivy, Chinese privet, Southern lady fern, strawberry bush, chestnut oak, crossvine,
dogwood, American holly, tulip poplar, sassafras, water oak, sweet gum, and giant cane.
Old field communities exist within the project area. These areas were most likely
agricultural fields that are no longer used for crop production. Species found in these
communities include meadow-beauty, dog fennel, seedbox, field garlic, ragweed, yard
rush, horse nettle, goldenrod, aster, fesque, morning glory, dill, curly dock, daisy
fleabane, buttonweed, trumpet creeper, bead grass, and green amaranth.
Agricultural communities that exist within the project area comprise a large
percentage of area that stands to be affected by the project. Crops located within project
right-of-way include corn, tobacco, sweet potato, and soybean.
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit, raccoon, white-tailed deer, and gray squirrel may inhabit forested fringes. The
most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle and predators such as
black racer, and eastern garter snake.
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow*, Northern cardinal*,
mourning dove, barn swallow* and European starling. Freshwater fishes likely to be
found in creeks such as may include creek chub, redbreast sunfish, golden shiner, and
green sunfish.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Fauna associated with perennial streams such as those present in the project area
include various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including shiners, chubs,
provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed sunfish and bluegill. Invertebrates that
would be present include: crayfish and nymphal stages of; dragonflies and damselflies.
The bullfrog, pickerel frog, snapping turtle, and northern water snake are common
permanent residents in this community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms
affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
13
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area (Table 6). Estimated impacts are derived
based on the project length of 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles). The entire width of the
proposed right-of-way [30.5 meters (100 feet)] was used for this calculation minus the
existing right-of-way 18.3 meters (60 feet). The entire right-of-way will probably not be
impacted, therefore actual impacts to the communities may be considerably less.
Table 6. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Communities.
`Camm*n Y,Type Estimated Impacts
Maintained roadside 5.1 hectares (12.7 acres)
Pine dominated early successional 2.6 hectares (6.3 acres)
Old field (fallow field) 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres)
Agricultural 16.6 hectares (41.1 acres)
Total 25.6 hectares (63.3 acres)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common throughout
North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental factors.
Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced substantially from the project area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project completion
to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
14
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are present within the project area (see Appendix 4). The wetlands can
be described as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous seasonally flooded.
Mill Branch, Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two unnamed tributaries to
Contentnea Creek are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of
these water resources are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length of 8.4 kilometers
(5.2 miles). The entire width of the proposed right-of-way [30.5 meters (100 feet)] was
used for this calculation minus the existing right-of-way 18.3 meters (60 feet). The entire
right-of-way will probably not be impacted, therefore actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Estimated impacts to wetlands have been determined to be 1.40 hectares
(3.5 acres) (see Table 5). Wetland acreage is the total impacted acreage from 11 sites.
Estimated impacts to Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two unnamed tributaries to
Contentnea Creek have been determined to 168.4 linear meters (552.0 linear feet) [all
streams combined, excluding Mill Branch]]. Length of stream impacts is the total
amount from 4 crossings. Impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public water resources.
As noted in Section 4.1.2, impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary permits for impacts to each
15
of these jurisdictional areas have been obtained for TIP No. R-1023AB and do not need
to be obtained for this project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
• the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares (10 acres) of Waters of
the United States;
• the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of
Waters of the United States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance with the
"Notification" general conditions (for discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
• the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part
of a single and complete project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently in the process of revising the
Nationwide Permit process. After revision, this project will still likely be authorized
under a Nationwide Permit. If the project is not within the scope of the new Nationwide
Permit, NCDOT will obtain an individual Corps of Engineers Permit.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
16
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Since wetlands are located on each side of the road, widening cannot occur
without some impact to wetland sites.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Early coordination with biologists identified wetland sites adjacent to the roadway.
The largest wetland site affected by this project occurs at the crossing of
Bloomery Swamp. The bridge at Bloomery Swamp will be constructed in stages to avoid
the need for a temporary detour bridge. A temporary detour bridge would have required a
greater area and impacted a greater amount of wetlands. The bridge will be widened to
the south of the existing bridge, which will be less harmful to wetlands and nearby
residences than widening to the north. A small wetland site located north of NC 42 and
east of SR 1001 (Lamm Rd.) was completely avoided because all widening on this part of
NC 42 was accomplished to the south side. This site is not identified in this report
because it will be completely avoided. The alignment of the new roadway was designed
to minimize impacts to wetlands, as well as residences, businesses, and historic sites.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration o£
More than 0.45 hectare (1.0 acre) of wetlands;
And/or more than 45.7 meter (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE
and DWQ. NCDOT is committed to providing mitigation as required by the COE and
DWQ.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
17
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public waters resources.
As noted in Section 4.1.2, Impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary mitigation for impacts to
each of these jurisdictional areas will be obtained for TIP No. R-1023AB and do not need
to be obtained for this project.
4.2 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An
endangered species is considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered to
be a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of May 14 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) three federally
protected species for Wilson County (Table 7). Descriptions and biological conclusions
for each species are given below.
I apse t. t-eaerally rrotected Species for Wilson County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Note:
E- Endangered- a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the
Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek
and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar,
Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
18
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 centimeters to
3.8 centimeters in length. Its shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half
and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in
color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat in the form of silt free streambeds exist within the project area.
Known populations of drawf wedge mussel exist in the sub-basin in which this project is
located. Surveys for drawf wedge mussels were conducted in November 1998 by
NCDOT biologist in the stream close to the banks using waders. No specimens were
found, but further investigations using snorkel or SCUBA equipment are necessary to
survey the deeper sections of the streams. These additional surveys will be conducted
prior to the completion of the final environmental document. If dwarf wedge mussels are
found within the project's area of potential effect, NCDOT will initiate Section 7
consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in
southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the
piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of
the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 meters
(30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree.
19
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat consisting of pine trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age is not present in the project area. Neither red-
cockaded woodpeckers nor cavity trees were observed during field visits. A review of the
NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated one known occurrence (1975) of the red-
cockaded woodpecker within the project area. Six cavity trees were reported
approximately 0.97 kilometers (0.6 miles) south of the intersection of NC 42 and
SR 1154. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were sighted with this record. Pines that are
present in this area were surrounded by agricultural fields and had midstory hardwood
vegetation reaching into the canopy. Site visits indicate that the cavity trees no longer
exist. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to
1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile,
oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to
5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their
edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense
cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 millimeters
across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of rocky or sandy open woods is not present in the
project area. However, open roadsides are present throughout the project study area.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during field investigations. In addition, a review of
the NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated that there is no known occurrence of
Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this
species.
4.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wilson County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
20
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those
species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for
listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed
as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 8 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state
status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
Table B. Federal Species of Concern for Wilson Coun
oAentific:Name t ; Common Name Habitat Status
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow yes SR
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe yes T
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel no C*
Note:
*Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which has not been listed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats on
August 20, 1998 revealed five records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in
or near the project study area. Mudpuppy (Necturus lewisii), triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) have been recorded
approximately 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) south of NC 42 near SR 1154. Water arrowhead
21
(Sagittaria stagnorum) and Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) have been recorded
approximately 1.3 kilometer (0.8 mile) west of the I-95/NC 42 interchange. The project
is not expected to impact these species.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Properties
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NCDOT, and FHWA have
reviewed the project and concur that there is one property eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places located within the proposed project area, the Contentnea
Primitive Baptist Church. Location of the property is shown on figure 3. Coordination
regarding historic properties is included in Appendix I.
The proposed project will not require the purchase of any right-of-way from
within the historic boundaries associated with the church. The SHPO, in coordination
with NCDOT and FHWA, has determined that the proposed widening of NC 42 will have
no adverse effect on the historic property.
During construction, a small temporary construction easement may be required
within the historic boundaries. This easement will be of short duration, will not change
ownership of the property, will not result in any temporary or permanent adverse change
to the attributes of the historic church, and will include only a minor amount of land. Use
of the temporary easement, therefore, is not subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act (Federal-Aid Highway Act as amended).
2. Archaeological Resources
A survey of the project area was conducted by NCDOT archaeologists to
determine the project's impact on significant archaeological or historical resources.
Nine newly recorded archaeological sites (seven historical; two prehistoric) were
identified. Sites 31 WL253, 31 W1,255, 31 WL257, 31 WL258, and 31 WL261 lie in or
very close to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project. One previously recorded
prehistoric archaeological site, 31 WL224, was re-visited and is located within the APE.
Therefore, these sites will either be destroyed or sustain heavy impact from construction
activities. Sites 31 WL 254, and 31 WL259 lie outside the APE and will not be disturbed.
Sites 31 WL256, 31V&257, and 31 WL259 are historic cemeteries. If road construction
impacts sites 31 WL256 or 31 WL257, the sites should be treated according to North
Carolina General Statute 65, which provides guidelines for the relocation of cemeteries.
None of these sites were determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
One site, 31 WL261, is recommended for further testing to determine its
archaeological significance. Due to its location in relation to the confluence of Shepard
Branch, Mill Branch, and Contentnea Creek, this site needs to be more intensively
22
evaluated for the presence of prehistoric cultural resources. Further work (stripping)
should be performed to fully assess the significance of the site in regards to eligibility for
the :National Register of Historic Places before the commencement of road construction
activities.
C. Relocation Impacts
It is estimated eleven residences will be relocated by this project. This relocation
is not expected to cause the breakup of a community nor the disruption of services. It is
anticipated that adequate replacement properties will be available. This relocation action
will be in accordance with the revised North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 133. A
relocation report discussing potential relocatees is found in the Appendix, page A-27.
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 business for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $ 22,500 to owners who are eligible
and qualify and up to $ 5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS 133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, and non-profit organizations 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
23
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible
to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, and non-profit organizations 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 of 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, increase 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 $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless or until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the State so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
24
D. Environmental Justice
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations), a review
was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income populations will receive
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of
this project. It is estimated the project will relocate eleven residences; three of which are
considered low-income and 5 of which are minority.
An informational workshop discussing the roadway widening was held for all
residents and business owners along the proposed project. The affected property owners
have been notified of these meetings by the local media and mail. According to the most
recent census numbers, the population in Wilson County is approximately 38.4 % non-
white. All areas surrounding the project have a smaller non-white percentage of residents
than the county average. No issues related to environmental justice concerns have been
discovered through the public involvement process.
Based on project studies and coordination taken with regard to involve any
minority or low-income communities, this project has been implemented in accordance
with Executive Order 12898.
E. Land Use
Status of Local Planning Activities
The City of Wilson and Wilson County jointly adopted the Wilson Growth Plan
in 1990, a strategic planning document which provides detailed urban growth boundaries
and specific policies relating to the quality and location of future development and the
provision of public facilities. Both the City and County enforce zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations.
Existing Land Use
The project area is a mix of agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses,
primarily agricultural with some areas of open space and scattered churches. There are
agricultural uses on both sides of the project corridor before turning into primarily
residential land uses as the corridor nears Wilson.
Existing Zoning
NC 42 near the I-95 interchange and near the proposed US 264 interchange is
zoned B-5 Highway Business which allows a variety of high impact and service type
commercial uses. The area between the B-5 zones is zoned RA-6 Multi-family
Residential, and is classified in the Wilson Growth Plan as a "Primary Urban Growth
Area." A Primary Growth Area is an area "where urban level development and
redevelopment are to be especially encouraged and where water and sewer services are
25
already available or can be provided cost effectively by the year 2000." The remainder of
the project corridor is zoned RA-6 Multi-family. The RA-6 zone is for high
concentrations of multi-family uses.
Future Land Uses
According to the Wilson Growth Plan, the future uses along NC 42 are expected
to be residential with some commercial uses. Some small commercial use growth is
possible close to the I-95 intersection. The existing agricultural uses are expected to
remain in the near future but change to either commercial or residential uses.
Secondary Effects
Secondary effects of the proposed project include effects on congestion and safety
along the existing facility, economic effects of the project on the Wilson area, and new
development which might occur in the area following construction of the project that
would not otherwise have occurred.
It is expected that the project will increase safety along NC 42 and have a positive
effect on the economy of the Wilson area. The city is currently in the process of planning
the installation of water and sewer services along the NC 42 corridor to service a school
currently under construction located off of SR 1154 (St. Rose Church Rd.). The
availability of water and sewer service along the corridor could attract new development
regardless of the roadway widening.
The adverse effects of new development in the area directly caused by the
proposed widening are expected to be limited. Potential effects include increased runoff
from buildings and parking lots and loss of open land. Environmental permit
requirements will help to mitigate the effects of any proposed new development.
2. Farmland
Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. The proposed improvement is located
along an area currently being developed in urban land uses. Given that the entire area is
expected to develop to urban land uses, no consideration will be given to alternatives that
would reduce the impact to farmland.
F. Air Quality Impacts
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions due to industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact created by
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Highway traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
26
highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order
of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO
in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with
determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
CO Anal
To determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration
is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is
defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions
outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Once the two concentration components were resolved, they were
added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year of 2005, and the Design Year of 2025 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILESA mobile source
emissions computer model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits
of the right-of-way at 25 meters from the centerline of the roadway. The predicted 1-hour
27
average CO concentrations for the years of 2001 and 2021 under both the "build" and "no
build" conditions are provided below.
Build No Build
Year 2001 2021 2001 2021
1-Hour CO Concentration (ppm) 2.4 3.6 2.6 5.7
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
2. Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However,
regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole
are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that
forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the proposed project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or
lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not
28
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be
exceeded.
The project is located in Wilson County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
All materials resulting from the construction of the proposed project, such as
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other construction operations, will be removed from
the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be
taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will
be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
G. Noise Impacts
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the proposed widening improvements to NC 42.
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.
1. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. 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).
29
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places more emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table 9.
Review of Table 9 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 when the noise is heard.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
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 10. 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.
30
. Table 9
Hearing: Comparative Noise Generators
OVERALL EFFECT DBA DESCRIPTION
PAIN 140 Shotgun blast, Jet 30 m away at takeoff
Motor test chamber
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, Pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD Amplified rock music
110
Textile loom
LOUD
100 Subway train, Elevated train, Farm tractor
Power lawn mower, Newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, Noisy factory
90
Diesel truck 65 kph @ 15 m

80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
MODERATELY LOUD Passenger car 80 kph @ 15 m
70
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air conditioner
Quiet automobile
QUIET Normal conversation, Average office
50
Household refrigerator
VERY QUIET Quiet office
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper @ 1.5 m
AVG. PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
JUST AUDIBLE Whisper
10
31
Table 10
Federal Highway Administration
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category L?q(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary (Exterior) significance and serve an
important public need, and where the preservation of
those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties or, activities not
included in (Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public, meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Source: 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772; December 1991.
Table 11
Definition of Substantial Increase
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibel (dBA)
Existing Noise
Level in Leq(h) Increase In:dBA From Existing Noise
Levels To Future Noise Levels
5 50 z 15
>50 z 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
32
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide
a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in
the project area as measured at 15 meters from the nearest roadway range from 68 to 70
dBA. The ambient measurement location and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Table 12. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where
traffic noise was not the predominant source.
Table 12
Ambient Noise Levels
Site Location Description Noise Level
(dBA)
1 NC 429 1000 meters East of Grassy 68.6
SR 1160 (Earnest Road)
2 NC 429 400 meters East of Grassy 66.7
SR 1001 (Lamm Road)
3 NC 429 1200 meters West of Grassy 70.1
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road)
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model to calculate the existing noise level for comparison with the
noise level actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was approximately 1
dBA higher than the measured noise level for the location where the noise measurements
was obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise
levels. The differences in the dBA level can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicular speed.
4. Procedure for Predicting _Future Noise Levels
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
33
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.
Only preliminary roadway alignment was available for use in this noise analysis.
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 to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak
hour of the year 2021. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise
levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Appendix 3. Information contained in these tables include all receptors located in the
vicinity of the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise
level increase for each.
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table 10 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in Table 11. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI
(if applicable). For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category predicted to be
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 13. These are noted in terms of those
34
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR
Part 772, there are 55 impacted residential receptors due to highway traffic noise in the
project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 19.5
and 37.9 meters, respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Appendix 3 contains the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +1 to +6 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Table 13
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Maximum
Predicted Lecl Noise Approximate Number of
Description Levels, dBA Contour Distance Receptors Impacted According
(maximum)() To Title 23 CFR Part 772
15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
From 1-95 to Proposed 71.3 67.2 61.6 19.5 in 37.9 m 0 20 0 0 0
US 264 Interchange
From Proposed US 264 70 65.9 60.4 15.8 m 32.1 m 0 5 0 0 0
Interchange to
SR 1136/SR 1158
Interchange Option at 71 66.9 61.4 18.6 m 36.6 in 0 7 0 0 0
SR 1136/SR 1158
From SR 1136/SR 1158 71 66.9 61.4 18.6 m 36.6 m 0 23 0 0 0
to SR 1165 ?
Totals: 7 0 55 10 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.
35
Table 14
Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
Impacts
Substantial Due To
Noise Both
Exterior Increase In Noise Level At Sensitive Receptors Level Criteria
Increase (') ???
Description <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25
From I-95 to Proposed US 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 Interchange
From Proposed US 264 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interchange to SR 1136/SR
1158
Interchange Option at 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1136/SR 1158
From SR 1136/SR 1158 to 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1165
Totals 0 73 7 0 0 F 0 0 0 0
NOTES: (1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See Table 10).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table 10 and 11.
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors.
6.1 Highway Aliltnment
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 on this project because it would cause greater impacts to
residents, businesses, or environmentally sensitive resources.
36
6.2 Traffic System 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.
6.3 Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures
to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
Because there were no substantial increases from existing noise levels to future
noise levels, no noise barriers were considered. 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.
7. "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, 41 residential receptors would
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the noise abatement
criteria. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels of +1 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.
8. 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
37
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.
9. 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.
H. Hydraulic Concerns
There are three major stream crossings in the area. The first crossing occurs at
Mill Branch, located approximately 1.0 kilometers (0.6 miles) west of SR 1001. The
existing drainage structure is a double barrel 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). This structure will be replaced as part of T.I.P.
Project R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
The second major stream crossing occurs at Shepard Branch, located
approximately 450 meters (1500 feet) east of Mill Branch. The existing drainage
structure is a double barrel 3.0 meter by 1.8 meter (10 foot by 6 foot) RCBC. Based on a
preliminary hydraulic analysis and recent field review, this culvert is hydraulically
adequate and appears to be in good condition; therefore, it is recommended that the
culvert be retained and extended.
The third major stream crossing occurs at Bloomery Swamp, located
approximately 1.2 meters (0.8 miles) east of SR 1158. The existing structure is Bridge
No. 50, which consists of reinforced concrete deck girders supported by reinforced
concrete post and web piers on spread footings with vertical concrete abutments. It is
18.3 meters (60 feet) in length and comprised of two 9.1 meter (30 foot) spans. It was
originally built in 1935, reconstructed in 1957, and currently has a sufficiency rating of
66.2. The existing bridge was determined by preliminary hydraulic analysis to be
hydraulically adequate; however, based on field review and the age and condition of the
bridge, it is recommended that it be replaced with a bridge 30.0 meters (100 feet) in
length.
Wilson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The stream crossings are within designated flood hazard zones and are included in the
detailed flood study, each having an established 100-year floodplain and floodway. The
floodplain areas in the vicinity of all the stream crossings are primarily rural with areas of
cultivated field and clear cut forest, and there are no buildings with floor elevation below
the 100-year flood level. The proposed culvert extension and bridge replacement will
38
provide equivalent or improved conveyance over that of the existing drainage structure
and will therefore cause no increase in backwater; therefore, it is anticipated that no
floodway revisions will be needed. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with
Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities in final design regarding
compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances to ensure that the proposed roadway
widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have any substantial adverse
effect on existing floodplain areas and associated flood hazards.
The major stream crossings are within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a critical
water supply intake area. Therefore, according to guidelines developed by NCDOT and
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill retention basins will be required at
the crossings of Shepard Branch and Bloomery Swamp. Existing drainage patterns will
be maintained and perhaps improved to the extent practicable. Groundwater resources
will be evaluated in final design to ensure that measures are taken, if necessary, to avoid
groundwater contamination.
Hazardous Materials Involvement
The following review was conducted concerning potential hazardous materials.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Based on field reconnaissance survey, three facilities with the possibility for
USTs were identified. Information about these sites follows:
1. Dean's Grill
5218 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
Owner: Gurney C. Dean
5224 NC 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
This abandoned gas station is located on the north side of NC 42, approximately
0.16 kilometers (0.1 miles) west of SR 1160 (Earnest Road). The facility opened in 1959,
but has not operated as a gas station for about 10 years. According to field
reconnaissance, three USTs are currently on the property. No registry information could
be located for these tanks. The pump island and main tank field are approximately 20
meters from the centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it
does not appear that the site is under remediation at this time.
2. Old farm tank Owner: Brown Oil Company
Across from 4164 Highway 42 West Highway 301 South
Wilson, NC 27893 Wilson, NC 27893
This abandoned farm tank is located on the south side of NC 42, across
from 4164 NC 42 West. No registry information could be located for the tank.
According to Mr. Wayne Williamson, who lives at 4164, the tank is owned by Brown Oil
Company. The pump concrete pad for the dispenser and UST are approximately
39
14 meters from the centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it
does not appear that the site is under remediation at this time.
3. Fonner D & E Auto Services
4133 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
Owner: Wayne Godwin
4139 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
This former gas station/garage is located on the east side of NC 42, approximately
0.16 kilometers (0.1 miles) south of SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road). At the time of
reconnaissance, the building was vacant and had not operated as a gas station for about 25
years. No registry information could be located for the site and no vents, pump island or
fill ports were found at the site. There were metallic readings near the northwest corner
of the building that could be USTs. This area was approximately 21 meters from the
centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at this site and it does not appear
that the site is under remediation at this time.
2. Landfills and Other Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites
occur within the project corridor. Based on field reconnaissance and records search, there
should be no further hazardous materials conflicts, other than those mentioned in this
report.
VI. COMMENTS COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On August 26, 1997, a letter was mailed to the following state and local agencies
to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project.
(Note: an asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to this letter):
* Army Corps of Engineers
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Health and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* City of Wilson
Region L Council of Governments
Copies of this correspondence are found in Appendix 1.
Citizen comments and concerns have been taken into consideration during the
planning stage of this project. A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 17,
1996 to inform citizens of the proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions.
40
This workshop was advertised in local news media and informational flyers were sent to
approximately 65 residences. Approximately 40 citizens attended this workshop.
A future public hearing will discuss the recommended design discussed in this
document.
41
FIGURES

1 -
I
'l

uu
... r
O °? O
a H

E d f~V?
Q

n
o. a
` HW4
.?
?
0
C] ?
Z
e_ o W
w
U in
u
o n o? Z W `? ?.
U d.° N.1cewp,
t c c `n O

o. W
,• -i . r J
4 e
.b .mss l u
z
4 :I \p/ - r
• i y ?
h
?• 1, rN ao?
nl? ; ? fP
1
a
? - 1
1
WIM W.
,1•?., .? 1, ? ??

?,' " i?• I T W ? ? •'• 1 \\ M ?'' .. y'am'
r
_?`-_.? .'? XI ' ? ? 6 -. - ' - •' ?I a -„? ? ?. i x?.y. x? v?L?\ /
rr: .1 s '. •w ? ? ' ??
U-i
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
3.Om
10 feet
30 METERS (100 FEET)
OF RIGHT OF WAY
3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m
12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
I /
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB
45 METERS (150 FEI
OF RIGHT OF WAY
3.0 m
10 feet
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB
1.2m 1.2m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 1.2m 1.2m
q p-
4 feet 4 feet
12 feet p-
12 feet P,
12 feet
i .q
12 feet p- 1
12 feet "" 0-
4 feet -.q Pl
4 feet
CL
1 T
1 1
5 LANE SHOULDER FACILITY
CL
1
?1 1
1
5 LANE CURB AND GUTTER FACILITY
(RECOMMENDED FROM US 264 TO SR 1165)

FIGURE 2A
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
30 METERS (100 FEET)
OF RIGHT OF WAY
3.Om
3.0 m
10 feet 3.6m 3.6m 5.5 m' 3.6m 3.6m
18 feet ] 0 feet
12 feet 12 feet i 12 feet 12 feet
i
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB 750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB
16' GRASSED MEDIAN WITH
1' WIDE CONCRETE CURB
4 LANE DIVIDED MEDIAN FACILITY
(RECOMMENDED FROM I-95 TO US 264)
FIGURE 2B
??? ,ate ``y:, ???
?:'? .
r?. r?,.
'' x;?tuw ? Y „9.4'r
s y-. ' ,:
E s,? '.'

???'? ` ? ????r'??e it ? , ?!l? ????
?? ?.
'?
??? ,? ?
- ? ?
?'
' ? P,; ? ?? r ? ? ?i'?
'?? ,`?,?? r_.. _ , . ! ?? ? '? lei /,
?/
? ? /: ,?
,;s °'r` ? ?? ? ? ? i
?;? ? ?/%
i
.? ?; ?. 1? i /fir/ /?`, ?` ??
? +
.i
}
¦/
rr
..?' _. ,r ??e
?? ?.
o^:? ,. :, ? ?. 5iy.
?? ,
'`?.> _
NC 42
6600
I-95 SR 1154
35000 700
N
N y V
u ?? v
J
V
? A
a °
°
900 4 Q 1000 20? t,200
35000 900
900 I r'000 6800 300 I 00
SR 1136
3700
PM
00 <1-- 10
(3 . 1)
P 6900
A?
lG
P
6800
SR 1160
500
0
Abrr
4I`
O
20?) 300
SR 1001
2300
h
b
4I ?.
A
PM
500 4 Q 100 eo e-- 11
PM 6900 17001 300 7200 60 700 6900 NC 42
80 a- 11
(3 2) I '4
0
I b
I ?1
I N
11700 3000
Proposed
US 264 Byp.
12000
O I
I
o I
30!) 12000
I
Trace Road
300
0
b
O
10000 100?)00
SR 1158
3500
N
b
N
.. PM
00 Id 11
(3 .2)
800 r 800 9900
400-/' 600

Drawing not to scale
100 200
0
a lit
° 300
Old Dam Road
SR 1162
SR 1165
14200
0
b
?4 N
PM '? . PM
00 a-- 11 a0 o-- 10
NC 42 10500 10800 100 3400 15400
10100 100 r00 100 ) r00 2400 600 Streetro
ro 0
600 ° 500 16800
Lop*nd SR 1203 SR 1105
0000 = vpd
DHV Fac = Design Hourly Volume (%)=K30
K30 = 30th highest hourly volume as % of ADT
D = Directional Flow (%)
am/pm = am or pm Peak
Direction of D
(5,1) Dual Trucks and TTST's as %
10 - pm 60
DHV (5,1) D
Fac Trucks
Figure 4A
Estimated 1997 ADT Volumes
s8L"n10n 10V GZOZ PG)OWlts3
8y 9.jnfiij
sNonil a0d
a WG) AHa
09 -13 wd 0t
% se s,1S11 Pue sHonll Iona (t'9)
a Jo u01130Jla -.*-
Need wd jo we = wdlwe
(%) mold ?euolta0jla = a
lay Jo % se ewn?on Alinoq ?sag6lq q)OC = OCN
oCN=(%) own?on ,gjnoH uBis0a = Joj AHO
pdn = 0000
pua0a7
0086
Gott as eozb aS PeOa wea P(0
0069£ 006 006 0 009
S e n ? oa
c
44 QQ•• QQ^ fib/
o F o
Jaaji$ 006,16 4 0025 00? Q OOZ 00LL Q OOZ OOLOZ 00t, Q Q OOZ 00 ?OOL
ojogael b
0091£ 001"L r0£Z OOL6Z OOZIZ zv ON 006 rOZ OOSOZ OOEOZ 000£ £6
W r) C) (l ' C) (Z C)
0t -tea 09 At -? 09 1t -mss 09 ..
Wd -. w Wd o Wd
p A
a O N
O
0094E 009 0008
G9tt as P008 80ea1 BGtt as
z9tt as
0089 .0096c
?N I
l; I
p. I
y O I (z c1
ll -C? 09
ZO ONOOELI OOE?j 09 00t,L6 00aj?_009E OOLb6 wd
ft' c)
tt -D 09 00£? ?06
Wd
y
lit
N
0065
toot as
0059 I I Coos
I n
I 4
?I o
I °I
I
OOZbE
We b9z sn
pesodWd
009) COOP
0
`Ib
JJVV ;
O
0006
o9ttas
00t, OE OOZZ? 066 ZJV ON
0
n
o
1O e
4 ` N
r
0066 0009L
k9kk us 96-1
Oleas of IOU 6ulmuJp
0008L
d ?
ti? 7
oO??V d i
4,C)
0t --0 09
fid
OOb9
9Ctt as
_!) It OOS 00£b6 00Z?)I?.0066 00LE6
00966 00
1 13,
P X11
`111111?? •- ., . ..
?. Ana
Begin Project j
Wl1f 011
AWO•I
1
`??? r??44?1?r III11?1?111111
End Project
44>
Q
? __l
'©
si
p
VA!
r..
i
US 30`
ELM CITY (]
w.
\' 0,00001
I • ,G p
l'•1q EMI 11.11 ?.,? . ?...
?y +I ?i I I I •oslow 4n
T
V?7 ?'? n(R7'6Rrr '
Ike, ? W • •-';? ? T''T J 9N
I W AYVI ID
d - ? 04
1 ?? 1 l NC 17
3 \ 4? N
b ,
0
' Q Nc 9!
low* f J1
co mo. ,
d
• JS
B
l .? I
LU
e
r•

Q _ s
DUCK CREEK n
O

V
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
LEGEND ADOPTED UY: FOR
EXISTING PROPOSED
CITY OI WILSON
EoGlvutY.LlY4d ILSON
CITY O
INTERSTATE/ •++ ra C3 Cl Ynt1oN CoUN1Y, HOAl11 Ea0.0UNA
TRLEWAY RECOMMENDED OY
STATEWIDE PUNNING Iwlm wouru oliuunnrt or sw+sronAnw
.+a
MAJOR r r+ GRA14CII TobruaDL1?..T4Y? .,. .. •.. r....•. ti.a ?.
MINOR .? NORIII CAROLINA
DEtARIMENr OF •"?"°^"O
1MNSPOR1A11oN ManIL?L4Y6 t 4 -'[3.Y"-'r'
INTLRCIIANGE
???•
PUDLIC IIEARING
DATES
janu9ry 14-J996 Ifeb "Q-
?•--°•
DECEMBER 6, 1995 FIGURE 5 ?•„

APPENDIX 1
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
t?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OE V
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Iii
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
k ? 8 1998 ?
IN REPLY REFER M January 26, 1998
`? ??SION p? ¢
Y ?
Planning Services Section 4 ?Kdda Qy
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1997, requesting our comments on
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory
Division Action I.D. No. 199820167).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuf d, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure

January 26, 1998
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory Division Action
I.D. No. 199820167)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Wilson County and partially within the planning
jurisdiction of the city of Wi!sdn, bWh of which are participants in tie Natioroal Fiuod Insurance
Program. However, based on a review of Panel 5 of the July 1982 -City of Wilson Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), it does not appear that the portion of roadway within their
jurisdiction is in an identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent
United States Geological Survey topo map ("Wilson, N.C.")
From Panels 70 and 90 of the January 1983 Wilson County FIRM, it appears that the
section of road proposed for improvement would cross Mill and Shepard Branches and
Bloomery Swamp, all detail study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
"Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways",
copies of which have been provided previously to your office. In addition, we suggest
coordination with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any changes, if
required, to the flood insurance map and report
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmever Raleigh Field Office Regulatory
Division, at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and wetlands. Affected water bodies include Mill Branch,
Shepard Branch, and unnamed tributaries, above headwaters, and Bloomery Swamp, below
headwaters (as defined for regulat,ry,purposes.)
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the disposal of
construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. We will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When
final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. It is probable, that the work would require an individual permit authorization.
OF
January 26, 1998
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory Division Action
I.D. No. 199820167)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, regulates the discharge of
excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps of Engineers must
assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department of
the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fii! zctivities requires that the project he water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review emphasis for
NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters and/or wetlands. However, if degradation
to other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered
to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as
preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied
prior to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a
final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved. Mitigation for stream impacts may also
be required.
The environmental documentation for the proposed project should discuss alternatives
that will avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Specifically, there should be fully evaluated design alternatives that minimize wetland impacts
at the Mill Branch, Shepard Branch, and Bloomery Swamp crossings by asymmetrical
widening, elimination or minimization of medians, minimization of fill slopes, and other
methods.
The environmental documentation should also address qualitative:aspects of stream and
wetland impacts, and potential impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.

P,M NT r TyF
ry' rya
O F
M?gcH 'e?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 29, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Improvements to NC 42, TIP No. U-3472,
Wilson County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of August 26, 1997, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above- IN
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 42 from a two-lane
roadway to a multi-lane facility. The proposed project has been
divided into two sections. Section A would extend from the I-
95/NC 42 interchange (the western terminus) to the proposed
future interchange with US 264. Both a five-lane shoulder
section and a five-lane curb-and-gutter section will be
considered for this section. Section B would extend from US 264
interchange to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). Only a five-lane
curb-and-gutter design will be considered for this section.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to
existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays. .?
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend-that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project,
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the
alternatives for the proposed project that were considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable,
and a "ono action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 turps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. The assessment should also include
the extent to which the proposed project would result in
secondary impacts to natural resources and how this and
similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and/or constru9tion techniques which would
be employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct
loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction'techniques, and/or any other
mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland
crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory
mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via
conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Wilson County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Environmental documentation should
include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this
guidance, the following information should be included in the
environmental document regarding protected species. The level of
detail should be commensurate with the degree of environmental
impacts:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and the habitat of the species that may be affected
by the action, including the results of any onsite
inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat which includes consideration
of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the
effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and
private activities in the project area and cumulative
effects area; i
c. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the
proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are
part of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the
action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private
activities (not requiring federal agency involvement)
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or
the.degradation of habitat are all ways in which listed
species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement
of potential effects. Criteria may include post-project
population size, long-term population viability, habitat
quality,-and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, federal agencies are required
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which
the Service does not have enough scientific information to
support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant
listing at the present time. These species receive no statutory
protection under the ESA, but could become candidates in the
future if additional scientific information becomes available
indicating that they are endangered or"threatened. Formal
listing places the species under they full protection of the ESA,
and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area
is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NCDOT to
avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
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 you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely, 1\

Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:10/29/97:WP:A:wilu3472.o97
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USA Corps of Engineers, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1, 1997)
N COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michatcrii Endangered
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC*
KEY:
Status l7rfinitinn
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
" Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specis observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Historic, obsure and incidental record.
IN
? r err-?
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
November 14, 1997
cf•-
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:

Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0194; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
(Forest Hills Dr.) in Wilson County, NC; TIP #U-3472
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to'call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
a,4? r&ptx
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region L
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity I AfTirmwive Anion Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor N FZ
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0194 Scoping NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County
DATE: September 11, 1997
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed
information. The attached comments are for the applicant's information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
PO Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 • Telephone: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Atrnnative Action Employer • 50% Recyded 10% Post-Consumer Paper
NCWRC.HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL :[phone];:",,9 0 C t L?'? 15 05 1JO.001 F.0-
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, ExEcutive Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: Melba McGee
OiTice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r i for . /
Habitat Conservation Prograrrk_
DATE: October 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the NC 42, from 1-95 to
SR 1165 (sorest Hills Drive), Wilson County, North Carolina, TIT' No.
U-3472, SCH Project No, 98-0194.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cuw %C nCr . F R L L S LR1,E TEL : 91 9-5? -9559 Oct
Menlo 2
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
1:: 05 110 . C103 P. 1-1 5
October 24, 1997
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland ArUgas impacted by the project.
Wctland acreages should include s11 prnjtet-rh1:.t-h,1 p•'.tiltr llittl ittctl' tilndvrgu
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or tilling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6, Militpilinn fnr Mvniding. minimizing nr rnmprnsAting fnr riirrrt And intiirPr. t
11612PULIUL11i11 11114111111111 1111MRTy AR WAIL AR 411AINITAIM, I„1ti..3
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is 111 hr cllnnlinninl wilh nIhrr ?lnlr, mimir.ipnl,
or privAtr, rlrvrinpmrnt projects, n description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thnnk you for the opportunity to provide input in the early plaiminb ttuydti fur
this project, ifwc can further assist your office, please contact meat [phone].

4V: IIawaid IIa11, U. 9. n i, ..d Wildlife Sciviuc, Ralcir 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
IT Health and Natural Resources MI.NAA ?
Division of Water Quality A&4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
p E H N 1?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director .
October 30, 1997
TO, Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0194; WQS# 11780
NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
TIP U-3472; Wilson County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible parry for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
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
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G. If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by,the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
i
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. '
b. 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.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H . The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
I. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new roads, highways and interchanges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and 'traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary'roads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
v) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 4
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and"
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road improvements
and interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area and along
connector streets that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may also result in increased stream sedimentation or loss of wetlands. And over the
longer term, development features such as increased impervious surface areas and
stormwater drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems.
Predictable impacts could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and
streams, loss of aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
L. 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 DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off 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 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis.\980194 NC 42 Wilson Co. Scoping
i
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr:, Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
October 27, 1 1997
0
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall * S 4
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Improve NC 42, Wilson

REFERENCE: 98-0194
The proposed highway improvements are located near Contentnea Creek, which the Natural
Heritage Program has identified as a significant aquatic habitat. Rare aquatic species recorded
from this reach include:
• Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), state listed as Threatened
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
• Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), considered significantly rare in North Carolina
These species, as well as other aquatic organisms are adversely affected by sedimentation. The
Division therefore strongly recommends that all best management practices be followed for the
control of erosion and siltation. Areas of particular concern include the western terminus of
the project, where Little Swamp drains the area of the intersection with I-95, and other points
where NC 42 crosses tributaries of Contentnea Creek.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled 110% Post-Consumer Paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 100
Division of Forest Resources
James Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N IR
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Stanford M. Adams,'Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, StaffForester?#
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Improvements to NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 in Wilson County
PROJECT # 98-0194 and TIP #U-3472

DUE DATE: 10-27-97
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document of 8-26-97 and have the following comments
concerning potential impacts to woodland:
Type of Information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address Impacts to
Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1.• The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of forest
production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases, easements, and all construction
activities. Emphasis needs to be directed towards reducing impacts, whenever possible to the following
types of woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland.
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland.
g. Urban woodland.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within the
proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
owl
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581 Ngf C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone]% recycled/100/6 post-consumer paper
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material that is to
be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy chips. If wood
products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made to haul the material off or run through a tub grinder
and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
5. Woodland. Land Clearing and Open Burning - If any open burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of open fires are
covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all inclusive. Land clearing contractors should make
particular note of G.S. 113-60.23 High Hazard Counties requiring a special permit from our local county
rangers and 113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non-High Hazard Counties requiring a regular burning
permit from our local burning permit agents.
Wilson County is a non-high hazard county and G.S. 113-60.24 would apply. Certain conditions may
exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this permit. Also there may be other local
requirements such as most cities do not now allow any burning and some counties now have a burning
ordnance that would take precedence.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits.
Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root systems of
trees.
Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the improvements to the road in the service area. Of
particular concern would be a good estimate of future loss of woodland acres from future development
coming into the service area as a result of these improvements.
If no woodland is to be impacted, then the document needs a clear statement that M woodland will be
impacted as a result of the entire project.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would hope that
the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that area.
pc: Mike Thompson, Warren Boyette - CO
Ken Jeffries - R2
Roy Butler - D5
File
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Y19XA
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C E H N F1
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
C. Dewey Botts, Director
September 15, 1997
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison _2 ?
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County.
Project No. 98-0194.
1\
The proposed widening involves expanding NC 42 from a two-lane roadway to a 5-lane
roadway.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount and location of
Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives that reduce impacts to Prime or
Important Farmland soils are preferred. A listing of these soils in North Carolina is available
through the MLRA Team Leader, North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, USDA, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
The Prime Farmland designation is not limited to land currently being cultivated. It is
intended to identify the best soils that can be used as farmland without regard to the present
vegetative cover. Only areas that are already built-up or within city limits are exempted from
consideration.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E..
Director and State Geologist'
E) FE F11
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS.
Qc'? c '?l
Project Number: ^
???? 7j County: IS E)
, 1 l
Project Name: i L `Ir? ?XY?JM (-?? '?+0 ?. Illy ? 1 >I"G??S? ?i 11S ?'1
NC Office/ f State Planning - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
-Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic urvey office at 919/733-3836.
-J i -Ice-R7
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control'
No comment

This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required•to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High. Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
R v ewer, Date
Geological Survey Seciori Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] .. [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Ecx ?7687 Rcleiah, North Cerolino 27611-7697 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
State of Noah Carolina
DeparMilent of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources I Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS I Project Number. I Due Date:
After meriew of this project it has been determined that the EMNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Question regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form,
AAIa? aion s, information and guidelines relative to these plans-and permits are available from the same Normal Process
L
L
C
C

C
C
I
.J
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Istalulory lime
limit)
Permit b construct t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin Construction or ward of 30 Days
facilities, mower system extensions, A sewer construction Coryracts On-site inspection. Post-application
mystema not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 1m Coo before begin activity. O"ite inspection. 90-120 days
permit to opersle and construct wastewater facilities Pre-applicatlon conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into slate surface waters. Construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or rasus 01 NPDES
permit whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pn•appliealion technical Conlarlnee usually necessary 30 days
fNIA)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 Gays
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy roust be served On each adjacent nparlan property 55 days
owner. On-site inspection. PrrapplicAtion conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of daysl
Administration and Feaagl Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to Construct A operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M.060 NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.t5jD
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
or to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.713.0820
(9C dsysl
Complex Source Permit requiretl cancer 1SA NCAC 2D.Oa00. j' r1
/VJ? Tv l5 I.,C1?? p?D ,r?3
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1971 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion A seatmentaUo
Control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan fated with proper Regional Office (Lana Ousltty Sect 1 at least 30 20 days
tlavs before be innrn activity A lee of 930 for the first Will and 920.00 for each additional acre or err must accompany tht plan t30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On•slle inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EMNR Bond amount
Mining Permit vies with type mint and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
Ironed greater then one acre must be permited The appropriate bond f60 days)
must be MClived before the permit Can be issued.
North Carolina burning permit On•slte inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 Day
rlreCMda a days (NIA)
SOGCW (around 0sarance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required '41 more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities an ineotilad. Inapectrons INIA)
should be requested at Nast ten days before actual bum is planned "
OD-120 days
Oil Relining Facilities NIA INIA)
N permit required, avolicalion W days before begin Construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified onginoer to. prepare plans 30 Days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. Comely construction is according to EMNR approv
eel Plana May also require permit under mosquito Control program Ana 160 DAytl
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces
sary to verily Nataro Gaseilication A minimum foe of L?W.00 must ac. ,
Company the application An additional processing roe based on a )
percents ! Or the total project Cost will be required upon Completion
nM
Normal process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
lima)
D b ttrul.eolorayory a
Yaa erell File svrefy bond Of 115,000 with EMNR running to state of N.C.
Conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon 1
days
• abandonment. be supped aecortying to EMNR rules and regulations. (
(NIA,
D 1360010to 9 tit1 ' - ion Permit Application tHed with EMNR at least 10 days prior to Jo
sue of
Application by letter. No standard permit
. application IOflfl.
10 days
(N/A

D
Bute Lon Construction Permit
Application too based on structure size is char
d
M )
ge
.
ust include
descriptions a drawings of structure A proof of ownership
tS 20 days
of npanan property. (NIA)
a-r 101 Water Duality Certification / NIA 60 Days

D (130 dayal
GMA Permit for MAJOR davelotxrient s25o.o0 lac must ae.-ompony application SS days
1150 days)
---------- --------

CAMA Permit for MINOR devNopi
SM-00 lee must acemvanr application -

22 days
as Days,
Ss.enl 9e00etrc m0nurrientS am located In or new tfe proiect area. If any monuments need 10 be moved or destroyed
please notif
:
.
y
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Bo: 27657, Ralsigh, N.C. 27611
ADandOnment of any wells. It required, must be in;;ordancs with Title 16A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are disco.•ered during any eacavat on otxrat?on.
D Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Slonnweter Rules) is required.
46 5 says
Other l:Ontmintf (attach a0tliti0nal (NIA)
nn pall L necessary, being Certain to ctle comment authority):
'vk ?4? S - 5 +?r?; --1-??-?f r? Dives /I,w.? t??-ova.-r?s s ?.1
1 v;?i4r It ? w17-4 jvcoaTs / ot/r=o U ti . c?p{yt /f7 ?7?V
7c, SLL-? Of f rt.CF/? A? ?a?,?-r• Cs,hf rY-.L j
? ? nth- wbt7??-cc?YsrrLs ?.., sif?'ti+,re:r?:>'9>>r.?-1? ? ?-?a.?,t_ I? m? s?cr/
CF
Ouestitxts regarding these REGIONAL OFFICES
I?permits should be addressed to the Regional office marked below.
DAsheville Regional Office ? Fa etteville Re tonal Office
59 Woodlin Place y 0'
Asheville, NC 25801 Suite e714
vi WacC 2L3 Building
(704) 2518208 (919) 115 86.15, 1 01
[phone]
D Mooresville Regional office
949 N
rth M ED Raleigh Re
l Offi
i
ale

o
ain Street, P.O. Box 950
M
r
ill ce
g
ona
3
g a D
i

oo
esv
e, NC 28115
(704) 6631699 rive, Su
te tOt
aaieigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1124 C
l
ED Wilmin
ton R
l
ff
aro
ina Avenue
sninn
WttQto
,
NC 27889 g
egiona
O
ice
127 Cardinal Drive Eittcnston
?
?
(919) 0464481 Wilmington NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Rspional Office
X025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston Salem. NC 27106
(919) 8967007

3
3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
July 21, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study for Wilson, NC 42, from 1-95 to
SR 1165, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project STP-
42(1), State Project 8.1340801, TIP U-3472, ER 98-
9307
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
LEIV O
JUL 2 4 1998
'?`?, DID/;SIG"? C:P ¢?)
11 V4
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by John J. Mintz and Brian D. Smith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following sites are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places since they do not contain the integrity or the artifact density to contribute
significantly to our understanding of history or prehistory: 31 WL253 * *, 31 WL254,
31 WL258 * *, 31 WL26O* *. Sites 31 WL256 * *, 31 WL257 * *, and 31 WL259 * * are historic
cemeteries which are not considered eligible for inclusion.
Site 31 WL261 will require additional work to fully assess its eligibility. We concur with the
suggested stripping of the site rather than additional shovel testing or test excavations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
ibavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: Gilmore
T. Padgett
ccr_
log East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
/?.. STAT[
r, J
fir
•..-ter.:.,
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Richard H. Moore. Secretary
Dept of Crime Control & Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
National Flood Insurance Program
STATE NUMBER: 98-E-4220-0194
APPLICANT: NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DESC: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 42 FROM I-95 TO SR 1165 (FOREST HILLS
DR) IN WILSON COUNTY, NC; TIP #U-3472
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the regulatory 100 year floodplain as shown on
the published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) must be constructed in accordance with the
Local Flood Damaze Prevention Ordinance.
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the floodway as determined by firm maps for any
specific area should obtain a "No Impact Certification" or a "Conditional Letter of `-lap
Revision" (CLOMR) or must fully comply with part 65.7 of 44 CFR. All CLOMR or LOMR
requests must approved by the local officials prior to being submitted to FEMA.
nh ?6-w*
Division of Emergency Management - NFIP
[phone]
?(J/ 2 h7
Date
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
s1Ari
0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager '
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of TfansRortation
FROM: David Brook Cs",
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165
(Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County,
Federal Aid Project STP-42(1), State
Project 8.1340801, TIP U-3472, 98-E-
4220-0194
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
?c
i. C t 5 1891 L
ni:3NUVAYS X4'7
•??AONtJi?P
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church (WL 1480), south side of NC 42, 0.6
mile east of junction with SR 1 160
Because the survey of historic architectural resources in Wilson County is over
fifteen years old, we recommend that an architectural historian with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation survey the project's area of potential effect
and report the findings to us.
After reviewing the project, we note that there is one recorded site within the
project area, 31 WI-224, and that the project crosses several high probability areas.
We, therefore, recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted to locate
any unknown archaeological resources and evaluate their significance according to
criteria for the National Register of Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick
10/10/97, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
Wilson County Historic Properties Commission
B. Church
T. Padgett ,
=ederJ A.id T STP- 4 ZCl T2T y• M f 2 County VV 156Y1
CONCURRENCE FORIti1
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
On 2 z 1 f?/ 1 q Clq , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal H'iahway Administration (F-INVA)
North Carolina State Historic Prese: Nation OF.= (SHPO)
Other
evie.ved the s-,:bject project and agreed
there are no e.'fe-..s on the National Resister-listed grope ,v within the projec:'=
-,es of potential er:ec: and listed or, the reverse.
there are no er ecU on the National Register-e!igibie properties located within the
projec 's area of potential erect and listed on the reverse.
there is an erect on the Naronal Register-listed prope.-ty/proper-zies within the
project's arm of potential e:ie-. The property-prope.,ies and the exec:(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an e:ie^t on the National Register-eligible prooe^,r/prooerties wit;tin the
project's area of potential The preoer;,r/properties and exec:(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Sign,-d
Z I S lG?
Represent d NC OT, Historic Arcaitec:oral Resources Se---ion
Date
hz? V9. CGI,-?-- AhW
FHNV,?, f the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO Dat
1
tct--??is-^^c vrese •? anon Ot c-1 D to

Federal Aid T :5TP- 4Z? l) TIP m U-:3 1 2- County Vy 05cn
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or deter-mined eligible (DE).
I
Proee: pies within area or potential effer for which there is an e ec:. indicate proper y stars (\it
or DE) and describe e r :.
C o r,?e.r??r?a Pr. vr? ?-i v phi st &L?Ck CDE)
Cor\. ho r-) cLA no a vLse e-??e.c, -

Reason(s) why is not adverse (if at:plicabie).
1`1C.?OT Gzra- s a31oui SRPO kz Y-"; LAA)
3 comma an med..ia,n Cues .
1
Initialed: NCDOT .?4W FHWA ?? SHPO
.??r --,c ?i 1?T
CCLrt,: ?V 1 50r1
Brief Project Des: iption
CONCURRENCE FOR:ti1
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT'S
On representatives of the
North Carolina Depar,rnent of Transeoradori NCDOT)
Federal tiiQnwav Administration (F:- VA)
Nerth Carolina State Flis:orc Preservation OFce (SKPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
VVv
there are no etrec:s on the National Register-lisle- once:-v within "he proie='-,
`rea oi'pote: tiai exec: and Tinted on tae reverse.
there are no effects on the Nat.•enai Register-e!i¢icie crct er'es locate- wit;;in t^e
proie--.'S area of potential e;:ec: and listed on the reverse.
there is an effiec: on th a National Register-lister proee^riprooe:,ies within u,e
proie--.'s area of potential e: em. The prope.-ry-proce. ies and the e.:ec,(s) are
lined on the reverse.
vl? there is an otter; on the National Regirer-e!i2ibie pre e: r'-
_ _ o ,, r,,rooe. pies within the
proje:;'s area of potential eye :. The orcoem;icroceries and effect(s) are its:ed
on z1he reverse.
Sistned:
1`-' G-A-
Recresent
FH`V t
wl
DOT, i is:orc arcaite?:,:pal Resources St_;ion
r the DivisiorAdmini
r, or other Federal Agenc1
Representative, SHPO
5tate Historic Preservation Otncer
(o %••r?
10 I • Iggg
Date
Date
I Lqa?
Date
/D/-Zo
/Date
1
ral Aid TP
F de 5 LA2 I TIP T ?) 3? 2 Counrv Vj 1
.T - l won
Prope-;ies within area of potential eZec; for which there is no ef*eri. Indicate if prose- is
National R- inter-listed (VR) or determined e?i¢ible (DE).

Procer::es wirlhin area or potential e?er; for wiuca there is an eae=. Indicate prooew status (tiR
cr DE) describe e:.ec:.
?on?-e.n-? ner? Pf????ve ?;5; Church - C?o?? &CLV9-rst=
.rte
e ?-eon- ??. 5-Ianrr? cLLPLb a),\A gAer section a.ra
5- 10x1e s?ov
I?r sec?jon
Reason(s) why e:Tec: is nor ad•rerse (if acplicaoie).

Initialed: NCDOT Pa' FhIVA ??? SI-II'0 L2,
3 _
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 2, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widen NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County,
U-3472, Federal Aid Project STP-42(1), State Project
8.13140801, ER 98-8650
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1998, transmitting the historic structures survey
report by Jill Marie Lord concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under the criterion cited:
Ccntentnea Primitive Baptist Church. The seat of an early Primitive Baptist
congregation, this church is typical of Wilson County's nineteenth century rural
churches and is eligible under Criterion A.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places:
Daniel Farm. This farm lacks special historical significance and integrity.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
?1' ld-?13?
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 ??o
J
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
September 4, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
i
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
C, E ! % ;
i
- SSF u 5 1997
iya. r'
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Dr.) in
Wilson County, NC; TIP #U-3472
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0194. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office. ,
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/14/1997. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Fumey
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Oppurtunity/Affirmative Action Employer
09/0811997 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMEN iAL OULLC i 4N
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED DURING TWO-WEEK PERIOD ENDING 0 910 511 9 9 7
RECEIVED DATE: 0 812 911 9 9 7
SCH 0:9SE42200183 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 09/29/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements i-95/NC 50 Interchange from NC 50 to 140 in Johnson County; TIP #1-2812
REGION: J COUNTY: Johnston
re%kmAer- Whil Wahh PHONE: [phone] - - - -
RECEIVED DATE, 0812911997
SCH 8:98E46000184 TYPE: NEPA Other REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 098911997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Commerce
DESC: Environmental Checklist for the COBG for the Town of East Ardadia Urgent ;ees Project - Sanitary Sewer Improvements to Arcadia Village
Apartments; 97-0-0355
REGION: N COUNTY: Biaden
CONTACT• Ste hanie Moms
PHONE:[phone]

RECEIVED DATE: 0910211997
SCH #:9BE42200186 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10102/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Improvements to Intersection US 70 and South Miami Blvd (SR 1959) /Mineral Springs Road (SR 1917) TIP #U-2808
REGION: J COUNTY: Durham
rrnAlTerT• WhitWohh PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997

SCH #: 9SE422001 91 TYPE: NEPA Scoping REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10/03/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements to the US 74 Bypass from the Eastern Outer Loop to the Proposed Monroe Bypass Terminus at US 601 in Union and
Mecklenburg Counties; TIP#R-3329
REGION: F COUNTY: Union, Mecklenburg
f`nNTAr_T- Frank Viek
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997
SCH #:9SE00000192 TYPE: NEPA Record of Decision
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10/0311997
APPLICANT: Army Corps of Engineers
DESC: PCS Phosphate Company (formerly Texasgult, Inc.) Proposal to Continue Mining of Its Phosphate Reserve in Aurora, NC (this is being circulated
FYI only)
REGION: O COUNTY: Beaufort
[`nNTecT* navid Franklin PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997
SCH #:98E00000193 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 09/30/1997
APPLICANT: Army Corps of Engineers
DESC: Proposed Use of the Hopper Dredge "Currituck" with Overflow or Sidecast Dredge as Additional Maintenance Dredging Methods for Drum Inlet in
Carteret County, NC
REGION: P COUNTY: Carteret
CONTACT: Frank Yelverton PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910411997 .
SCH #:98E42200194 TYPE: NEPA Scoping REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 11/1411997
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Dr.) in Wilson County, NC: TIP #U-3472
REGION: L COUNTY: Wilson
CONTACT: Frank Vick PHONE:[phone]
PHONE:[phone]
`1y OF 1t//4JO
JL. 2
f?a 00
NORTH ?.
office of the
City Engineer
September 16, 1997
CITY OF W LSON
no,lk Camlina
-CO.-C"TED I8a9
27894-0010
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
??G E I VFO
SEP 1 1997
RE: NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 ( Forest Hills Rd.) Wilson County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801,
TIP Project No. U-3472
Dear Mr. Vick:
The City of Wilson does not anticipate any environmental impacts from the above
project, however, the expansion of Buckhorn Reservoir does involve Contentnea
Creek which is nearby this project. No permits will be required from Public Services.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at (919)-399-2465.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WILSON
Gary L. Mills, P.E.
Assistant Public Services Director / City Engineer
P.O. BOX 10, WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 PH: [phone]
OPERATIONS CENTER: [phone] FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
APPENDIX 2
RELOCATION REPORT
II RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. [::] CORRIDOR F__J DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Alternate of Aftemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 * SECTION 1 - CURB & GUTTER
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR.) IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 2 4 6 2 1 3 2 0 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING D33 DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0.20M $0-150 1 0.20M $ 0.150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150.250 3 20400 25 150.250 10
Yn No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250-400 40-70m 38 250400 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-SW 70-100m 39 4oo-soo 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 500 up
displacement? TOTAL 2 4 102 30
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESSES ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION..
Indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY
- 6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. NOTE: DEANS CEMETERY - APPROXIMATELY 25 GRAVES
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Note: For relocation reports
X 11. Is public housing available? Section 1 -1-95 to US 264
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Section 2 - US 264 to Wilson Christian Rd intersection
housing available during relocation period? Section 3 - Wilson Christian intersection
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Section 4 -Wilson Christian intersection to SR 1165
financial means?
?
X 14. Are suitable business aites available (list j
No V;? f v1 ?
source). '- 16 1996
?
15. Number months estimated to complete
.^ [ f;f,
-
RELOCATION? 6-12
*Note: Proposed ROW width is the same for a
5-lane
:
curb and gutter section or a 4-lane divided m,
therefore, this relocation report applies to b
W
IK R. B. REVISED 11-6-98
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
orm 10,' K""a u"* a Original & J'Copyr 'State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
L RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
.1 DESIGN
El E.I.S. CORRIDOR F-
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 1 - SHOULDER SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM I-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Residential 9 5 14 3 2 4 6 1 1
Businesses ALUE of DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-2DM 1 $ 0-150 1 0-20M $0-160
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 0 15x250 3 20i0M 25 10-250 10
Yes No Explain all "YES" answars. 40-70M 6 250400 1 40-70M 38 250400 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7-1ooM 1 400 00 70-10OM 39 400 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 600 up 100 up SW up
I
displacement?
TOTAL 9 5 102 30
-r-
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESSES ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION..
Indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS
NEWSPAPERS
REALTORS.
,
,
X 6. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. NOTE: DEANS CEMETERY - APPROXIMATELY 25 GRAVES
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
. source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 8-12

R. B. CHADWICK REVISED 11-6-98
Relocatlon Agent Date Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy. State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. EICORRIDOR r DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO SR 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities
Residential 0 1 1 1
Businesses
Farms
Non-Profit
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Y- No Explain all "YES" answers.
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
X 3. Will business services still be available after
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
Employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? re
0-1 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M
1 0 0 0
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AV
Owners Tenants For S ale For
0.20M $ 0450 1 0-20M $ 04
20-40M 150-250 20-40M 13 150-250
40-70M 250.400 40.70M 26 25040
70.100M 400-600 70-100M 27 400.50
100 up 500 up 100 up Goo u
TOTAL 0 1 102
REMARKS (Resp ond by Number)
3. NO BUSINESS ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION.
6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
11. WILSON COUNTY
12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
50 UP
0
AILABLE
Rent
60
10
0 12
0 8
P
30

/C7 S'
R.B. CHADWICK 10-02-98
Relocation Agent Date - Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Reined 02/95 d Original b 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION 'REPORT
0 E.I.S. CORRIDOR F-? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-1 M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 0 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale nt
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-160 1 0.20M
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040m 1 150.250 20.40M 13 10
1'es No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40.70M 2 250.400 40-70M 26
M 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10061 400600 70-100M 27 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up
displacement? TOTAL 3 1 102
30
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESS ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
Employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY /
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY. l
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6

A
R. CH
d WICK 10-02-98
Relocation Agent Date Appr b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
Original 6 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
I RELOCATION - REPORT I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
t I E.I.S. CORRIDOR F DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-160 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 150-250 20d0M 150-250
1"es NO Explain all "YES" answerx. 40-70M 250.400 40.70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-t00M 400600
2. Will schools or churches be aff act by 100 up 800 ur 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NO RELOCATION ON THIS SECTION.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). J,
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
11 . Is public housing available?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

/`?/. `
? -? -
R.'B. CHAD /
W
CK 10-02-98 ,.
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15 4 Revised 02195 d Original d 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Once
APPENDIX 3
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
rl
0
o+
b
a
N
r
d'
r+1
1
W J
W ,11?, a
O p?
Ei
it,
x
z w
w
In
M
H z U
U C
M O
W m
W H
3
H
N
U
z
w d' a} s1' fn m fn fn IA d' s1' fn .-1 N N N fn fn N
I %D
I
I 1n ID le d' M N
W a d I

H pa U + + + + + + i + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
H 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
I I
1 1
I

ID
ID

rl
h

aD
IC

oI
ID

N
h

h
ID 1
1
1

N
h

co
ID

l+1
h

m
?D

a+
ID

O
h

.?
h

W
t0

a?
10

O
?D

In
ID

D I
1
1

O
h I
I
1
,3 I
1
1
3

h
IC

O
h

D ID

w
IC

M
IO

H
r
z 3
o
04
1
t
o

O 1
1
I
I
?, 1 1
Q >''
I I l l l l l j l l l l l l l l l l l l j
I l j
I j
1 l l l l l l
w
[?
C1 1
1
1
A
04
1
a a
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I I
t I
I
8
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
>4
F
U3
H

o

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
3
O Q ?
dI O It1 O 0; C? IO rn 0; 0 1l1 C4 h rl O O m O N N o rn 4 CI 4 ? ao O N
' O
V r1 In •4 In - V-4 v 14 m N N N M N r7 'V an 1-1 N 0-4 In N N /n d N
a a U F

A y
z m 1»

O M
C. W d l s t s s s s c z c c s c c c s s c c : s s s = c s = s s
Ow z N
rn
0

,d
z N a
z m

M H Q
W
'
i
%
v
%D
oI
01
Io
h
ul
N
H
m
ar
h
a%
v
v
In
N
N
m
z a w N 01 v IC C1 d OI C1 r a
a
O

E 4j
v
i z 3 ,n N
w H T
1 _ _ _ = c c = c = _ _ = c = c = _ _ _ _ = c = c s s s c
fn o
H a
H
z
z
w
>+ $4
r>4
a

z m m m m m m m m m m m
v m m m m m m m v m m m m m m m v m
E

U 1
O rl m at In al al al lu m al d al m m a? m m d al m lu m al w m at al
W w m u u U U u u U m u U u u u u u m u u u u u u u u u u u u
z C m C C C C C C C m C C C C C C C m C C C C C C C C C C C C
a O d d m ar d m d d m d d m d al m al m W m m d 41 W d d m m W d)
'
Q -.I
t C
1 b
.
1 'O
.
.) b
..4 b
..1 'O
.., b
•,, 'O
•., C
•.t b
.., b
.a b
•,, 'G
.,.) b
.,? b
.,t 'O
..r C
../ b
•.1 'C
•., 'O
?.1 'C
-.1 b
•., -1
«I b
-.I b
.., b
.a b
-., b
..1 4
•a
•?
••, i
d +
7 , , w 0 0 a m m 4 m m N 0 0 m d dl d d GI O) 41 Ql m 0 m) W
,,E-
,,,, ? 0 0 0 1 0 1 a a a
a m m a W. a a a a a m W. a a a W. a a m a a W. W. a a a a W.

W
k O

F .-i

l N

l fn d ' IA IC h GO CI

I O
r r
l r l N
l r4 l'f
i d
r- ' If
1 r 1 ?C
1 r h
1 1- O
1 1- C
1 . I O
1 N ?-
N 1 N
N en
N d
N ' Ill
N ID
N h
N co
N 0%
N
H
i
I
O
m
Id ?
b
O O
N -.1
14
$4 0)
X C
O N
O
w d
m k
a w
-4 m
? b
A
$4 O
41 A
o m
U m
.-I
m W
dl >
11 N
O .?
N 41
T m
.4
°c
w
ti w
O
r ON
v
a U
$4 C
aJ m
c N
U h
r
41
C) b
.4 a:
N a
m w
-.1 U
c
N
m
H
>9 a
1d
V
b o a
$4 E
v d
m m
,4
0 r.
wed
w d
a°i w
V b
1 =
a «
1 =
N
m
0
a
N
1
to ]
d7 '16
a
H
E
z
N
M
H z
U 0
W m
W 14
3
E
N
IV
U
to O\ N ID en \ r v m m m m m Uf f+1 N f1 N H N r'I N P1 M N M
04 4 ? N 1
N
z + + + + + + i + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
04 z
M
I
I I
?
0 - ID O u1 r m 1 m w tD n t14 t` m 1 m N 4 N H m m m t, m O O

?-I .-1
in ID n ID ID ID 3 ID ID IO ID ID w w 3 r t- t- t- t- ID t- ID ID w 1D r
\ \

H 1 1
z I I
1
p E I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

H
Q
I
I
p
j
OG 1 1 I
w a
I I I I l l i l l l l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l
? I I
*j 1 1
C
U

B ... m
a a 0 m a a a a a A 0 a a 0 a 0 4 4 0 a a m 0 0 a a a a
E a, rl m
3 H ? O O O - O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 40 11 a qr en ao o d? %D a* ? U; D ui o I^ r+ o U; Io ri ao D+ ui
' In In U;
d' N P1 P1 N N M N N N M N .-1 -I rl N .-1 ei d rl N r, v M N
a
14
u
`4
f-4
I
I
a

Q $4
u

t

I

I

04 o
z w H O

p
a
e
[ 41
0
t
t
t
t
t
i
i
t
t
t
?l
t
f
f
i
t
i
t
f
f
i
[
t
01 a
a N l OI 1 N I

W Id 41
M 1 Id

N
E-4 z a 0 O
M H pQ
(L V {
H N \ N f` u1 Ill d v1 N at O O O w O O N O t- v m w t`
m Z ?a N I ID w
In
ID
ID
ID
Io
ID
ID
ID
ID
+?
n
r
r
ID
n
e?
ID
r
?D
Io
.D
ID
to
a V %a O
N

'v+
a
x 3 it to
D OI
C
N
i
H Ln N N I
d

I
C
I,
i
i
t
[
[
t
t
i
e
f
t
i
1
1
t
[
s
i
i
t
s
f
i
i
i
[
PA H a H
H z m z .
m z
z x
o c

H OrJ m m m M V m m m m u U m m N U m m m m m m m u m 0 0 0
. ? W W D
? I I
?
rl m m N 01 01 01 01 01 O1 m N 01 O1 01 O1 01 01 m ID
04 0 0 U m 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m 0 0 0 U U 0 U m O m (A m
H ] C C C C C m c C C C m m C C C m C C C C C C C m c m m m
O .C 01 01 O 01 A 01 01 m 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 m 01 m m m m m m 0 d m m 0
-4 0 v v +1 v 0 C b b b b C C b 'O -4 C b V b b 'O 'O 'G C b C C C
^ 4J w +1 -A V +d U +1 +d +1 -4 +I -4 -d +1 -d V -.1 -.1 -d +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -A +/ +1 +1 -4
???
,,, U 0 m m 0 m 0 m m m m m m
m m m U m m m m m m m m m m m m m
w v? U a 0 w A U m a a a a m m a a m m a a a a a 04 a: m x m m m

(k7 CIA O rl N P1 V' IA %D t? m Oh O 9-4 N c"
d'
:
IA
%O
P
co
O,
O
.-1
N
1?1
V'
Ill
?O
(l'i A N) f?l f'?1 N) 1?) f'?) f'?) N) en m -0 -0 V' sl' - sM v v v V' IA Ifl IA Ifl IA Ill 1fl
H

OD
.-0
m \
3
b w
O 0
W +1
tJ
$4 0
41 41
0
w
4
w 41
4J
o w
+1 m
4J m
.0 9
4
$4 0
c m
U m
.1
41 >
V 01
C -4
.4
,>4 c
w
a 0
c On
,4 41
a r
A1 b
14 C
c a
O N
U r
9 la
41 Id
.+ a
.m1 U
c In
N
to
14
m 41
1d
'3p U
Id fd
N E
m m
+1
$4 O
LL b
in 4l
c k
b 'O
1 t
a«
I i
M
d
oI
a
N
h
d'
M
1
Na J
D ?
mQ a
W H
E
V W
W
w
H
H z U
U c
H 0
04 m
W .-I
?4
3
9
H
N
U
z
W
M
M
N
N
M
N
M
N
M
M
M
tl'
N
N N st
N
1-1
N
N
N
H
H
H
H
N M N M M N
a a
to
H
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
67 7+
H
0 %o
Ln -0
r r r n ?o o? m m u? m o m co o? r+ .-l o? o? o ?-I m a? m ?n o o?
o r
?o r
?o .i
h
Io 'o lo lo co ?o ?o lo lo lo r lo ?o lo r h ?o ?o h r ?o ?o ?o ?o r ?

H
en
H

z I
q ?'
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
H

a I
a rl7 I l l l l l l l l l l t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
E
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3 H
IN-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0] KI M LA el O ?D D\ O a! O d fT O? LA O? N m an d rl rl ?O N N d u1 M of O
o G M M M M d N N M et M N tV N N r1 N N N N N M N M v N N M M N
t
a ?

Q
W
tn .

o
a I
?7
I
i
i
t
c
c
:
i
i
i
c
:
t
:
i
Is
c
:
:
i
:
i
=
_
_
_
z
m
?o

N
z N
CO
C4
M H a
N eM u1 ?' et M ?O ?0 ?tl N to r ?0 IA t0 m r r r ELI m ID M m m ?0 ?D O
z a %o w ?D w w w w ELI ?o w w w w m w w w t- 0 w
?o
?o
?o
.o
?o
Io
h
m p
IC ?
m
>4
E-4 OC
to z m
-4

N
3
W H ^
04 a
1-4

W V
i
s
t
i
t
i
i
i
i
c
t
i
i
i
t
i
c
i
i
t
t
c
s
i
c
t
c
i
z m a z

a m

U m m m U m m m U 0 m 0 m m
m
m
m
m
W
W
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
1.4 a p,.

U 1
M 01 0) m O1 01 01 01 0! 4! 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 m 01 01 01
W m U U U m U U U m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
N N c m c c 0: m c c c m 0± 0: c c c c c c c c c 0 c c c 0 C c
'
J O 0 0 01 01 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 0 0 01 01 01 .-I X 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 m 01
-A C v "a 10 c v b b c MO b b b b b v b -o 8 0 .0 .0 O .0 -u -0 .0 .0 .0
a .0 «4 .4 .1 I •.1 -.1 1 .4 •4 1 4 ..1 .4 •.1 •.1 +1 .A +1 W •.1 «4 1 ,4 -.4 I .4 •.1 .1
`
a?y
i U m m m m
01 m
0 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
0 m
01 m
a m
0 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
01 M
01 A
U 0
3 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
0 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
01 m
01
01 0 a 01 a a a a a a a v, ri a a ix a a a a a a
?
7 m m a a a m 0: 1% a a a

W % r co 0% O rl N M v Ln
j r m 0 O .1 N M d' In %D r m o, O r+ N M d Ill
a Q ? in Ln %p ?p Ip Ip %p ?p %D 10 Io ?O r h r r h r h h r r m m m m m m
H .
tC
?Go
to
'O
ro w
0 0
w $4
$4 d
41
O
o
11 11
w 0)
m k
c d
0
?4 m
a id
-.1
11 0
41 X
c m
U m
.-1
m 0)
01
O .-)
c
b m
a+ G
I
W
b w
O
r. t7l
-
4 ?
A U
.4 'o
11 c
c m
O N
U r
•h
4) V
d m
ri a
m w
.1 U
C M
N
m
11
b
(
3 41
a ro
$4 E
d 0)
m m
.-1
O 0:
a Id
4) 0
0 acr
b b
I =
a
1 =
qw
m
01
a
a
N
r.
d'
M
N D
N N
E
R
z a z
w
H
H z U
U C
M 0
a m
w ^'
3
N
U
z
N
?
as a 11oc
M ? a
zz a z +
H
to
a x
z ?
M
a
a?
02
N
Z 1
1
In
E04 1
U
M
O
a 1
a a 1
E
H n'
3 H o
Q Ca
E iC C4
N
°a a
U
O •Q
14 04
no o 1
U
a z 1
Ln
w
E i1
z 04 0
ca V2 v
0 04
0 O
zz
V
OD
>4 Ln
N H
zHa,gz
04 ?
? a
o?g
H U
04
? 9a
U 1
N ? o
Mp U o 0
-A r.
41 "4
F
as
U
{k1 9? ?O
a o 00
M
f
ID
m \
co
3 ?
.d
ro H
0 0
N -.1
H
.C C
o
H
o -4
H H
w dl
m x
0 W
+1 m
7 ro
A
4J C
a m
0
U to
m 01
Ol >
41 GI
0 •-4
w c!
m
•N C
W
o
11 ? y
41 ca
A U
+4 b
H C
? ro
0 N
U r
. r.
4) V
0) m
.+ a
al a
m w
.4 U
C en
N
m
m GI
a
•O U
ro ro
w E
+4
X01 01
m m
"4
O r.
H
aro
41
O O
C C
m ar
1 =
a«
1 =
APPENDIX 4
WETLAND INFORMATION
Wetlands Located Within the Project Area
Each of the thirteen jurisdictional wetlands located within the project study area
are described below. The wetlands have been separated according to their location along
NC 42. Approximate estimations of impact area that may occur to each wetland are
provided. Jurisdictional wetlands associated with this project should be delineated to
provide a more accurate estimation of impacts:
North Side of NC 42
Wetland 1
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflowlr, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly. The estimated
area of impact is approximately 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of
l OYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is
Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 3
The site is dominated by Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane, smartweed, bugleweed,
sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils.
This wetland is isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is
approximately 0.1 hectare ( 0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of
3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1).
Wetland 5
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fern, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.04 hectare ( 0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of l OYR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 6
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflower, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.08 hectare (0.2 acre). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of l OYR, a value of 6, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 7
The site is dominated by netted chain fern, tickseed sunflower, Cyperus, soft rush,
giant cane, smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak.
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is isolated and highly disturbed.
The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.26 hectare (0.6 acre). Soils at the
wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification
for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFOI).
Wetland 9
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.41 hectare
(1.0 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of IOYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFOI ). This site is within the project limits of 9-1023 A.B.
Wetland 11
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.17 hectare
(0.4 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO 1).
Wetland 12
The site is dominated by greenbrier, water oak, yellow jessamine, willow oak,
sweet pepperbush, sweet gum, sourwood, Southern red oak, huckleberry, and wax myrtle.
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.12 hectare (0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of I OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFOI).
South Side of NC 42
Wetland 2
The site is dominated by soft rush, giant cane, cattail, silverling, Asian spiderwort,
red maple, and sweet gum. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is
small, isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.05 hectare (0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 4
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fem, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had
a hue of l OYR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this site
is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 8
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.15 hectare
(0.4 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO1). This site is within the project limits of R-1023 AB.
Wetland 10
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, Chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.12 hectare
(0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO 1).
Wetland 13
The site is dominated by greenbrier, water oak, yellow jessamine, willow oak,
sweet pepperbush, sweet gum, sourwood, Southern red oak, huckleberry, and wax myrtle.
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.32 hectare (0.8 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
N zZ
O
V
co
CD co
C
(D
N
C)
(gyp ?.
CD _ -
77
U) -- - 1
CD. -.--?SR#1 65-x-
?i
Z sGNv'-I.LBM -IVNOIlOIOSIanr ONti S6B-LV M EiOd:MnS :10 NOIl`0001
CiJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 23, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: John Hennes r,
?
.?WA
Pik
NCDENR
Subject: Comments on EA for Widening of NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
State Project # 8.1340801, TIP # U-3472, DENR Project # 99E-0625
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment will require
the discharge of fill material into a maximum of 3.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 552 linear feet of
streams. The 552 linear feet of stream impacts is distributed among 5 perennial streams. Two of the
streams have estimated impacts equal to 150 linear feet. However, the proposed impacts were calculated
using the entire proposed right-of-way. Consequently, site specific impacts to water resources are likely io
be less than those proposed. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the
aforementioned document:
A) Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams were calculated using the entire Right
of Way. While the methodology is excellent for determining the maximum potential impact, the
NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate avoidance and minimization
of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical prior to approval of the 401
Water Quality Certification. Based on the impacts described in the EA, wetland mitigation could
be required for this project. As discussed above, potential impacts were estimated using the entire
right-of-way for the impact footprint. Therefore, site specific implementation could result in
impacts of less than 1.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Should the impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands actually exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
B) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Based on the
information presented in the EA, none of the streams are expected to have impacts in excess of 150
linear feet. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules
(15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
C;) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Olnportuniry Affirrna lve Action Employer 50% recycled! 10% post-consurner paper
Melba McGee Memo
04/23/99
Page 2
D) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
E) There is no discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be
noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
G. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management.
H. The document is mute on impacts to Neuse Buffers. A quantification of the anticipated impacts to
Neuse Buffers should be included in future documentation. Please be advised that impacts to
Neuse Buffers will require approval by the NCDWQ via an application submittal.
Several stream crossing are within 0.5 miles of a critical water supply intake area. As noted in the
document, NCDOT should install hazardous spill retention basins at the appropriate crossings.
Based on the information presented in the EA, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams
could potentially require the issuance of an individual permit by the Corps of Engineers; therefore,
a 401 General Certification will not be available for this project. A 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the
submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical and inclusion of appropriate
mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project, Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Danny Smith, NCDWQ Regional Office
C:\ncdot\TIP U-3472\ comments\U-3472 comments.doc
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 27, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch / I^
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
a
U"O
This responds to your letter of March 26, 1999, requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant
Impact(FONSI), dated December 1998, for widening NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1 165 (Forest Hills
Drive), at the City of Wilson, Wilson County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3472). 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen the existing facility to a four-lane median divided highway from 1-95 to the new US 264
interchange, and a five-lane curb and gutter highway from the new US 264 interchange to Forest
Hills Drive. The total length of the project is 5.8 miles (8.4 kilometers).
Purpose and Need
The Service concurs that the primary purpose and need for this project have been adequately
stated and supported by written discussion and tabular data.
Alternatives Analysis
In addition to the "No Build" and "Transportation System Management" alternatives, there were
three widening alternatives evaluated from I-95 to the new US 264 interchange, and one widening
alternative from the new US 264 interchange to Forest Hills Drive.
Under consideration for 1-95 to the new US 264 interchange were: (1) a five-lane roadway with
grassed shoulder; (2) a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter and; (3) a four-lane roadway
divided by a 16-foot grassed median. The preferred alternative is #3.
The single alternative considered from the new US 264 interchange to Forest Hills Drive is a five-
lane curb and gutter road. This was selected because of the intensity of development in this
section of the project requiring continuous left-turn capabilities.
The Service concurs with this decision. However, the Service retains the right to recommend
other alternatives if data not contained in this EA become available and to provide comments on
the final alignment.
Wetlands
As required by the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Environmental Protection agency, the NCDOT
should first endeavor to avoid, then minimize, and finally compensate for wetland losses that
would be incurred if this project is implemented. As noted in tables 4 & 5 on page I 1 of the
EA/FONSI there are 4 surface waters (totaling 552 feet) and 1 1 wetland sites (totaling 3.5 acres)
that will be affected by this project. It is noted that included in the tables are one surface water
and two wetland sites that are not included in the totals because they are part of a separate project
(R-1023, the US 264 Wilson Bypass, which intersects the current project). Avoidance and
minimization have been accomplished by reconstructing the existing bridge over the largest
wetland (Bloomery Swamp) in stages, thus avoiding the need for a temporary detour bridge that
would have resulted in additional impact to the wetland. In addition, the existing bridge will be
widened to the south, completing avoiding a small wetland to the north of NC 42. High Quality
Water erosion control standards will be utilized for the entire length of the project, as will Best
Management Practices. Following actual wetland delineations, final decisions regarding
compensatory mitigation will be made during the design phase of the project. A final mitigation
plan, subject to agency approval, should be submitted as part of any application for a Department
of the Army (Corps) permit.
Endangered Species
The Service notes that the EA provides a detailed discussion (pgs. 18-19) of the potential project
related impacts on Federally-listed threatened and endangered, and candidate, species. There are
three federally-protected species listed for Wilson County and NCDOT has determined that there
will be "No Effect" of the project on two of the species, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoidcs
borealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii). The Service concurs with NCDOT's "No
Effect" determinations. However, this decision would be reconsidered if additional information
on listed species that could be impacted by this project comes to light, or if there is a significant
change in project plans.
The status of a third species, the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is unresolved at
this time. Suitable habitat in the form of silt-free streambeds exist within the project area, and
known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel have been recorded in the sub-basin in which this
project is located. NCDOT conducted near-bank wading surveys in streams within the project
area in November 1998 but no specimens were found. Further investigations using snorkel or
2

SCUBA equipment are necessary to survey the deeper parts of the streams. These additional
surveys will be conducted prior to completion of the final environmental document. If dwarf
wedge mussels are found within the project's area of potential effect, NCDOT will initiate Section
7 consultation with the Service.
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that the Secretary of
Transportation may not approve the use of land from any publicly owned park, recreational area,
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or other designated area, purchased all, or in part, with Federal
funds unless a determination has been made that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the use of the land from the property and (2), the action includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the property from such use.
This document lacks a 4(t) declaration, however, based on review of maps of the project area it is
unlikely that there are any 4(f) lands that would be impacted by this project.
Summary
The Service considers that this EA/FONSI adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife
resources and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources. However, based
on incomplete information regarding endangered species, the Service cannot conclude at this time
that this project, implemented as described, will not have significant impact on resources under
our jurisdiction.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the project. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans and provide us with your response to any issues we have raised in this
letter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom McCartney at (919)
856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. H fner
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Alsmeyer)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Bisterfield)
DWQ, Raleigh, NC (Dorney)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:04/26/99:919/856-4520 extension 32:\U-3472.tip
11
? u S ? a ?t hr rte` 5?? / .
CA i46
Widening of NC 42 from 1-95 to
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive).
Wilson County
Natural Resources Technical Report
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project No. 8.1340801
TIP No. U-3472
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
October 16, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... ..........................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................... ..........................................1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................... ..........................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATOR ................................................................. ..........................................2
1.5 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. ..........................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ ..........................................2
2.1 SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................ ..........................................2
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... ..........................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................................... ......................................... 4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................... .........................................4
2.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................... ......................................... 5
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............................................... ......................................... 5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .................................................................................. ..........................................6
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................... ..........................................6
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNTIES ................................................................................... ..........................................8
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................................... ..........................................8
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communties ..................................... .......................................... 8
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................................................................... ..........................................9
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................... ..........................................9
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................... ......................................... 9
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................... ........................................10
4.1.3 Permits .................................................................................................. ........................................10
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ....................................................... .......................................11
4.2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................... ........................................13
4.3 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES .......................... ........................................16
5.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................23
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SOILS OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA ................................................... ......................................3
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERS IMPACTED .................................................... ......................................4
TABLE 3. WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA .............................................. ......................................4
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ......... .....................................5
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES ................................... .....................................9
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO WETLANDS .............................................................. ...................................10
TABLE 7. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WILSON COUNTY .............................. ...................................13
TABLE 8. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WILSON COUNTY ................................ ...................................16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. WETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...................................................18
APPENDIX B. LOCATION OF SURFACE WATERS AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ..................22
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Environmental Assessment. The proposed project is in Wilson County.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening of NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165 to a five
lane section.
Project length: 9.3 km (5.8 mi)
Existing Right of Way: 18.3 m (60.0 ft) [9.1 m (30.0 ft) either side of existing
centerline]- Some areas may have wider right of way where
subdivisions have been built and in the area where right of
way is being acquired under R-1023AB and U-2955B.
Proposed Right of Way: 30.5 m (100 ft) for 5 lane curb and gutter and 4 lane divided
median
45.7 m (150 ft) for shoulder section
Posted Speed Limit: 55 mph from 1-95 to the proposed US 264 interchange
45 mph from proposed US 264 to SR 1165
Existing Cross Section: 2 lane shoulder section
Proposed Cross Section: 5 lane curb and gutter section from proposed US 264
interchange to SR 1165. 5 lane curb and gutter, 5 lane
shoulder, or 4 lane divided median section from proposed
US 264 interchange to 1-95.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing design
concepts. If preliminary design parameters change, additional field investigations may
be necessary.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area (project area) denotes the
area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km
(61.8 sq mi)], with the project as the center point.
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist.
Education: BS Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment
North Carolina State University
Experience: NCDOT Environmental Biologist, 1997-current
Expertise: Natural resources investigations; wetland delineation;
protected species surveys; NEPA documentation.
1.5 Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project
area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Wilson and Lucama), NCDOT aerial photographs of project
area (1:1200), Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps (Wilson County),
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys for the project were conducted by NCDOT biologists Marc
Recktenwald, Dale Suiter, and Chris Rivenbark on 17 November 1997, 24 November
1997, 2 December 1997, and 6 July 1998. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques, including
habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds,
tracks and burrows).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
The availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils and Topography
Norfolk, Gritney, and Goldsboro are the dominant soil series occurring at the
project site (Table 1). These series consist primarily of nearly level to strongly sloping,
well drained to moderately well drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil; on the
Coastal Plain uplands.
2
Table 1. Soils Occurring in the Proiect Area
n
hIM nit , {IVlap' g Unit` Drainag e ti?lo` ie (%)
'
K
x
:Erosion', y,, J
S m
( ti? 5
} Class
:.. ,
;
Hazard
r . Class
AaA Altavista fine sandy well drained 0-2 slight NHI
loam
AyA Aycock very fine sandy well drained 0-1 slight NH
loam
GtB2 Gritney sandy loam well mod.- 2-5 slight NH
well drained
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam mod. well 0-2 slight NHI
drained
MaB Marlboro loamy sand well drained 2-5 slight NH
NoA Norfolk loamy sand well drained 0-2 slight NH
NoB Norfolk loamy sand well drained 2-6 slight NH
Ra Rains sandy loam poorly 0-2 slight H
drained
To Toisnot loam poorly 0-2 slight H
drained
Tt Tomotley fine sandy poorly 0-2 slight H
loam drained
Note: H denotes Hydric soils
NH denotes Non-Hydric soils
NHI denotes Non-hydric soils with inclusions of hydric soils.
Altavista fine sandy loam has inclusions of Tomotley;
Goldsboro sandy loam has inclusions of Rains
Wilson County is in the east-central part of North Carolina. Most of the county is
located in the Piedmont physiographic region with the exception of a small portion
which lies in the Coastal Plain region. The soils in the Piedmont region are underlain by
bedrock consisting of slate and acid crystalline rock. The project area lies in a portion
of the county that is gently sloping, nearly level, and flat Coastal Plain uplands.
Topography at the project site ranges from approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft) to 33.5 m
(110.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl). The parent material of the soils in the county
ranges from material that weathered from bedrock, Coastal Plain sediment, and
alluvium.
2.2 Water Resources
Field surveys revealed that both jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
located within the project area (see Table 2).
3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Characteristics of surface waters located within the project study area are
provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of waters impacted.
<;
-depth ; Av width '.
!,,,Avg.
Substrate ;
Flow
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 10.2 cm 0.91 m sand,silt slow
(4.0 in) (3.0 ft)
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 5.1 cm 0.31 m sand slow
(2.0 in) (1.0 ft)
Mill Branch 0.46 m 0.91 m sand, silt slow
(1.5 ft) (3.0 ft)

Shepard Branch 0.46 m 3.0 m sand,silt,cobble slow
(1.5 ft) (9.8 ft)
Bloomery Swamp 0.91 m 16.8 m sand, silt, cobble moderate
(3.0 ft) (55.0 ft)
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality. These classifications along with their index numbers are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Jurisdictional water resources within the study area.
Basin ' DWQ'Index DW01C
i ss --
`Date
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Mill Branch Neuse 27-86-(5.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Shepard Branch Neuse 27-86-(5.7) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Bloomery Swamp Neuse 27-86-6-(3) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Primary Classifications
Class WS-IV refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds; local programs to control nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable for Class C
uses.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Supplemental Classifications
NSW refers to waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
4
2.2.3 Water Quality
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. The NPDES report lists no permitted
dischargers within 1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project area.
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the
basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There are no BMAN sites within the project vicinity. 11 .
The entire project area is in a protected water supply watershed. A critical water
supply watershed exists approximately 131 m (430 ft) south of NC 42. This area
encompasses the Wiggins Mill Reservoir as well as part of Contentnea Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project
study area.
Impacts to both surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project (see Table 4). The entire right-of-way was used in the
calculation of estimated surface water impacts. The entire right-of-way will probably not
be impacted, therefore actual impacts to water resources may be considerably less.
Estimated impacts for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in Appendix A.
Table 4. Estimated impacts to surface waters within the nrniPrt area
tS a gt `tbal 'act :line J
Little Swamp 45.72 (150.0)
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 45.72 (150.0)
Mill Branch Included in Project R-1023 AB
Shepard Branch 37.00 (121.0)
Bloomery Swamp 40.00 (141.0)
Total 168.4 (552.0) impacts to Mill Branch not included
5
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary,
some environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long term or
irreversible. Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or
extension of culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
- Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
- Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
- Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources in the study area. The N.C. Division of Water Quality has requested the
installation of hazardous spill catch basins at stream crossings for this project.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
must be strictly enforced throughout the construction stage of the project. Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024 NCAC Title 15A. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances must be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are
cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor
evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities, maintained roadside, pine dominated early
successional, old field (fallow field) communities, and agricultural communities exist
within the project area, and will be impacted by the subject project. The maintained
roadside community consists of the highly maintained shoulders and some less
6
intensively managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural communities.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application, keep this community in an early successional state. As a result, the
vegetation of this community is dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the maintained roadside
community include fescue (Festuca sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), clover
(Trifolium spp.), and plantain (Plantago sp.). In the areas which receive lower levels of
maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. This community was populated
by aster (Aster sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus carota), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), rose (Rosa sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), and privet
(Ligustrum sinense).
Pine dominated early successional communities consisted of areas that had
been disturbed allowing pioneer vegetation to dominate in several portions of the
project area. Species found in this community include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red
maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), Northern
red oak (Q. rubra), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Virginica
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), ebony spleen wort (Asplenium platyneuron),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Southern lady
fern (Athyrium asplenioides), strawberry bush (Euonymous americanus), chestnut oak
(Q. prinus), crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata), dogwood (Corpus florida), American
holly (Ilex opaca), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sassafras (Sassafras albidium),
water oak (Q. nigra), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea).
Old field communities exist within the project area. These areas were most likely
agricultural fields that are no longer used for crop production. Species found in these
communities include meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), field garlic (Allium vineale), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), yard rush (Juncus tenuis), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), aster, fesque, morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), dill
(Anethum graveolens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), daisy fleabane (Erigeron strigosus),
buttonweed (Diodia sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), bead grass (Paspalum
sp.), and green amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus).
Agricultural communities that exist within the project area comprise a large
percentage of area that stands to be affected by the project. Crops located within
project right-of-way include corn (Zea mays), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), sweet
potatoe (Ipomoea batatas), and soybean (Glycine max).
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
7
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. The
most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) and predators such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), barn swallow* (Hirundo rustica) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
Freshwater fishes likely to be found in creeks such as may include creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auntus), golden shiner
(Notemigonus crysoleucas), and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus).
3.2 Aquatic Communties
Fauna associated with perennial streams such as those present in the project
area include various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including shiners
(Notropis spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.), provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed
sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and bluegill (L. macrochirus). Invertebrates that would be
present include: crayfish (family Cambaridae) and nymphal stages of; dragonflies and
damselflies (Order Odonata). The bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R.
palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon) are common permanent residents in this community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well,
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communties
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area (Table 5). Estimated impacts
are derived based on the project length of 9.3 km (5.8 mi). The entire width of the
proposed right-of-way [45.7 m (150 ft)] was used for this calculation minus the existing
right-of-way 18.3 m (60 ft). The entire right-of-way will probably not be impacted,
therefore actual impacts to the communities may be considerably less.
8
Table 5. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Communities.
° Estmatedgl' acts, ;, ? ;
Maintained roadside 5.12 ha (12.65 ac)
Pine dominated early successional 2.56 ha (6.33 ac)
Old field (fallow field) 1.28 ha (3.16 ac)
Agricultural 16.65 ha (41.13 ac)
Total 25.61 ha (63.27 ac)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental
factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project
completion to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which
regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses
required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all
be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
9
Wetlands are present within the project area (see Appendix 1). The wetlands
can be described as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous seasonally flooded
(PF01 C, Cowardin, et al).
Mill Branch, Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two unnamed tributaries, to
Contentnea Creek are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean'
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality
aspects of these water resources are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length of 9.3 km (5.8 mi).
The entire width of the proposed right-of-way [45.7 m (150 ft)] was used for this
calculation minus the existing right-of-way 18.3 m (60 ft). The entire right-of-way will
probably not be impacted, therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
Estimated impacts to wetlands have been determined to be 1.397 ha (3.454ac)
(see Table 6). Estimated impacts to Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two
unnamed tributaries to Contentnea Creek have been determined to 168.4 linear m
(552.0 linear ft) [all streams combined, excluding Mill Branch]]. Impacts to Mill Branch
and wetlands 8 and 9 were included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-
1023AB and therefore will not be included in the total impacts for this project.
Table 6. Estimated impacts to wetlands
1 0.045 (0.111 )
2 0.050 (0.122)
3 0.095 (0.235)
4 0.098 (0.241)
5 0.040 (0.099)
6 0.080 (0.189)
7 0.256 (0.633)
8 0.150 (0.371) not included in total
9 0.405 (1.000) not included in total
10 0.128 (0.315)
11 0.170 (0.420)
12 0.115 (0.280)
13 0.320 (0.800)
Total 1.397 (3.454)
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
10
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality
of public water resources. As noted in Section 4.1.2, Impacts to Mill Branch and
wetlands 8 and 9 were included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and
therefore will not be included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary permits
for impacts to each of these jurisdictional areas have been obtained for TIP No. R-
1023AB and do not need to be obtained for this project. '
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
• the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares (10 acres) of Waters
of the United States;
• the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of
Waters of the United States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance with
the "Notification" general conditions (for discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
• the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is
part of a single and complete project.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
11
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to
or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE and
DWQ.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality
of public waters resources. As noted in Section 4.1.2, Impacts to Mill Branch and
wetlands 8 and 9 were included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and
therefore will not be included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary
mitigation for impacts to each of these jurisdictional areas have been obtained for TIP
No. R-1023AB and do not need to be obtained for this project.
12
4.2 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as,
federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. An endangered species is considered to be a species that is in danger of
becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened
species is considered to be a species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of May 14 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) three federally
protected species for Wilson County (Table 7). Descriptions and biological conclusions
for each species are given below.
i aoie t. reaerany t-rotectea Species for Wilson County
Scientific' Name Common=Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Note:
E- Endangered- a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the
Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek
and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar,
Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm in
length. It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the
left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the
nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
13
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval mussels to a
host fish. It is not known what the host fish is but evidence suggests that it is either an
anadromous or catadromous species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well
oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat in the form of silt free streambeds exist within the project area.
Known populations of drawf wedge mussel exist in the sub-basin in which this project is
located. Surveys for drawf wedge mussels will be conducted as soon as possible.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal
states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern
Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain are
believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the
tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW
against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding
14
pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All
members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed
mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat consisting of pine trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age is not present in the project area.
Neither red-cockaded woodpeckers nor cavity trees were observed during field visits. A
review of the NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated one known occurrence
(1975) of the red-cockaded woodpecker within the project area. Six cavity trees were
reported approximately 0.97 km (0.6 mi) south of the intersection of NC 42 and SR
1154. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were sighted with this record. Pines that are
present in this area where surrounded by agricultural fields and had midstory hardwood
vegetation reaching into the canopy. It is assumed that the cavity trees no longer exist.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 Auqust 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to
1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile,
oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute
and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or
doubly serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers
are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 mm across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of rocky or sandy open woods is not present in the
project area. However, open roadsides present throughout the project study area.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during field investigations. In addition, a review of
the NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated that there is no known occurrence
15
of Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this
species.
4.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wilson County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and `are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration
for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Poncern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and
animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However the
level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 8 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species
state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may
be upgraded in the future.
Table 8. Federal Species of Concern for Wilson County.
SclentlfcName Common"'Name - %
Habitat
',- Status
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow yes SR
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe yes T
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel no C*
Note:
*Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
16
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which has not been listed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats
on August 20, 1998 revealed five records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area. Mudpuppy (Necturus Jewish), triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) have been recorded
approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) south of NC 42 near SR 1154. Water arrowhead
(Sagittaria stagnorum) and Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) have been recorded
approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west of the 1-95/NC 42 interchange. The project is not
expected to impact these species.
17
APPENDIX A. WETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Each of the thirteen jurisdictional wetlands located within the project study area
are described below. The wetlands have been separated according to their location.
along NC 42 (see Appedix B). Approximate estimations of impact area that may occur
to each wetland are provided. Jurisdictional wetlands associated with this project
should be delineated to provide a more accurate estimation of impacts.
North Side of NC 42
Wetland 1
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflower (Coreopsis lanceolata), Cyperus,
soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia), smartweed (Polygonum
sp.) bugleweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracif/ua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly. The estimated
area of impact is approximately 0.045 ha ( 0.111 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of
10YR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is
Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 3
The site is dominated by Cyperus, soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantia), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), bugleweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styracif/ua), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is
isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.095 ha
0.235 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1.
The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PF01).
Wetland 5
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), Cyperus,
soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia), smartweed (Polygonum
sp.), bugleweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.040 ha ( 0.099 ac). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of 10YR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
18
Wetland 6
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflower (Coreopsis lanceolata), Cyperus,
soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia), smartweed (Polyginum
sp.), bugleweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic indicators
are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated
area of impact is approximately 0.080 ha ( 0.198 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of
10YR, a value of 6, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this site is
Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 7
The site is dominated by netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata), tickseed
sunflower (Coreopsis lanceolata), Cyperus, soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantic), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), bugleweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is
isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.256 ha
0.633 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1.
The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO1).
Wetland 9
The site is dominated by lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sedge (Carex crinata),
sedge (Carex lurida), red maple, black willow (Salix nigra), ditch stone crop (Penthorum
sedoides), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), chesnut oak (Q. prinus), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Hydrologic indicators are
saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ Index No. 27-86-
(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.405 ha (1.001ac). Soils at the
wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 11
The site is dominated by lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sedge (Carex crinata),
sedge (Carex lurida), red maple, black willow (Salix nigra), ditch stone crop (Penthorum
sedoides), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), chesnut oak (Q. prinus), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Hydrologic indicators are
saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ Index No. 27-86-
(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.170 ha ( 0.420 ac). Soils at the
wetland had a hue of 10YR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
19
Wetland 12
The site is dominated by greenbrier (Smilax sp.), water oak (Quercus nigra),
yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), willow oak (Q. phellos), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet gum, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
Southern red oak (Q. falcatta), huckleberry (Galassaccia sp.), and wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera). Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is
approximately 0.115 ha (0.28 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of 3,
and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
South Side of NC 42
Wetland 2
The site is dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantia), cattail (Typha latifolia), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), Asian spiderwort
(Murdania keisak), red maple, and sweet gum. Hydrologic indicators are saturated
soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact
is approximately 0.050 ha (0.122 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value
of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 4
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), Cyperus,
soft rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia), smartweed (Polygomun
sp.), bug leweed (Ajuga reptens), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and water oak (Quercus phellos). Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.98 ha ( 0.241 ac). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of 10YR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 8
The site is dominated by lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sedge (Carex crinata),
sedge (Carex lurida), red maple, black willow (Salix nigra), ditch stone crop (Penthorum
sedoides), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), chesnut oak (Q. prinus), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Hydrologic indicators are
saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ Index No. 27-86-
(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.150 ha ( 0.371 ac). Soils at the
wetland had a hue of 10YR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
20
Wetland 10
The site is dominated by lizard's tail (Saururus cemuus), sedge (Carex crinata),
sedge (Carex lurida), red maple, black willow (Salix nigra), ditch stone crop (Penthorum
sedoides), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), chesnut oak (Q. prinus), soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Hydrologic indicators are
saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ Index No. 27-86-
(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.128 ha (0.315 ac). Soils at the
wetland had a hue of 10YR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
Wetland 13
The site is dominated by greenbrier (Smilax sp.), water oak (Quercus nigra),
yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), willow oak (Q. phellos), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet gum, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
Southern red oak (Q. falcatta), huckleberry (Galassaccia sp.), and wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera). Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is
approximately 0.320 ha ( 0.791 ac). Soils at the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of
3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01).
21
,?L , ,
APPENDIX S. LOCATION OF SURFACE IN.ATERS AND JURISDICTIONAL WETI_PNpS Z

Y.
E

'V @

??L-59 L#I:l
cr-

aw?Ms ?Jawo ? - --_
U
a CV
c
c
a?
ti

= y

00
-
-_-'_ard erancri ? U -
?o
SheP. 1? c

r c
o
(

I
I
I ?
i I
.,I
1
r / I 22
N
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Fish, F.F. 1969. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commision. The Graphic Press, Inc.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
NRCS. 1983. Soil Survey of Wilson County, North Carolina. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill and London.
23
/V" 4e-, e"? A
52 l G w*4 4?-?-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
11 January 1999
Memorandum To: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
From: Dale Suiter, Environmental Biologist
Natural Systems Unit, Team 2
Subject: Wetland delineation and surface water identification for the
widening of NC 42 from SR 1001 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills
Drive) in Wilson. TIP No. U-3472 A (Section A refers to the
portion of the project lying East of SR 1001 to SR 1165.);
State Project No. 8.1340801, Federal Aid No. STP-42(1).
Jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were delineated on 04
November 1998 by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Chris Rivenbark.
Engineers Gus Saparilla and Bill Stevens from TGS Engineering located the
wetlands: on the plan sheets. Surface waters were already located on the plan
sheets. Wetland boundaries have not been confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers yet.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
All wetlands on this section of the project were located adjacent to
Bloomery Swamp (Station 85+10). One area on the south side of NC 42
between Stations 98+00 and 99+00 was identified as wetland in the original
Natural Resources Technical Report. Additional field work during this delineation
determined that this area is not considered jurisdictional wetland. In addition, a
small wetland located north of NC 42 at Station 66+00 was not delineated
because current plans show all widening to the south of NC 42 in this area.
Should design plans change, this area will need to be delineated.
1k
Wetlands A, B and C - Sewer line Easement Wetlands
Wetland A is located on the south side of NC 42 in a sewer line easement
and collects drainage from the existing road due to topography and compacted
soils. Dominant vegetation included common rush (Juncus effusus), seedbox
(Ludwigia alternifolia), larger buttonweed (Diodia virginiana), fescue (Festuca
sp.) and bead grass (Paspa/um sp.). Signs of wetland hydrology include water
within 10 inches of the surface. The saturated soil matrix had a hue of 10YR, a
value of 6 and a chroma of 1 (10YR 6/1) with red (5YR 4/1) mottles from 0 to 12
inches.
Wetlands B and C occur on the north side of NC 42 and on the west and
east sides of Bloomery Swamp, respectively. They also occur within a sewer
line easement. These wetlands contain vegetation and signs of wetland
hydrology similar to Wetland A. Soils in these wetlands were noted as having a
hue of 2.5Y, a value of 6 and a chroma of 2 (2.5Y 6/2) with red (5YR 4/1) mottles
from 0 to 12 inches. Wetlands A,B and C have a DWQ rating of 22.
Wetland D - Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wetland D is located on the south side of NC 42 and east of Bloomery
Swamp Dominant vegetation includes species such as tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), American holly (Ilex opaca), netted chain
fern (Woodwardia aero/ata), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) and trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans). Signs of wetland hydrology include water at the surface,
water stained leaves and drainage patterns. Saturated loamy sand soils were
located throughout the delineated area. Color notations were from 0-4 inches:
hue of 10YR, a value of 4 and a chroma of 2 (10YR 4/2) and from 4-12 inches:
hue of 2.5Y, a value of 7 and a chroma of 2 (2.5Y 7/2) with red mottles (10YR
5/6) mottles. Wetland D has a DWQ rating of 61.
SURFACE WATERS
Two perennial and three intermittent streams were identified within the
project limits. Coastal Plain perennial streams include and unnamed tributary to
Contentnea Creek (Station 71+20) and Bloomery Swamp (Station 85+10). The
unnamed tributary to Contentnea Creek is a small stream, approximately 0.9 m
(3 ft) across with shallow flow 10 cm (4 in) at the time of the field visit. This
stream has deeply cut banks, with the streambed lying approximately 1 m (3.3 ft)
below the average ground level. The stream appears degraded and showed few
signs of aquatic life. Bloomery Swamp ranges in width from 9 - 18 m (30 - 60 ft)
in the project area. Its depth was undetermined but expected to be several feet
deep in the center of the channel. Bloomery Swamp is a blackwater stream and
is classified as a WS-IV NSW by the Division of Water Quality. The project area
lies in a protected water supply watershed. A Critical water supply watershed
2
begins approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) downstream from the project crossing.
Intermittent streams were identified in the project area at Stations 92+00,
98+00 and 99+50. All appear to be heavily channelized and straightened
drainages through agricultural fields. It is not likely that these streams support
significant aquatic life.
Attached are USACE Wetland Delineation Forms and DWQ Wetland
Rating Sheets for the wetlands described above. If you have any questions
concerning the wetlands or streams on this project, please contact me at (919)
733-7844 ext. 303 or by email at [e-mail].
enclosures
cc: David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head, Team 2
Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
-9 Jay Twisdale, Hydraulics Engineer
Gus Saparilla, TGS Engineers
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
File: U-3472
3
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION IA?B 8d
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Gt- 3Y72Iq
A
licant/O Date:
pp
wner: o County: W?j?B+t
Investigator: State: ti C_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? O
No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0
e Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (fq Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species at
or
Stratum Inddic Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
ca
?
? 9.
2. Lt.?,? ? ? (? 86C 10.
3•4r. ?iq i n,iam p- ? CW 11.
4. ? ! _ 12.

6. 14.

7. i
1 a

c . i
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC

(excluding FAC•). p?
Remarks:
II
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Dater (Describe in Remarks):
_ Strepm, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
?/No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
?Saturated in Upper 12 Inchcs
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ?Z)_(in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data

De
th
S FAC-Neutral Test
p
to
aturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
3-3
SOILS
1A V j
it
s
arc
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell
M
oist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
d ?P /
/
Jr 7 1
a2 2r5 (Q 2 S -
Hydric Soil Indicators:
I
_ Histosoi
_ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
l
I
d _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
eye
G
?
or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
i
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ia No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? ?ii No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
3-4
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) ?J
Project/Site: 11- 3y l Z A Date: I( Q
Applicant/Owner: Mcpblr" County: W,10,?
Investigator: Dah ,1-4e, 4- C?Vi' State: C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (:NB Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Awl, ru L"..t FAc-
2. cJ
3. Q C
4. `!IC-
6. Ilex qf:Le?
7.?}ht9clf wa?ta? u. GI?:tAta n. T 0 6 L
.Dominant Plant Species
9. 1 'A ,75? S /zactc dt., t
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Stratum Inaicator II
V EL-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
v
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data. (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other _
t/!aturated in Upper 12 Inches
t/ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
ediment Deposits
Field Cbservetions: Orainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper
1 2 Inches
,
:2-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Z f (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth tp Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
3-3
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
Profile Description:
Depth
inches Horizon
- d-4
- --n- - ?-
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Monte Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate. /at'., S011i
,2 s 2 v S ??
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
_ Reducing Conditions
_/f Iayed or Low•Chroma Colors
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks:
roves by
3-4

`;G -'TO FKSrEET th VERSIaN)
pro* act ,?(a:r.e ?Z A C: I, n ,
Nearast Road: Date:
Wetland Area (ac). 'Wet, land Width (ft)
Name of Evaluator(s): "DQia /?'ltYIe 1" V?/?/I-
wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
en perennial stream
on intermittent stream
wi thin interstream
other
Soils
Eo:l Series
(humus, muck or pe_.)
miners.
^= ecom? ..ant ? y ..an ,
iCra::l :C `actors
(-cn-sa..c.
i °SI14?a?er D:ac s_a
steep tcpoora^hy
ditched or charineli--c
total wetland wid?h > 100 :eet
Adjacent Land Use:
('Within 1/2 mi upstream,
uoslope, or radius)
/,-forested/natural veg. 2? o
i agriculture/urbanized a
impervious surface
Adjacent Saecial Natural Areas
Dominant Vesecation
(1)
a7i w° n'e c
semipermanenL_ tc
permanently flocdec c=
inundated
seasonally flooded a--
inundated
intermittently flooded Cr
temporary surface water
;e-land T-;--,e (select or,.9 no evidence of flocding or
?ottomland Eard,vacc :ores_ su.:ac_ Hater
"amp 'Orast OCg/ an
Carolina Ba:i
Pine Savannah -phemeral Pletla-ic
=resh•ryater; Marsh th e. .
rating S•yst°_m Cannc: bz app l' t-'1 t Sal Cr brackish marsh---- or
strea:a channels.
D M RATTNG
I
7v ATEti STORAGE Uv -
/SHORELINE STABILIZATIC'I BANK
C x 4.00
0LLUTANT REMOVAL 5.00 = ?S
WILDLIFE HA3ITAT ?- x 2.00
:.QU?TIC LIFE VALUc C x 4.00 =
R E C R E A T ION / Z D U C 3 T I O N x 1.
(TOT AI, )
1dd 1 point if in sens;tive wate_shed and >10- ncnpoint dist:. -banc-
within 1/2 mile ups .:ea..., ?slop or radius.

c) a?K S F-7
pre e c t 14ame. ?? jl 1?CT C;117
?
??ea_es Road. Date: '?//
??
Yet la^a A re3 (acj Wetland Width (ft)-
c
?P.x `Jos-• ?L
o
?' GLyr'
Name of Evaluator(s): - ;
.
?,
u,
Wetland Location: Adiacent Land Use:
sound or estuary (Within 1/2 mi upstream,
on
pond or lake upslope, or radius}
Z?
o
forested/natural veo.
on perennial stream agriculture/urban;ced /IC-
on intermittent stream
1; interstream divide
1 impervious surface a
, Adjacent Soecial Natural Areas
other
Dominant Vesecation
Soils
Soi i Series
..
: (?) 26J 0101 -
_
.
.0reCIO Min anci; ._
)
uc cr pe -
3
y
m,
humus
- s-ay)
-
(-c
edcm=nant17 mine s
n
_
-
- ^1.•nr r?_ and We-ness
.
C_ecominant " San- semipermanentiy tc
permanent ly f looded cr
='rd? au' is =actor inundates
f":eshv:ater ,.=azis;a
seasonally :ieoded or
„t`eo tocoa h_ ii
c_tc:^ed or charine_i_ea
^ inundated

_
ntermittently flooded or
-
_S
wetland widch
-Deal - _- i
0 fee
water
f
ace
-emporary sur
A -ia?d T-rce (select na evidence of :laeding cr
-7 'U1? o t o m l an a c --.?
J pt .__ c .. s V . . ace TT C:. 1. a_
-

T o t
v :amV a
7Z
c`.rol ina Jay
ocos _n ?S
pine Savannah ?.ane l°. ?'A _

n
c '? ' ie Ma: s h
=r h a- 0 -ne r

tish marshes or
- c- brac'
:he rating system ca, ..:c: C) .
sa
e
cha;:nels.
_
Di ?,i ?ATTNG

Tr ..__ti ST0RAGE ?-

BA:?:",/SHORELINE STA?,ILI?ATIO

00
x = /
5
POLLUTANT R= {OVAL
- .
-
?,:
2.00
:t - -
W I LD L I r n H.AB I TAT -T---

Y. 4.00 =
a
LIFE VALUE
;QUA. IC
x 1.00 =
t?::CRE ATION/c.DUCAT?GN
'?'F'T1, »1 SC0I.E
(TOTAL)
i rshed and >10°",. nonpoint dist -banca
;mat
Add 1 point .f in s_nsit _
ve
within 1/2 mile ucs::eam, uPslace, er radius.
•
r
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472

?J
'ya

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED: /
Date --4rWilliam D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
i.2 -i4-9f' c JIX?? -
Date ; icho L- Gr , P.E.
41vision Administrator, FHWA
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/z-7-Y8
JeYy
, n am ??IIIIwM,1„•,
Project Planning ngineer gg•'S ??CARO( '•s
s ?.?'cESS n ? ?9
_ ' SEAL
17282
Robert P. Hanson, P.E. .;rCI NEE.`•5???
Project Planning Unit Head p ?VA0??(
111111 w
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................1
A. General .........................................................................................................1
B. Transportation Plan ......................................................................................1
C. Collision Record ..........................................................................................1
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes ................................................................................2
E. Level of Service ............................................................................................2
III. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY .................................................................... 3
A. Length of Section Studied ............................................................................ 3
B. Existing Typical Section .............................................................................. 3
C. Right of Way ............................................................................................... 3
D. Structures ..................................................................................................... 3
E. Speed Limits ................................................................................................ 3
F. Sidewalks ..................................................................................................... 3
G. Access Control ............................................................................................. 3
H. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control ..................................................... 4
1. Adjacent Projects .......................................................................................... 4
J. Functional Classification .............................................................................. 4
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................................................4
A. Build Alternatives ........................................................................................4
1. Typical Section ................................................................................4
2. Alignment ........................................................................................5
B. Transportation Systems Management Alternatives .....................................5
C. "No-Build" Alternative ................................................................................6
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................6
A. Design Speed /Speed Limit ..........................................................................6
B. Typical Section ........................................................................................... .6
C. Alignment ................................................................................................... .6
D. Right-of-Way .............................................................................................. .6
E. Access Control ............................................................................................ .6
F. Structures .................................................................................................... .7
G. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................ .7
H. Cost Estimates ............................................................................................. .7
I. Project Termini .......................................................................................... .7
J. Utility Conflicts .......................................................................................... 7
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................7
A. Natural Systems ...........................................................................................7
1. Methodology ....................................................................................7
2. Physical Resources ...........................................................................8
3. Biotic Resources ............................................................................12
4. Jurisdictional Topics ......................................................................14
B. Cultural Resources .....................................................................................22
1. Historic Properties .........................................................................22
2. Archaeological Resources ..............................................................22
C. Relocation Impacts .....................................................................................23
D. Environmental Justice ................................................................................25
E. Land Use ....................................................................................................25
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ................................................25
2. Farmland ........................................................................................26
F. Air Quality Analysis ..................................................................................26
1. CO Analysis ...................................................................................27
2. Other Pollutants .............................................................................28
G. Noise Impacts .................................................................. 29
...........................
1. Characteristics of Noise .................................. ...............................29
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ............................... ...............................30
3. Ambient Noise Levels ..................................... ...............................33
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ...............................33
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ..... ...............................34
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ................ ...............................36
7. "Do Nothing Alternative" ............................... ...............................37
8. Construction Noise .......................................... ...............................37
9. Summary ......................................................... ...............................3 8
H. Hydraulic Concerns .................................................... ...............................38
I. Hazardous Materials Involvement .............................................................39
1. Underground Storage Tank Facilities ............................................39
2. Landfills and Other Contaminated Properties ................................40
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Alternative Typical Sections
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 4 - 1997/2025 Traffic Projections
Figure 5 - Wilson Thoroughfare Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Soils in the Project Area ................................................................. 8
Table 2 - Characteristics of Waters Impacted ....................................... 9
Table 3 - Water Resources in the Study Area ................................................ 10
Table 4 - Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters ........................................... 11
Table 5 - Estimated Impacts to Wetlands ...................................:............ 11
Table 6 - Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Communities ....................... 14
Table 7 - Federally-Protected Species for Wilson County ............................. 18
Table 8 - Federal Species of Concern for Wilson County ............................. 21
Table 9 - Hearing: Comparative Noise Generators ....................................... 31
Table 10 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................ 32
Table 11 - Definition of Substantial Increase ................................................. 32
Table 12 - Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................. 33
Table 13 - Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ............................................. 35
Table 14 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ......................................... 36
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Agency Correspondence
Appendix 2 - Relocation Report
Appendix 3 - Traffic Noise Exposures
Appendix 4 - Wetland Information
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to widen NC 42 in Wilson County, North Carolina. The 8.4 kilometer
(5.8 mile) project will widen the existing facility to a four-lane median divided
facility from I-95 to US 264 and a five-lane curb and gutter facility from US 264
to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road). This project is included in the 2000-2006 Draft
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, and construction scheduled to
begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2001. The total cost estimated in the 2000-2006
Draft T.I.P. is $ 15,100,000, which is in 1998 dollars. The current estimated cost
is $ 20,672,000, including a right of way cost $ 6,850,000, a construction cost of
$ 13,600,000, and a wetland and stream mitigation cost of $ 222,000.
2. Project Benefits -The project will have a positive impact by improving the safety
and handling capacity of NC 42. Without improvements, the existing facility is
expected to be over capacity within 6 years. The proposed improvements will
allow NC 42 to effectively serve projected traffic volumes for over 20 years after
construction.
3. Environmental Effects - Approximately 11 residences will be relocated. The
project will have an effect on natural systems consisting of impacts to
approximately 6.3 acres of pine dominated early successional, 3.2 acres of old
field (fallow field), and 41.1 acres of agricultural land. 3.5 acres of wetlands and
168 linear meters (552 linear feet) of streams will also be impacted. Wetland
acreage is the total impacted acreage from 11 sites; length of stream impacts is the
total amount from 4 crossings. One structure in the project vicinity, the
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church, is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The project will not require the acquisition of property within the
historic boundaries of the church. Six archaeological sites are located within the
Area of Potential Effect of the project. One site, 31 WL261, is recommended for
further testing to fully assess its significance in regards to eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places. Noise impacts are expected at 55 locations,
however, noise abatement measures are not considered feasible. There will be no
substantial impact to air quality. Approximately 3 facilities with underground
storage tanks may be impacted.
4. Environmental Commitments
NCDOT will conduct surveys for the endangered species dwarf wedge
mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). If the species is found within the project's Area
of Potential Effect, NCDOT will initiate Section 7 consultation with the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. All Section 7 issues will be resolved prior to the final
environmental document.
One structure in the project vicinity, the Contentnea Primitive Baptist
Church, was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
project will not require the acquisition of property within the historic boundaries
of the church. The project, as proposed, will cause no adverse effect on the
historic property. The State Historical Preservation Office will be allowed to
review and comment on median cuts.
Archaeological site 31 WL261 requires further testing to determine its
significance. Further work (stripping) will be performed to fully assess the
significance of the site in regards to eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places after right of way has been acquired.
The major stream crossings on NC 42 are within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles)
of a critical water supply intake area. Therefore, according to guidelines
developed by NCDOT and the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill
retention basins will be installed at the crossings of Shepard Branch and
Bloomery Swamp. The stream crossing at Mill Branch was included in T.I.P.
Project R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
5. Coordination - Several federal, state and local agencies were consulted during
preparation of this document. A citizen workshop was conducted to involve the
public in the planning process. Written comments were received from the
following agencies.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
City of Wilson
6. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal can be
obtained by contacting the following:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
NC 42 Widening
From I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
Wilson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1)
State Project 8.1340801
T.I.P. No. U-3472
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to NC 42 to a four-
lane median divided facility from I-95 to US 264 and a five-lane curb and gutter facility
from US 264 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road). The project is included in the 2000-2006
Draft Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999 and construction scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2001. The project will use federal and state funds. The total estimated cost of the project
included in the 2000-2006 Draft T.I.P. is $ 15,100,000, which is in 1998 dollars. The
project has a current estimated cost of $ 20,672,000, including a right of way cost of
$ 6,850,000, a construction cost of $ 13,600,000, and a wetland and stream mitigation
cost of $ 222,000.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
The proposed project will increase the safety and handling capacity of this section
of NC 42. Traffic volumes are projected to grow beyond the facility's current handling
capacity by 2005.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 42 is designated as a major thoroughfare on the City of Wilson Thoroughfare
Plan (see Figure 5). The proposed widening is in conformance with the thoroughfare
plan.
C. Collision Record
The collision rate for this section of NC 42 was 135.1 collisions/ per million
vehicle kilometers (co1Ul00mvk) from November 1993 to November 1996. This is
slightly above the statewide average of 134.4 coll/100mvk for similar roadways. A
recent collision not included in these statistics resulted in two fatalities.
The most prevalent type of crash along the project corridor was the rear end type
collision. The additional travel lanes and accommodations for left turning vehicles will
reduce the potential for this type of collision.
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Approximately 7,000 vehicles per day (vpd) currently travel on the western
portion of this facility (from I-95 to SR 1001). Traffic volumes are higher, approximately
12,000 vpd, on the eastern portion (SR 1001 to SR 1165). Traffic volumes are expected
to increase to approximately 13,500 vpd on the western portion and 20,000 vpd on the
eastern portion of NC 42 by 2021. Truck traffic is expected to be 5% of the total average
daily traffic. See Figure 4 for more information regarding traffic projections.
Design year traffic projections for NC 42 were determined assuming the
construction of the Wilson Bypass (US 264). Figure 6 shows this facility.
E. Level of Service
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and
passengers. Operating conditions are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are
defined and designated with letters from A to F. Level A represents the best operating
conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. Level F represents the worst operating
conditions when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the facility. At level of service F,
long queues of traffic tend to form.
A capacity analysis of the subject project yielded the following results:
1. NC 42 is currently operating at level of service (LOS) D.
2. If no improvements are made to the subject section of NC 42, the level of
service is expected to deteriorate to LOS E by the year 2005.
3. Widening NC 42 improves operating conditions to LOS A initially and
maintains operating conditions at LOS B through the design year (2021).
2
III. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied
The length of this project is 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles). In addition to this length,
approximately 383 meters (1260 feet) of NC 42 will be widened as part of T.I.P. project
R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
B. Existing Typical Section
Currently, NC 42 is primarily a two-lane undivided facility. Travel lanes are
3.0 meters (10 feet) wide plus 1.2 meters (4 feet) paved shoulders.
C. Right of Way
NC 42 has an existing right of way width of 18 meters (60 feet).
D. Structures
A double barrel 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot) reinforced concrete box
culvert (RCBC) carries NC 42 over Mill Branch. A double barrel 3.0 meter by 1.8 meter
(10 foot by 6 foot) RCBC carries NC 42 over Shepard Branch. The structure at Mill
Branch is within the project limits of T.I.P. R-1023 AB.
Bridge No. 50 carrying NC 42 over Bloomery Swamp is 18.3 meters (60 feet) in
length and 8.5 meters (28 feet) wide. The current sufficiency rating is 66 out of a
possible 100.
E. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit is 55 mph from I-95 to just beyond the future location of
the US 264 interchange. The speed limit is 45 mph for the remainer of the project length.
F. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks along the project corridor.
G. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project except for the I-95 interchange
which has full control of access. The new US 264 interchange, when completed, will also
have full control of access.
3
H. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
Currently, traffic signals are located only at the project termini, the intersection of
NC 42 and SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). The remaining intersections are stop sign
controlled. The existing alignment of NC 42 contains a severe horizontal curve at the
intersection of SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) and SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road).
1. Adjacent Projects
T.I.P. project R-1023 AB proposes to provide a bypass of Wilson with US 264, a
four lane, grass median facility with full control of access. A bridge approximately
80 meters (262 feet) in length will be constructed to carry NC 42 over the new US 264
bypass. This bridge will be constructed as part of T.I.P. project R-1023 AB.
Functional Classification
NC 42 is classified as a minor arterial on the statewide functional classification
system.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Build Alternatives
Typical Section
From Interstate 95 to the US 264 interchange
From Interstate 95 to the new US 264 interchange, widening to the following
cross sections were evaluated:
Five-lane Roadway with Grassed Shoulder
This would provide a grassed shoulder facility with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel
lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane. Left turns would be
allowed throughout the project corridor. The five-lane grassed shoulder section would
have a design speed of 100 kph (60 mph). This cross section would cause 14 residential
relocations between I-95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost
(including construction, right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 19,781,000. Figure 2 shows a
five-lane grass shoulder typical section. This alternate is not recommended because it
would cause the most residential relocations and would have an adverse effect on the
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church.
Five-lane Roadway with Curb and Gutter
This would provide a curb and gutter facility with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel
lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane. Left turns would be
4
allowed throughout the project corridor. The five-lane curb and gutter section would
have a design speed of 80 kph (50 mph). This cross section would cause 6 residential
relocations between I-95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost
(including construction, right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 19,072,000. Figure 2 shows a
five-lane curb and gutter typical section. This alternate is not recommended because it
would have an adverse effect on the Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church.
Four-lane Roadway with Divided Median (Recommended)
This would provide a four-lane divided median facility with two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) travel lanes in each direction. Left turns would be allowed only at appropriate
breaks in the median. The four-lane divided median section would have a design speed
of 80 kph (50 mph). This cross section would cause 6 residential relocations between I-
95 and US 264. This alternate would result in a total project cost (including construction,
right-of-way, and mitigation) of $ 20,672,000. Figure 2 shows a four-lane divided
median typical section.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined that the four-lane
divided median section would have no adverse effect on the Contentnea Primitive Baptist
Church, a property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO
determined that a five-lane section would cause an adverse effect on the historic church.
From I-95 to US 264, a four-lane divided median section is recommended because
it will have no adverse effect on the historic property.
From the new US 264 interchange to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive)
A five-lane curb and gutter facility was the only widening alternative considered
for this section due to the intensity of development. This alternative would provide two
3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn
lane. Left turns would be allowed from the facility throughout this section of the project.
Figure 2 shows a five-lane curb and gutter typical section.
2. Alignment
The proposed alignment was developed after determining locations of wetlands
and boundaries of the historic Contentnea Baptist Church. The alignment was designed
to minimize impacts to these resources and to residents and businesses along NC 42. The
alignment proposes to straighten the severe curvature at the intersection of SR 1158 and
SR 1136 to improve the safety and efficiency of the roadway and intersection. Based on
this information, only one alignment was developed.
B. Transportation System Management Alternative
Transportation system management involves improvements designed to optimize
use of the existing facility with minimal additional construction. Due to the high traffic
5
volumes projected for NC 42, transportation system management alternatives would not
provide an acceptable level of service.
C. "No-Build" Alternative"
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a considerable negative
impact on traffic operations in the area. Projected increases in traffic would deteriorate
the level of service to an undesirable level. As discussed in Section II-G, the no-build
alternative would result in LOS E on the existing roadway by the year 2005. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs, increased travel times, and higher
accident potential. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been rejected.
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph).
B. Typical Section
The recommended typical cross section from I-95 to US 264 is a four-lane divided
median facility. Two 12-foot lanes in each direction will be separated by an 16-foot
grassed median with I-foot curbs. A five-lane facility with curb and gutter is
recommended from US 264 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). Two 12-foot lanes in each
direction will be separated by a 12-foot turn lane.
C. Alignment
The alignment of NC 42 improvements is designed to minimize impacts to
adjoining properties, historical sites, and wetlands. Figure 2 reflects the proposed
alignment.
D. Right of Way
Approximately 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way will be acquired to
accommodate the proposed widening. Some temporary easements may be required
where slopes extend beyond the proposed right of way.
E. Access Control
Control of access will be provided at the new US 264 interchange and at the I-95
interchange. No control of access will be maintained along the remainder of the project.
6
YA7f„
QP .r
!{??!C
S mvi- oi: Noiui i CAIMH NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAM IS l?. Ii1) NI JR. 1'.0. M)a25201. RAI1 (111. N.C. )7011 5?Ml L No iiiiis TOISON
(rt)vlltmm S RI iARY
March 26, 1999
Ms. Cyndi Bell v5
DWQ - DFNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 42, Wideninirrom 1-95 to SR 1 165
(Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1), State
Project No. 8.134080 1, TIP No. U-3472
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project
will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for
preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, arcawidc
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
G)
Your comments should be received by May 7, 1999. Ifno 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,
f'Or4William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
F. Structures
The existing culvert at Shepard Branch will be retained and extended. The
replacement of the culvert at Mill Branch will be included in T.I.P. Project R-1023 AB.
Bridge No. 50 over Bloomery Swamp will be replaced with a bridge 30 meters (100 feet)
in length and 19.4 meters (64 feet) in width.
G. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No special bicycle provisions are proposed for this project.
H. Cost Estimate
The total project cost is estimated at $ 20,672,000. Construction is estimated at
$ 13,600,000. Right of way acquisition is estimated at $ 6,850,000. Wetland and stream
mitigation cost is estimated at $ 222,000.
Project Termini
The project will begin just east of the interchange at I-95. The bridge carrying NC
42 over I-95 will not be widened. Minimal work will occur to the ramps on the east side
of the interchange. The project will end at the intersection of NC 42 and SR 1165 (Forest
Hills Rd.) and tie into Tarboro Street, which is a five-lane curb and gutter facility.
J. Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts from SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive) to the SR 1136
is expected to be medium to high. The degree of utility conflicts from SR 1136 to I-95 is
expected to be low. Telephone lines, fiber optic cable, cable television, gas, water, and
sewer lines are located along the proposed project.
A joint project between the City of Wilson, the County of Wilson, and the Wilson
County School Board will extend water and sewer services along the NC 42 corridor to a
new school currently being built off of SR 1154 (St. Rose Church Rd.). Construction of
this project is expected to begin in the spring of 1999.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Systems
1. Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area
was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Wilson and Lucama), NCDOT aerial photographs of project
area (1:1200), Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps (Wilson County), Fish
7
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys for the project were conducted by NCDOT biologists Marc
Recktenwald, Dale Suiter, and Chris Rivenbark on 17 November 1997, 24 November
1997, 2 December 1997, and 6 July 1998. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques, including
habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds,
tracks and burrows).
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils
Norfolk, Gritney, and Goldsboro are the dominant soil series occurring at the
project site (Table 1). These series consist primarily of nearly level to strongly sloping,
well drained to moderately well drained soils that have a loamy or clayey subsoil; on the
Coastal Plain uplands.
Table 1. Soils Occurring in the Project Area.
Map! Unit
Symbol, Mapping Unit Drainage...-,:
Class , . Slope (?10) Erosion
Hazard Hydric
Class
AaA Altavista fine sandy loam well drained 0-2 Slight NHI
AyA Aycock very fine sandy
loam well drained 0-1 Slight NH
GtB2 Gritney sandy loam well mod.-
well drained 2-5 Slight NH
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam mod. well
drained 0-2 Slight NHI
MaB Marlboro loamy sand well drained 2-5 Slight NH
NoA Norfolk loamy sand well drained 0-2 Slight NH
NoB Norfolk loamy sand well drained 2-6 Slight NH
Ra Rains sandy loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
To Toisnot loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
Tt Tomotley fine sandy
loam poorly
drained 0-2 Slight H
Note: H denotes Hydric soils
NH denotes Non-Hydric soils
NHI denotes Non-hydric soils with inclusions of hydric soils.
Altavista fine sandy loam has inclusions of Tomotley;
Goldsboro sandy loam has inclusions of Rains
Most of Wilson county is located in the Piedmont physiographic region with the
exception of a small portion which lies in the Coastal Plain region. The soils in the
Piedmont region are underlain by bedrock consisting of slate and acid crystalline rock.
The project area lies in a portion of the county that is gently sloping, nearly level, and flat
Coastal Plain uplands. Topography at the project site ranges from approximately
18.3 meters (60.0 feet) to 33.5 meters (110.0 feet) above mean sea level (msl). The
parent material of the soils in the county ranges from material that weathered from
bedrock, Coastal Plain sediment, and alluvium.
2.2 Water Resources
Field surveys revealed that both jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
located within the project area (see Table 2).
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Characteristics of surface waters located within the project study area are
provided in Table 2. Impacts to Mill Creek fall under T.I.P. project R-1023 AB.
Table 2. Characteristics of waters impacted.
Namekl, -,d -tL'-c v itth <5ubstrate.f Flow
Ut (Contentnea Creek)* 10.2 0.91 meters sand,silt Slow
centimeters (3.0 feet)
(4.0 inches)
Ut (Contentnea Creek)* 5.1 0.31 meters sand Slow
centimeters (1.0 feet)
(2.0 inches)
Mill Branch 0.46 meters 0.91 meters sand, silt Slow
(included in T.I.P. (1.5 feet) (3.0 feet)
R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch 0.46 meters 3.0 meters sand,silt,cobble Slow
(1.5 feet) (9.8 feet)
Bloomery Swamp 0.91 meters 16.8 meters sand,silt,cobble Moderate
(3.0 feet) (55.0 feet)
* Ut - Unnamed Tnbutary to Contentnea Creek
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality. These classifications along with their index numbers are provided in Table 3.
9
Table 3. Jurisdictional water resources within the study area.
Name Basin DWQ Index DWQ Class Date
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Ut (Contentnea Creek) Neuse 27-86-(4.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Mill Branch (T.I.P. Neuse 27-86-(5.5) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch Neuse 27-86-(5.7) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Bloomery Swamp Neuse 27-86-6-(3) WS-IV NSW 8/3/92
Primary Classifications
Class WS-IV refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds; local programs to control nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable for
Class C uses.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Supplemental Classifications
NSW refers to waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
2.2.3 Water Ouality
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES report lists no permitted dischargers
within 1.0 kilometer (1.6 miles) of the project area.
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. However, there are no BMAN
sites within the project vicinity.
The entire project area is in a protected water supply watershed. A critical water
supply watershed exists approximately 131 meters (430 feet) south of NC 42. This area
encompasses the Wiggins Mill Reservoir as well as part of Contentnea Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
10
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to both surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated as a
result of the proposed project (see Tables 4 and 5). The entire right-of-way was used in
the calculation of estimated surface water impacts. The entire right-of-way will probably
not be impacted, therefore actual impacts to water resources may be considerably less.
Impacts to Mill Branch and Wetland Sites 8 and 9 are included in T.I.P. Project R-1023
AB and will not be included in T.I.P. Project U-3472. Estimated impacts for
jurisdictional wetlands are provided in Appendix 4.
Table 4. Estimated impacts to surface waters within the Droiect area.
. ?: ? lianearmeters'::(linear.
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 45.7 (150.0)
Ut (Contentnea Creek) 45.7 (150.0)
Mill Branch (included in Project R-1023 AB)
Shepard Branch 37.0 (121.0)
Bloomery Swamp 40.0 (131.0)
Total 168.4 (552.0) (impacts to Mill Branch not included)
i abie to. tstimatea impacts to wevanas
Wetland' MstimatsdImpacts hectares (acxes)
1 0.04 (0.1)
2 0.05 (0.1)
3 0.10 (0.3)
4 0.10 (0.3)
5 0.04 (0.1)
6 0.08 (0.2)
7 0.26 (0.6)
8 0.15 (0.4) not included in total
9 0.41 (1.0) not included in total
10 0.12 (0.3)
11 0.17 (0.4)
12 0.12 (0.3)
13 0.32 (0.8)
Total 1.40 (3.5)
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any action
that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although
most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary, some
environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long term or irreversible.
Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or extension of
culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
11
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters;
- Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
- Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
- Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions will be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources
in the study area. According to guidelines developed by NCDOT and the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill retention basins will be installed at the crossings
of Shepard Branch and Bloomery Swamp. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced throughout the
construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances must be strictly enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between
vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are cited,
along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community. Animals
observed during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor evidence
are equated with sightings of individuals. Common names are used for plant and animal
species described.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities, maintained roadside, pine dominated early
successional, old field (fallow field) communities, and agricultural communities exist
within the project area, and will be impacted by the subject project. The maintained
roadside community consists of the highly maintained shoulders and some less
intensively managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural communities.
Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application, keep this community in an early successional state. As a result, the
vegetation of this community is dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the maintained roadside
community include fescue, wild onion, clover, and plantain. In the areas which receive
lower levels of maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. This community
was populated by aster, Japanese honeysuckle, Queen Anne's lace, dog fennel, trumpet
creeper, bush clover, rose, grape, and privet.
12
Pine dominated early successional communities consisted of areas that had been
disturbed allowing pioneer vegetation to dominate in several portions of the project area.
Species found in this community include loblolly pine, red maple, river birch, willow
oak, Northern red oak, muscadine, greenbrier, Virginica creeper, ebony spleen wort,
poison ivy, Chinese privet, Southern lady fern, strawberry bush, chestnut oak, crossvine,
dogwood, American holly, tulip poplar, sassafras, water oak, sweet gum, and giant cane.
Old field communities exist within the project area. These areas were most likely
agricultural fields that are no longer used for crop production. Species found in these
communities include meadow-beauty, dog fennel, seedbox, field garlic, ragweed, yard
rush, horse nettle, goldenrod, aster, fesque, morning glory, dill, curly dock, daisy
fleabane, buttonweed, trumpet creeper, bead grass, and green amaranth.
Agricultural communities that exist within the project area comprise a large
percentage of area that stands to be affected by the project. Crops located within project
right-of-way include corn, tobacco, sweet potato, and soybean.
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit, raccoon, white-tailed deer, and gray squirrel may inhabit forested fringes. The
most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle and predators such as
black racer, and eastern garter snake.
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow*, Northern cardinal*,
mourning dove, barn swallow* and European starling. Freshwater fishes likely to be
found in creeks such as may include creek chub, redbreast sunfish, golden shiner, and
green sunfish.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Fauna associated with perennial streams such as those present in the project area
include various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including shiners, chubs,
provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed sunfish and bluegill. Invertebrates that
would be present include: crayfish and nymphal stages of; dragonflies and damselflies.
The bullfrog, pickerel frog, snapping turtle, and northern water snake are common
permanent residents in this community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms
affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
13
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area (Table 6). Estimated impacts are derived
based on the project length of 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles). The entire width of the
proposed right-of-way [30.5 meters (100 feet)] was used for this calculation minus the
existing right-of-way 18.3 meters (60 feet). The entire right-of-way will probably not be
impacted, therefore actual impacts to the communities may be considerably less.
Table 6. Estimated Terrestrial Impacts to Communities.
, ommunity Type Estimated Impacts
Maintained roadside 5.1 hectares (12.7 acres)
Pine dominated early successional 2.6 hectares (6.3 acres)
Old field (fallow field) 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres)
Agricultural 16.6 hectares (41.1 acres)
Total 25.6 hectares (63.3 acres)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common throughout
North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental factors.
Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced substantially from the project area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project completion
to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
14
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are present within the project area (see Appendix 4). The wetlands can
be described as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous seasonally flooded.
Mill Branch, Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two unnamed tributaries to
Contentnea Creek are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of
these water resources are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length of 8.4 kilometers
(5.2 miles). The entire width of the proposed right-of-way [30.5 meters (100 feet)] was
used for this calculation minus the existing right-of-way 18.3 meters (60 feet). The entire
right-of-way will probably not be impacted, therefore actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Estimated impacts to wetlands have been determined to be 1.40 hectares
(3.5 acres) (see Table 5). Wetland acreage is the total impacted acreage from 11 sites.
Estimated impacts to Shepard Branch, Bloomery Swamp, and two unnamed tributaries to
Contentnea Creek have been determined to 168.4 linear meters (552.0 linear feet) [all
streams combined, excluding Mill Branch]]. Length of stream impacts is the total
amount from 4 crossings. Impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public water resources.
As noted in Section 4.1.2, impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary permits for impacts to each
15
of these jurisdictional areas have been obtained for TIP No. R-1023AB and do not need
to be obtained for this project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
• the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares (10 acres) of Waters of
the United States;
• the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of
Waters of the United States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance with the
"Notification" general conditions (for discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
• the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part
of a single and complete project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently in the process of revising the
Nationwide Permit process. After revision, this project will still likely be authorized
under a Nationwide Permit. If the project is not within the scope of the new Nationwide
Permit, NCDOT will obtain an individual Corps of Engineers Permit.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
16
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Since wetlands are located on each side of the road, widening cannot occur
without some impact to wetland sites.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Early coordination with biologists identified wetland sites adjacent to the roadway.
The largest wetland site affected by this project occurs at the crossing of
Bloomery Swamp. The bridge at Bloomery Swamp will be constructed in stages to avoid
the need for a temporary detour bridge. A temporary detour bridge would have required a
greater area and impacted a greater amount of wetlands. The bridge will be widened to
the south of the existing bridge, which will be less harmful to wetlands and nearby
residences than widening to the north. A small wetland site located north of NC 42 and
east of SR 1001 (Lamm Rd.) was completely avoided because all widening on this part of
NC 42 was accomplished to the south side. This site is not identified in this report
because it will be completely avoided. The alignment of the new roadway was designed
to minimize impacts to wetlands, as well as residences, businesses, and historic sites.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of-
• More than 0.45 hectare (1.0 acre) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 45.7 meter (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE
and DWQ. NCDOT is committed to providing mitigation as required by the COE and
DWQ.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
17
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public waters resources.
As noted in Section 4.1.2, Impacts to Mill Branch and wetlands 8 and 9 were
included under impacts associated with TIP No. R-1023AB and therefore will not be
included in the total impacts for this project. The necessary mitigation for impacts to
each of these jurisdictional areas will be obtained for TIP No. R-1023AB and do not need
to be obtained for this project.
4.2 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An
endangered species is considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered to
be a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of May 14 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) three federally
protected species for Wilson County (Table 7). Descriptions and biological conclusions
for each species are given below.
i able t. t-eaerally Protected Species for Wilson County.
Scientific Name Common: Name Sta#us
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Note:
E- Endangered- a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the
Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek
and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar,
Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
18
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 centimeters to
3.8 centimeters in length. Its shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half
and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in
color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat in the form of silt free streambeds exist within the project area.
Known populations of drawf wedge mussel exist in the sub-basin in which this project is
located. Surveys for drawf wedge mussels were conducted in November 1998 by
NCDOT biologist in the stream close to the banks using waders. No specimens were
found, but further investigations using snorkel or SCUBA equipment are necessary to
survey the deeper sections of the streams. These additional surveys will be conducted
prior to the completion of the final environmental document. If dwarf wedge mussels are
found within the project's area of potential effect, NCDOT will initiate Section 7
consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in
southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the
piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of
the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 meters
(30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree.
19
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat consisting of pine trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age is not present in the project area. Neither red-
cockaded woodpeckers nor cavity trees were observed during field visits. A review of the
NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated one known occurrence (1975) of the red-
cockaded woodpecker within the project area. Six cavity trees were reported
approximately 0.97 kilometers (0.6 miles) south of the intersection of NC 42 and
SR 1154. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were sighted with this record. Pines that are
present in this area were surrounded by agricultural fields and had midstory hardwood
vegetation reaching into the canopy. Site visits indicate that the cavity trees no longer
exist. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to
1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile,
oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to
5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their
edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense
cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 millimeters
across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of rocky or sandy open woods is not present in the
project area. However, open roadsides are present throughout the project study area.
Michaux's sumac was not observed during field investigations. In addition, a review of
the NCNHP database on August 20, 1998 indicated that there is no known occurrence of
Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this
species.
4.2 Federal SRecies of Concern and State Listed Species
There are three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wilson County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
20
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those
species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for
listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed
as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 8 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state
status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
Table B. Federal Species of Concern for Wilson County.
5cientif e','Name ?'_ e, x Commou Name . - ° ?t-- Habitat a,Ststus -
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow yes SR
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe yes T
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel no C*
Note:
*Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which has not been listed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats on
August 20, 1998 revealed five records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in
or near the project study area. Mudpuppy (Necturus lewisii), triangle floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) have been recorded
approximately 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) south of NC 42 near SR 1154. Water arrowhead
21
(Sagittaria stagnorum) and Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) have been recorded
approximately 1.3 kilometer (0.8 mile) west of the I-95/NC 42 interchange. The project
is not expected to impact these species.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Properties
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NCDOT, and FHWA have
reviewed the project and concur that there is one property eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places located within the proposed project area, the Contentnea
Primitive Baptist Church. Location of the property is shown on figure 3. Coordination
regarding historic properties is included in Appendix I.
The proposed project will not require the purchase of any right-of-way from
within the historic boundaries associated with the church. The SHPO, in coordination
with NCDOT and FHWA, has determined that the proposed widening of NC 42 will have
no adverse effect on the historic property.
During construction, a small temporary construction easement may be required
within the historic boundaries. This easement will be of short duration, will not change
ownership of the property, will not result in any temporary or permanent adverse change
to the attributes of the historic church, and will include only a minor amount of land. Use
of the temporary easement, therefore, is not subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act (Federal-Aid Highway Act as amended).
2. Archaeological Resources
A survey of the project area was conducted by NCDOT archaeologists to
determine the project's impact on significant archaeological or historical resources.
Nine newly recorded archaeological sites (seven historical; two prehistoric) were
identified. Sites 31 WL253, 31 WL255, 31 WL257, 31 WL258, and 31 WL261 lie in or
very close to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project. One previously recorded
prehistoric archaeological site, 31 WL224, was re-visited and is located within the APE.
Therefore, these sites will either be destroyed or sustain heavy impact from construction
activities. Sites 31 WL 254, and 31 WL259 lie outside the APE and will not be disturbed.
Sites 31 WL256, 31 WL257, and 31 WL259 are historic cemeteries. If road construction
impacts sites 31 WL256 or 31 WL257, the sites should be treated according to North
Carolina General Statute 65, which provides guidelines for the relocation of cemeteries.
None of these sites were determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
One site, 31 WL261, is recommended for further testing to determine its
archaeological significance. Due to its location in relation to the confluence of Shepard
Branch, Mill Branch, and Contentnea Creek, this site needs to be more intensively
22
evaluated for the presence of prehistoric cultural resources. Further work (stripping)
should be performed to fully assess the significance of the site in regards to eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places before the commencement of road construction
activities.
C. Relocation Impacts
It is estimated eleven residences will be relocated by this project. This relocation
is not expected to cause the breakup of a community nor the disruption of services. It is
anticipated that adequate replacement properties will be available. This relocation action
will be in accordance with the revised North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 133. A
relocation report discussing potential relocatees is found in the Appendix, page A-27.
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 business for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $ 22,500 to owners who are eligible
and qualify and up to $ 5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS 133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, and non-profit organizations 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
23
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible
to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, and non-profit organizations 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 of 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, increase 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 $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless or until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the State so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
24
D. Environmental Justice
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Action to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations), a review
was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income populations will receive
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of
this project. It is estimated the project will relocate eleven residences; three of which are
considered low-income and 5 of which are minority.
An informational workshop discussing the roadway widening was held for all
residents and business owners along the proposed project. The affected property owners
have been notified of these meetings by the local media and mail. According to the most
recent census numbers, the population in Wilson County is approximately 38.4 % non-
white. All areas surrounding the project have a smaller non-white percentage of residents
than the county average. No issues related to environmental justice concerns have been
discovered through the public involvement process.
Based on project studies and coordination taken with regard to involve any
minority or low-income communities, this project has been implemented in accordance
with Executive Order 12898.
E. Land Use
Status of Local Planning Activities
The City of Wilson and Wilson County jointly adopted the Wilson Growth Plan
in 1990, a strategic planning document which provides detailed urban growth boundaries
and specific policies relating to the quality and location of future development and the
provision of public facilities. Both the City and County enforce zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations.
Existing Land Use
The project area is a mix of agricultural, residential, and commercial land uses,
primarily agricultural with some areas of open space and scattered churches. There are
agricultural uses on both sides of the project corridor before turning into primarily
residential land uses as the corridor nears Wilson.
Existing Zoning
NC 42 near the I-95 interchange and near the proposed US 264 interchange is
zoned B-5 Highway Business which allows a variety of high impact and service type
commercial uses. The area between the B-5 zones is zoned RA-6 Multi-family
Residential, and is classified in the Wilson Growth Plan as a "Primary Urban Growth
Area." A Primary Growth Area is an area "where urban level development and
redevelopment are to be especially encouraged and where water and sewer services are
25
already available or can be provided cost effectively by the year 2000." The remainder of
the project corridor is zoned RA-6 Multi-family. The RA-6 zone is for high
concentrations of multi-family uses.
Future Land Uses
According to the Wilson Growth Plan, the future uses along NC 42 are expected
to be residential with some commercial uses. Some small commercial use growth is
possible close to the I-95 intersection. The existing agricultural uses are expected to
remain in the near future but change to either commercial or residential uses.
Secondary Effects
Secondary effects of the proposed project include effects on congestion and safety
along the existing facility, economic effects of the project on the Wilson area, and new
development which might occur in the area following construction of the project that
would not otherwise have occurred.
It is expected that the project will increase safety along NC 42 and have a positive
effect on the economy of the Wilson area. The city is currently in the process of planning
the installation of water and sewer services along the NC 42 corridor to service a school
currently under construction located off of SR 1154 (St. Rose Church Rd.). The
availability of water and sewer service along the corridor could attract new development
regardless of the roadway widening.
The adverse effects of new development in the area directly caused by the
proposed widening are expected to be limited. Potential effects include increased runoff
from buildings and parking lots and loss of open land. Environmental permit
requirements will help to mitigate the effects of any proposed new development.
2. Farmland
Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. The proposed improvement is located
along an area currently being developed in urban land uses. Given that the entire area is
expected to develop to urban land uses, no consideration will be given to alternatives that
would reduce the impact to farmland.
F. Air Quality Impacts
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions due to industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact created by
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Highway traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
26
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.
1. CO Anal
To determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration
is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is
defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions
outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Once the two concentration components were resolved, they were
added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year of 2005, and the Design Year of 2025 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A mobile source
emissions computer model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits
of the right-of-way at 25 meters from the centerline of the roadway. The predicted 1-hour
27
average CO concentrations for the years of 2001 and 2021 under both the "build" and "no
build" conditions are provided below.
Build No Build
Year 2001 2021 2001 2021
1-Hour CO Concentration (ppm) 2.4 3.6 2.6 5.7
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
2. Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However,
regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole
are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that
forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the proposed project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or
lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not
28
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be
exceeded.
The project is located in Wilson County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
All materials resulting from the construction of the proposed project, such as
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other construction operations, will be removed from
the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 213.0520. Care will be
taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will
be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
G. Noise Impacts
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the proposed widening improvements to NC 42.
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.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. 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).
29
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places more emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table 9.
Review of Table 9 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 when the noise is heard.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
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 10. 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.
30
. Table 9
Hearing: Comparative Noise Generators
OVERALL EFFECT DBA DESCRIPTION
PAIN 140 Shotgun blast, Jet 30 in away at takeoff
Motor test chamber
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, Pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD Amplified rock music
110
Textile loom
LOUD
100 Subway train, Elevated train, Farm tractor
Power lawn mower, Newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, Noisy factory
90
Diesel truck 65 kph @ 15 m

80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
MODERATELY LOUD Passenger car 80 kph @ 15 in
70
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air conditioner
Quiet automobile
QUIET Normal conversation, Average office
50
Household refrigerator
VERY QUIET Quiet office
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper @ 1.5 in
AVG. PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
JUST AUDIBLE Whisper
10
31
Table 10
Federal Highway Administration
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Lm(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary (Exterior) significance and serve an
important public need, and where the preservation of
those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties or, activities not
included in (Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public, meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Source: 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772; December 1991.
Table 11
Definition of Substantial Increase
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibel (dBA)
Existing Noise
Level in Leq(h) Increase:ln.dBA From Existing Noise
Levels To`Future'NoiseLevels_
_< 50 z 15
> 50 >_ 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
32
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide
a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in
the project area as measured at 15 meters from the nearest roadway range from 68 to 70
dBA. The ambient measurement location and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Table 12. A background noise level of 45 dBA was used in areas where
traffic noise was not the predominant source.
Table 12
Ambient Noise Levels
Site Location Description Noise Level
(dBA)
1 NC 42, 1000 meters East of Grassy 68.6
SR 1160 (Earnest Road)
2 NC 429 400 meters East of Grassy 66.7
SR 1001 (Lamm Road)
3 NC 42, 1200 meters West of Grassy 70.1
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road)
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model to calculate the existing noise level for comparison with the
noise level actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was approximately 1
dBA higher than the measured noise level for the location where the noise measurements
was obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise
levels. The differences in the dBA level can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicular speed.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
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
33
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.
Only preliminary roadway alignment was available for use in this noise analysis.
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 to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak
hour of the year 2021. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise
levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Appendix 3. Information contained in these tables include all receptors located in the
vicinity of the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise
level increase for each.
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table 10 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in Table 11. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the FONSI
(if applicable). For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category predicted to be
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 13. These are noted in terms of those
34
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR
Part 772, there are 55 impacted residential receptors due to highway traffic noise in the
project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 19.5
and 37.9 meters, respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Appendix 3 contains the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +1 to +6 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Table 13
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Maximum
Predicted Lecl Noise Approximate Number of
Description Levels, dBA Contour Distance Receptors Impacted According
(maximum)') To Title 23 CFR Part 772
15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
From 1-95 to Proposed 71.3 67.2 61.6 19.5 m 37.9 m 0 20 0 0 0
US 264 Interchange
From Proposed US 264 70 65.9 60.4 15.8 m 32.1 m 0 5 0 0 0
Interchange to
SR 1136/SR 1158
Interchange Option at 71 66.9 61.4 18.6 m 36.6 m 0 7 0 0 0
SR 1136/SR 1158
From SR 1136/SR 1158 71 66.9 61.4 18.6 m 36.6 m 0 23 0 0 0
to SR 1165
Totals: 7 7 0 55 10 7-0 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.
35
Table 14
Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
Impacts
Substantial Due To
Noise Both
Exterior Increase In Isloise Level At Sensitive Receptors Level Criteria
Increase (') ???
Description <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >=25
From 1-95 to Proposed US 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 Interchange
From Proposed US 264 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interchange to SR 1136/SR
1158
Interchange Option at 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1136/SR 1158
From SR 1136/SR 1158 to 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1165
Totals 0 73 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTES: (1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See Table 10).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table 10 and 11.
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors.
6.1 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 on this project because it would cause greater impacts to
residents, businesses, or environmentally sensitive resources.
36
6.2 Traffic System 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.
6.3 Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures
to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
Because there were no substantial increases from existing noise levels to future
noise levels, no noise barriers were considered. 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.
7. "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, 41 residential receptors would
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the noise abatement
criteria. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels of +1 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.
8. 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
37
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.
9. 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.
H. Hydraulic Concerns
There are three major stream crossings in the area. The first crossing occurs at
Mill Branch, located approximately 1.0 kilometers (0.6 miles) west of SR 1001. The
existing drainage structure is a double barrel 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). This structure will be replaced as part of T.I.P.
Project R-1023 AB (US 264 Wilson Bypass).
The second major stream crossing occurs at Shepard Branch, located
approximately 450 meters (1500 feet) east of Mill Branch. The existing drainage
structure is a double barrel 3.0 meter by 1.8 meter (10 foot by 6 foot) RCBC. Based on a
preliminary hydraulic analysis and recent field review, this culvert is hydraulically
adequate and appears to be in good condition; therefore, it is recommended that the
culvert be retained and extended.
The third major stream crossing occurs at Bloomery Swamp, located
approximately 1.2 meters (0.8 miles) east of SR 1158. The existing structure is Bridge
No. 50, which consists of reinforced concrete deck girders supported by reinforced
concrete post and web piers on spread footings with vertical concrete abutments. It is
18.3 meters (60 feet) in length and comprised of two 9.1 meter (30 foot) spans. It was
originally built in 1935, reconstructed in 1957, and currently has a sufficiency rating of
66.2. The existing bridge was determined by preliminary hydraulic analysis to be
hydraulically adequate; however, based on field review and the age and condition of the
bridge, it is recommended that it be replaced with a bridge 30.0 meters (100 feet) in
length.
Wilson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The stream crossings are within designated flood hazard zones and are included in the
detailed flood study, each having an established 100-year floodplain and floodway. The
floodplain areas in the vicinity of all the stream crossings are primarily rural with areas of
cultivated field and clear cut forest, and there are no buildings with floor elevation below
the 100-year flood level. The proposed culvert extension and bridge replacement will
38
provide equivalent or improved conveyance over that of the existing drainage structure
and will therefore cause no increase in backwater; therefore, it is anticipated that no
floodway revisions will be needed. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with
Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities in final design regarding
compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances to ensure that the proposed roadway
widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have any substantial adverse
effect on existing floodplain areas and associated flood hazards.
The major stream crossings are within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a critical
water supply intake area. Therefore, according to guidelines developed by NCDOT and
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill retention basins will be required at
the crossings of Shepard Branch and Bloomery Swamp. Existing drainage patterns will
be maintained and perhaps improved to the extent practicable. Groundwater resources
will be evaluated in final design to ensure that measures are taken, if necessary, to avoid
groundwater contamination.
1. Hazardous Materials Involvement
The following review was conducted concerning potential hazardous materials.
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Based on field reconnaissance survey, three facilities with the possibility for
USTs were identified. Information about these sites follows:
1. Dean's Grill
5218 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
Owner: Gurney C. Dean
5224 NC 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
This abandoned gas station is located on the north side of NC 42, approximately
0.16 kilometers (0.1 miles) west of SR 1160 (Earnest Road). The facility opened in 1959,
but has not operated as a gas station for about 10 years. According to field
reconnaissance, three USTs are currently on the property. No registry information could
be located for these tanks. The pump island and main tank field are approximately 20
meters from the centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it
does not appear that the site is under remediation at this time.
2. Old farm tank Owner: Brown Oil Company
Across from 4164 Highway 42 West Highway 301 South
Wilson, NC 27893 Wilson, NC 27893
This abandoned farm tank is located on the south side of NC 42, across
from 4164 NC 42 West. No registry information could be located for the tank.
According to Mr. Wayne Williamson, who lives at 4164, the tank is owned by Brown Oil
Company. The pump concrete pad for the dispenser and UST are approximately
39
14 meters from the centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it
does not appear that the site is under remediation at this time.
3. Fon,ier D & E Auto Services
4133 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
Owner: Wayne Godwin
4139 Highway 42 West
Wilson, NC 27893
This former gas station/garage is located on the east side of NC 42, approximately
0.16 kilometers (0.1 miles) south of SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road). At the time of
reconnaissance, the building was vacant and had not operated as a gas station for about 25
years. No registry information could be located for the site and no vents, pump island or
fill ports were found at the site. There were metallic readings near the northwest corner
of the building that could be USTs. This area was approximately 21 meters from the
centerline of NC 42. No monitoring wells were noted at this site and it does not appear
that the site is under remediation at this time.
2. Landfills and Other Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites
occur within the project corridor. Based on field reconnaissance and records search, there
should be no further hazardous materials conflicts, other than those mentioned in this
report.
VI. COMMENTS COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On August 26, 1997, a letter was mailed to the following state and local agencies
to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project.
(Note: an asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to this letter):
* Army Corps of Engineers
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Health and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* City of Wilson
Region L Council of Governments
Copies of this correspondence are found in Appendix 1.
Citizen comments and concerns have been taken into consideration during the
planning stage of this project. A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 17,
1996 to inform citizens of the proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions.
40
This workshop was advertised in local news media and informational flyers were sent to
approximately 65 residences. Approximately 40 citizens attended this workshop.
A future public hearing will discuss the recommended design discussed in this
document.
41
FIGURES
.l z ? E ? ?
F
a' _ A = w
?. z
?I '^ a c o .. > C on
r n..- ,Njawo. w
a e o
_ Z F- n. Z
in L4
\• ? ? ?I /'? LG 9 Yr d? V
f
?' • FI' ? ? €t'
fad ,. ..
sl ?I a.
Z, bQ
trl
1 gl F 9I -r ?I / 1 ryl tt N
a O I/
' 1 ?•1
j RI 1 =I ` 1
/ 1 C
59
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
30 METERS (100 FEET
3.Om
10 feet
OF RIGHT OF WAY
i
3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m
12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
i
i
i
750 MM CL
2'6' 6' CONCRETE CURB L
5 LANE CURB AND GUTTER FACILITY
(RECONIlVIENDED FROM US 264 TO SR 1165)
45 METERS (150 FEE
OF RIGHT OF WAY
i
3.0 m
10 feet
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB
1.2m 1.2m 3.6m 3.6m 6m 3.6m 3.6m 1.2m
3 1.2m
4 feet 4 feet 12 feet p-
12 feet r1
2 feet .q
12 feet 'j
T 12 feet 4 feet
"q 4 feet
(L
T 1
1 1
5 LANE SHOULDER FACILITY
FIGURE 2A
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
30 METERS (100 FEET)
OF RIGHT OF WAY
f
i
3.Om
3,0 m
5.5 m
10 feet 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m - -I- -I- ,. 18 feet 10 feet
12 feet 12 feet 1 12 feet 12 feet
i
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB 750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB
16' GRASSED MEDIAN WITH
1' WIDE CONCRETE CURB
4 LANE DIVIDED MEDIAN FACILITY
(RECOMMENDED FROM I-95 TO US 264)
FIGURE 2B
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
3.Om
10 feet
30 METERS (100 FEET)
OF RIGHT OF WAY
i
3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m P- Fq 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
i
750 MM Ct
2'6' CONCRETE CURB L
5 LANE CURB AND GUTTER FACILITY
(RECOMMENDED FROM US 264 TO SR 1165)
45 METERS (150 FEE
OF RIGHT OF WAY
i
3.0 m
10 feet
750 MM
2' 6" CONCRETE CURB
1.2m 1.2m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 3.6m 1.2m 1_2m
4 feet 4 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet
i 12 feet 12 feet 4 feet 4 feet
1 1 CL 1 1
5 LANE SHOULDER FACILITY

FIGURE 2A
ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTIONS
30 METERS (100 FEET)
OF RIGHT OF WAY
3.Om ;
14 3.0 m
3.6m 3.6m 5.5m 3.6m 3.6m
10 feet
18 feet 10 feet
12 feet 12 feet i 12 feet 12 feet
i
i
750 MM
2'6" CONCRETE CURB 750 MM F IF 2'6" CONCRETE CURB
16' GRASSED MEDIAN WITH
I' WIDE CONCRETE CURB
4 LANE DIVIDED MEDIAN FACILITY
(RECOMMENDED FROM I-95 TO US 264)
FIGURE 2B
NC 42
6600
1-95 SR 1154 SR 1160
35000 700 ° 500
N b
v A
N 4 ?b Z
o I b .? ? a II
J JVI. ? O ?
? N
0 0
90!) Q 1000 20?) Q 200 20!j 4 300
Proposed
US 264 Byp. SR 1001
12000 2300
n
a I
lit I 4 C'
I
p A
° PM
30!j 2000 50 t00 eo (a-) 11
900 000 6800 300 00 6800 PM 6900 1700 1 300 7200 600 700 6900 NC 42
Bo d- 11
(3 2) I
' A#
b
I
35000 900 11700 3000
SR 1162
SR 1158 Trace Road SR 1165
3500 300 14200
h
b °
n 3

eo a PM 11 ° PM PM
so a - 11 eo v- 10

SR 1136
80
) 1
800 (3 , 2)
100200 NC 42 (3.21 (? , 2)
00 100 3400 15400
1
!
. 9900 10000 08
10500
3700

PM

400

100 200
10100
100 ?00
Tarboro
100 C400 2400 600 St
t
eo a- to 5600 ree
(3. 1)
4? Ib N b b
6g bo ?? o a S
Ati 300 600 500 16800
G Old Dam Road SR 1203 SR 1105
a
P L@aand
0000 = vpd
DHV Fac = Design Hourly Volume (%)=K30 Figure 4A
K30 = 30th highest hourly volume as % of ADT
D = Directional Flow (%) Estimated 1997 ADT Volumes
am/pm = am or pm Peak
- Direction of D
'
NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165
s as %
(5,1) Dual Trucks and TTST
with proposed US 264 Bypass
10 p- m 60 County., Wilson Division 04
DHV i51) D
TIP a" 3472 Date• A ril 1997
Drawing not to scale Fac Trucks p
Work Order t 8.1340801
t0801'Ct'9 M JGPJO tlloM
L66t 'llidv :9700 upr-n r dll
?0 u01slAlO uosllM :A)uno0
ssedAg ti9Z sn pasodoid UIIM
99 b 6 US O; 96-1 uroaJ Zti ON
smunlon lat/ 9ZOZ Petewlts3
8q a.in6ij
vlonil oed
a (t'9) AHO
09 Ixt Ot
% se s,1S11 pue sHonJl len(l (t'q)
Q /o U01100J14 cl-
Head and to we = wdlwe
(%) mold leuolJoalla = a
10V Jo % se awnlon Alinotl tsay814 N10C = 004
OEN=(%) awnlon AlinoH uBlsou = oej AHO
pdn = 0000
e-I
soil as eozt as POe°
0069£ 006 0 006 0
n 'D
F ? F
4 a
peon WOO p10
009
0
F
41n
4
I 1
0
OOv 4 Q OOZ 00
pails 006 OOZ9 00L ? Q O-o. OZ OOL j Q .- OOLOZ
ono qjel ?
0091E OOb90£Z OOL1Z OOZ1Z
(t'0 (z'd
of -p 09 tt -? 09
wd wd
OI
O
0051£
5966 as
z9tt as
Z(r ON 009 rOOZ 00902
0
ylb
Vl 3
q
O
009
peon aoell
00£02 0009 roo £ 1
(t'd
tt 09
Wd
w Ib
N
H
0009
8566 as
0091
0099 0091£
b; I
a' I
O I
IV
Zb ON00£L1 00£0 009 00t LL 009 j i 009£
OOL61
(z'0
tt -ls 09
Wd 00911
ale3s o> )ou Bulmeip
lti?
rr ? /
'OOL
0009L
d
0
-tq oo d
(t'CI
of 09
fid
OOtb9
Sett as
00!J I 0,09 00£V1 OOZO I 061 OOL£1
(t'C) tt -
wd ? 09 00£? C006 0099 I C09
V I o
r
? b I
lit 141
a I
N
0069 OOZb£
toot aS We b9z sn
pesodo-ld
009 I COOP
0
y I b
i
OI
O
0001
o9tt as
009 100£ OOZ9 1061 ZO ON
e
o
1O o
4. ` N
N F
F (?
00K 0009L
b9t t as 56-1

5661'9 113©W3030
-
oaarr??jg?aar?[?B^?r lOV
d
?
,?=?? ONIYV311
rt
I "..
-vaarApiuw NollvlaoasNVal ' ,. 39rN113111N1

.. 40 1N3WlYVJIq
VNIIOUVJ HlaoN _ aoN,w

rauriwwvu io ?awiivna rt+iom w.ar vabrirxJaugad- IlJrtvaY
ONINNVtd 301M31vls M+ r? P-1 ......... Yorvw
Vlo10M IlraolVAlim3 NOf1UA u AO U30N3YiriOJ3Y G"I C3 P3
f?--T- 7
AYM37a!
?alvlsalrN,
Noslim JO 'OUID r {aostlM do Ar{J 43SOdOUd JNILSIX3
110A :AU (171d00`v' GN3931
NVIJ 32JVd1A9f10)J0N1

o
o -
N33113 )I:)vta -

-i-i
g '? 1
?C3 C3 a -
r S ?
D o P ?

rd ?N
0 d? a
0
ZY JN? ?
y •
1 44*
\J o\AI L/W `l
apt
y ri
Ar ??l+o
s
4q =
l:)a[ad PU3
.? HHH N
c
d - -~-
6 t-: `
M /
O
rrfr
M '
f
up onto. IVOA1r
IIOIIVA
MOW
p ... N
J 1
41
M ,orron4n L.?
i
?' °jn
s ?
Z ?l
MID m3
;3af0J7UJ i6a8
4 4b
4 `
a
S•
1[
1 l?
_ r

APPENDIX 1
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY G V
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
?. WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
? ? g 199 s?
IN REPLY REFER TO January 26, 1998 N1S•?ICNOF
Planning Services Section y K 1 ,?i?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1997, requesting our comments on
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory
Division Action I.D. No. 199820167).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
t1_15r
C. E. Shuf d, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division

Enclosure

January 26, 1998
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory Division Action
I.D. No. 199820167)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
The proposed project is located in Wilson County and partially within the planning
jurisdiction of the city of Wfton, beth of whi0 aro participants in tie Nationcil Fiuod Insurance
Program. However, based on a review of Panel 5 of the July 1982-City of Wilson Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), it does not appear that the portion of roadway within their
jurisdiction is in an identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent
United States Geological Survey topo map ("Wilson, N.C.")
From Panels 70 and 90 of the January 1983 Wilson County FIRM, it appears that the
section of road proposed for improvement would cross Mill and Shepard Branches and
Bloomery Swamp, all detail study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
"Procedures for'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways",
copies of which have been provided previously to your office. In addition, we suggest
coordination with the county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any changes, if
required, to the flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmever Raleiah Field-Office, Reaulatorv
Division, at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work involves the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and wetlands. Affected water bodies include Mill Branch,
Shepard Branch, and unnamed tributaries, above headwaters, and Bloomery Swamp, below
headwaters (as defined for regutatcry. purposes.)
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material
into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the disposal of
construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. We will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When
final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. It is probable, that the work would require an individual permit authorization.
OF
January 26, 1998
Page 2 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801, TIP Project No. U-3472" (Regulatory Division Action
I.D. No. 199820167)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, regulates the discharge of
excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps of Engineers must
assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department of
the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fil! ectivities requires that the project he water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review emphasis for
NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters and/or wetlands. However, if degradation
to other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered
to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as
preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied
prior to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a
final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved. Mitigation for stream impacts may also
be required.
The environmental documentation for the proposed project should discuss alternatives
that will avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Specifically, there should be fully evaluated design alternatives that minimize wetland impacts
at the Mill Branch, Shepard Branch, and Bloomery Swamp crossings by asymmetrical
widening, elimination or minimization of medians, minimization of fill slopes, and other
methods.
The environmental documentation should also address qualitative-'aspects of stream and
wetland impacts, and potential impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.

O?'PSM HT f T h?,yA
9
CH 3 '6?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33 726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 29, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Improvements to NC 42, TIP No. U-3472,
Wilson County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of August 26, 1997, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 42 from a two-lane
roadway to a multi-lane facility. The proposed project has been
divided into two sections. Section A would extend from the I-
95/NC 42 interchange (the western terminus) to the proposed
future interchange with US 264. Both a five-lane shoulder
section and a five-lane curb-and-gutter section will be
considered for this section. Section B would extend from US 264
interchange to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). Only a five-lane
curb-and-gutter design will be considered for this section.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to
existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend-that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project,
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the
alternatives for the proposed project that were considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable,
and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. The assessment should also include
the extent to which the proposed project would result in
secondary impacts to natural resources and how this and
similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and/or constru9tion techniques which would
be employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct
loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction'techniques, and/or any other
mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland
crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory
mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via
conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Wilson County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Environmental documentation should
include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this
guidance, the following information should be included in the
environmental document regarding protected species. The level of
detail should be commensurate with the degree of environmental
impacts:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and the habitat of the species that may be affected
by the action, including the results of any onsite
inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat which includes consideration
of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the
effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and
private activities in the project area and cumulative
effects area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the
proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are
part of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the
action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private
activities (not requiring federal agency involvement)
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or
the. degradation of habitat are all ways in which listed
species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement
of potential effects. Criteria may include post-project
population size, long-term population viability, habitat
quality,-and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, federal agencies are required
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which
the Service does not have enough scientific information to
support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant
listing at the present time. These species receive no statutory
protection under the ESA, but could become candidates in the
future if additional scientific information becomes available
indicating that they are endangered or"threatened. Formal
listing places the species under the full protection of the ESA,
and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area
is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NCDOT to
avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
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 you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
//V?wn'4 --7? /?O
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
FWS/R4:HHall:10/29/97:WP:A:wilu3472.o97
cc:
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USA Corps of Engineers, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA

Federally-Listed, Candidate and Federal Species of Concern
(revised May 1, 1997)
N COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michamcii Endangered
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC*
KEY:
statim Definitinn
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
to support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing.).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section7 consultation.
EXP A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
` Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
" Obscure record, the date and/or location of the specie observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
"""" Historic, obsure and incidental record.

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
November 14, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:

57
Re: SCH File # 98-E-4220-0194; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
(Forest Hills Dr.) in Wilson County, NC; TIP #U-3472
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to'call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
a?
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region L
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Anion Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environments
and Natural Resources ?!±µ=Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
r.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ? E N
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee ?Y
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0194 Scoping NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County
DATE: September 11, 1997
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed
information. The attached comments are for the applicant's information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 1991
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
PO Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 • Telephone: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer • 50% Recyded 10% Post-Consumer Paper
NCWRC,HCP , FRLLS LRKE TEL :[phone]:.59 Oct '97 13 : 0 5 Ido . 1-10.1 F . 02
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 1,7?5, _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Exkutive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
OlTice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r i for
Habitat Conservation Progr
DA'Z'E: October 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the NC 42, from 1-95 to
SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-3472, SCH Project No. 98-0194.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used fir project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
,-CwU,HCF,FHLLS LALE TEL : 91 9-5? Oct -T
Memo 2
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
1:, : 05 110 . 003 F . n?5
October 24, 1997
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
f. nsrer type maps showing wetland Areigag impacted by the projeot.
W+:tland acreages should include all projeot-roh1r,tMi1 I't-"ittr tlult 111111, SIHS Vrgg
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Miligtttinn fnr avniding. minimizing nr rnmPt-nsAtingr fnr dirrrt And inrlirPrt
tlug?udutlntt lt1 huhhal 1J11A11ry' AA writ A111tta1IMMIYd I„511.3
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9, if construction of this fecilhy k m hr no rrilinnlnd with nlhs,r sines. mnnir.innl,
nr privatr drv -Inpment projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thnnk you for the opportunity to provide input hi the early plaimring ctaget; fur
this Project, If wC can further assist your office, please conttmt me at [phone].
1\
..e: Ilawa;d II?11, U. 3.1'x,1, wia Wilalir? s??vi?G, Rnlaiv?li
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Q??
[D EHNF=1
October 30, 1997
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0194; WQS# 11780
NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
TIP U-3472; Wilson County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
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
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Tota1 wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G. If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by,the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. '
b. 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.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H . The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new roads, highways and interchanges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondaryroads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
v) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
x) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 4
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and"
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road improvements
and interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area and along
connector streets that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may also result in increased stream sedimentation or loss of wetlands. And over the
longer term, development features such as increased impervious surface areas and
stormwater drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems.
Predictable impacts could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and
streams, loss of aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
L. 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 DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off 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 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis.\980194 NC 42 Wilson Co. Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr:, Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
October 27, 1997
1
S4
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Improve NC 42, Wilson
REFERENCE: 98-0194

The proposed highway improvements are located near Contentnea Creek, which the Natural
Heritage Program has identified as a significant aquatic habitat. Rare aquatic species recorded
from this reach include:
• Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), state listed as Threatened
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
• Notched Rainbow (Villosa consuicta), considered significantly rare in North Carolina
These species, as well as other aquatic organisms are adversely affected by sedimentation. Ile
Division therefore strongly recommends that all best management practices be followed for the
control of erosion and siltation. Areas of particular concern include the western terminus of
the project, where Little Swamp drains the area of the intersection with I-95, and other points
where NC 42 crosses tributaries of Contentnea Creek.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled 110% Post-Consumer Paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A 4 0 TA
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHNFR
Stanford M. Adams,'Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester_ #
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Improvements to NC 42, from I-95 to SR 1165 in Wilson County
PROJECT # 98-0194 and TIP #U-3472
DUE DATE: 10-27-97
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document of 8-26-97 and have the following comments
concerning potential impacts to woodland:
Tvpe of Information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address Impacts to
Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1.• The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of forest
production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases, easements, and all construction
activities. Emphasis needs to be directed towards reducing impacts, whenever possible to the following
types of woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland.
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland.
g. Urban woodland.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within the
proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
owl
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581 N ff C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone]% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material that is to
be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy chips. If wood
products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made to haul the material off or run through a tub grinder
and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
Woodland. Land Clearing and Open Burning - if any open burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of open fires are
covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all inclusive. Land clearing contractors should make
particular note of G.S. 113-60.23 High Hazard Counties requiring a special permit from our local county
rangers and 113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non-High Hazard Counties requiring a regular burning
permit from our local burning permit agents.
Wilson County is a non-high hazard county and G.S. 113-60.24 would apply. Certain conditions may
exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this permit. Also there may be other local
requirements such as most cities do not now allow any burning and some counties now have a burning
ordnance that would take precedence.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits.
Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root systems of
trees.
7. Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the improvements to the road in the service area. Of
particular concern would be a good estimate of future loss of woodland acres from future development
coming into the service area as a result of these improvements.
If no woodland is to be impacted, then the document needs a clear statement that IlQ woodland will be
impacted as a result of the entire project.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would hope that
the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that area.
pc: Mike Thompson, Warren Boyette - CO
Ken Jeffries - R2
Roy Butler - D5
File
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • 0
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED C H N R
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
C. Dewey Botts, Director
September 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison_/:
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County.
Project No. 98-0194.
1\
The proposed widening involves expanding NC 42 from a two-lane roadway to a 5-lane
roadway.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount and location of
Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives that reduce impacts to Prime or
Important Farmland soils are preferred. A listing of these soils in North Carolina is available
through the MLRA Team Leader, North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, USDA, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
The Prime Farmland designation is not limited to land currently being cultivated. It is
intended to identify the best soils that can be used as farmland without regard to the present
vegetative cover. Only areas that are already built-up or within city limits are exempted from
consideration.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources .
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist'
g4
F=
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Number:
Project Name:
q`? -r2lc q

NC office,Iof State Planning - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact RX geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
-Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Aurvey office at 919/733-3836.
VL4 LLI JJILC/
Reviewer I Date
Lrosion and Sedimentation Control"
No co.-mment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required•to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High-Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
R v ewer, Date
Geological Survey Secli0 Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
(919) 9) 733-2423 FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
FAX•[phone]
County:' 0 , I S V(?
P.O. ecx ?7687 Rcleiah• North Ccrolina 27611-7697 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Envirtirlmant, Health, and Natural Resoutres Reviewing Office:
WTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
After nrview of this project it has been determined that the EMNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
tOueationa n*arding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the /worse of the form.
All atpptieations, Information and guidelines relative to these plans-and permits are available from the earn
iieglonal Office. Normal Process
L
L
L
L
r-
C
L
J
i ime
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS Istalutory time
limit)
P~ b construct t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 Days
fecilltiea, Sewer system ettansions, It Dewar construction cdrytacts On-sits inspection. Post-application
Systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 Days)
NPDES • pemnfl to discharge into surface water andlor Application 1e0 days before begin activity. Or"ite inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment Wilily-granted after NPDES Aeoly INIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of pans or issue of NPDES
pwmit+rhichevef is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical eonle?enee usually necessary 30 Days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received antl permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 Days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy roust be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 Days
owner. On-site inspection. Pro-application conference usual. Fining
may require Easement to Fill from H.C. Department of (90 Days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct t operate Air Pollution Abstemint 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M.CW ) NIA (90 Days)
Any open burning assoeisted with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.LP q
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 Gays
NCAC ZD.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0620 9c

C'.ompte, Source Permit required unoer 15A NCAC 2D.;Z
:PCW,,,Z 0519 IuCRC :ZJ) .019,'03 (
Days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Contra Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion & socimentauo
control plan will be required If one w more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lano Ouahty Seca 1 at least 30 20 Days
days before be mrirn activity A lee of S30 for the first acts and 320.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoan the tan 130 asys)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 nays)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EMNR Sono amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mrrod greater then one Deft must be pemnrted The appropriate bona tw days)
must be fceived before the permit can be itaued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-Site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 Day
escaeda a days (NIA)
Special! Ground faaarance Burning Hfmii • 22 On-Site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "it more 1 Gay
Counties in easslai N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities we involved. fnspecuons (NIA)
Should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned °
90 120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA IN/A)
11 permit recurred. Application eo days afore begin construction.
Applicant must lure N.C. qualified engineer to. prepare plans 30 nays
Dam Safety Permit lnaptct Construetron, certify construction is according to EMNR approv
ad plans May also require permit under mosquito Control program Ana (60 Drys)
a 0-04 permit from Corps at Engineers An inspection of site is feces.
wry tp verify Hazard Classrficalron A minimum lee of &200.00 must ac. ,
Company the application An additional processing let based on a
Seroenta a or the total morect Cost will be feouue0 upon Completion
ft alp

PERMITS
Peerttlt to ariN e:pioretory ON or on watt
r amioralion PsmuI
State IJmas Constrixtion Permit
401 water O"ity canllication
LAMA Permit for MAJOR deralopnent
DI CAMA Mrmil Ion MINOR daretppment
OIL
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS
File surety bond Of 1+,000 with EMNR running to State of N.C.
ConO'"Onal that any wan opened by drift operator shall, upon
abandonment, be plugged at-Pn ng to EMNR ruses and regulations.
Application Mied with EMNR at bast 10 days poor to imam of
Application by Witter. No standard permit
application loan.
Application tae based on structure size is Charged. Must metude
descriptions L drawings of structure t proof of ownership
of nponan property.
If NIA
!250.00 lee must ac.-ompany application
3W.00 lee must aCCOmpany application
Several geodetic ithIMnents arm bested in or new the protect area. tf any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify;
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
limit)
10 Oars
(NIA)
10 days
(N/A)
15 20 Days
(NIA)
60 Days
(130 Daysi
55 Days
(150 days)
22 Days
(25 Days)
--m- o, any wells. if requlred, must be in aCrordance with TI14 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification Of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" undorDround store" tanks (UST5) see discovered Dunnp any e:cavatlon otxrauon.
D COmpliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Siormwitat Runts) is required,
45 Days
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being Certain to cite Comment authority): 1NIA)
?K ?-? 5 % 5Ir+F?.t? `--51?>l ctrl /(.rust ?.?Oo/s't f 1j
t' 1z-t-o,--vAd .c w1736 !'V Cc>aTs ?1?? C?2tltsr., , ? ?L L A 7?W/7-,/
"rb lA-St6>1
/
-(? 7ytZ7- wtk7klL cC?I?s,?-S ?•+,? SkQ -k N?4?? f•?? /?3 ?'iC-Z t_ /? io L yec p-
6 F 97 '41-; LE-
Ouestitxls n ardtn these REGIONAL OFFICES
f?0 g permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Asheville Reptonal Office
1110 Woodfin ? Fayetteville Regional Office
Piece 0'
Asheville, NC 28801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
[phone] (9;9) 486.1555, C 2L
1 28301
D Mooresville Regional Office
919 North M ? Ralei
ph R
h
i
l
ain Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115 eg
g
office
ona
3800 Barrett Onve. Suite 101
(704) 6631699 Raleigh, NC 27609

? W
ashington Re
ional Offi [phone]
g
1424
ce Carolina Avenue ? wifmington Regional office

8.5
Was
(919) ?4h-6?6inpton,481 NC 27889
127 Caroinsi Drive E:icnsion
Wilmington. NC 28405

?

Wi
S (919)
395•J900
nston-
alem Re9ionat pflice
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston Salem. NC 27106
(919) 8967007

3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 21, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study for Wilson, NC 42, from 1-95 to
SR 1165, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project STP-
42(1), State Project 8.1340801, TIP U-3472, ER 98-
9307
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
;c??v o
iA 2 4 1998
?•F LIV,Si07t C. F t( /
HiGht'VAVS
a4
• J
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by John J. Mintz and Brian D. Smith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following sites are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places since they do not contain the integrity or the artifact density to contribute
significantly to our understanding of history or prehistory: 31 WL253 * *, 31 WL254,
31 WL258 * *, 31 WL260* *. Sites 31 WL256 * *, 31 WL257 * *, and 31 WL259 * * are historic
cemeteries which are not considered eligible for inclusion.
Site 31 WL261 will require additional work to fully assess its eligibility. We concur with the
suggested stripping of the site rather than additional shovel testing or test excavations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
4Davld Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: vW. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett
c7a
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
n^ R
r 13?
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Richard H. Moore. Secretary
Dept of Crime Control & Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
National Flood Insurance Program
STATE NUMBER: 98-E-4220-0194
APPLICANT: NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DESC: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 42 FROM I-95 TO SR 1165 (FOREST HILLS
DR) IN WILSON COUNTY, NC; TIP #U-3472
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the regulatory 100 year floodplain as shown on
the published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) must be constructed in accordance with the .?
Local Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Any portion of the proposed project that affects the floodway as determined by firm maps for anN
specific area should obtain a "No Impact Certification" or a "Conditional Letter of ?-iap
Revision" (CLOMR) or must fully comply with part 65.7 of 44 CFR. All CLOMR or LOMR
requests must approved by the local officials prior to being submitted to FEMA.
2h im-w*
Division of Emergency Management - NFIP
[phone]
W/ 7 h7
Date
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

ATE,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager '
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of TransRortation
???iL7
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165
(Forest Hills Drive), Wilson County,
Federal Aid Project STP-42(1), State
Project 8.1340801, TIP U-3472, 98-E-
4220-0194
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?^ O
t k.OF
nF;a?iVVAYS ?Q.
• ` AROMA
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church (WL 1480), south side of NC 42, 0.6
mile east of junction with SR 1 160
Because the survey of historic architectural resources in Wilson County is over
fifteen years old, we recommend that an architectural historian with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation survey the project's area of potential effect
and report the findings to us.
After reviewing the project, we note that there is one recorded site within the
project area, 31 WL224, and that the project crosses several high probability areas.
We, therefore, recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted to locate
any unknown archaeological resources and evaluate their significance according to
criteria for the National Register of Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick
10/10/97, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
Wilson County Historic Properties Commission
B. Church
T. Padgett
1\
edera! a=d T STP- L4 TIP # U•M12- Count}' yV I ?56Y1
On 2 1 fjl a gg . representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Hiighwav Administration (F-nVA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation OFce (SI-TO)
Other
eviewed the st:bject project and agreed
there are no e.'tec:s on the National Register-listed prope-zy within the project':
- --rea of potential e:;ec: and listed or, the ; e :-e:se.
there are no e:ie- s on the National Register-e!iaibie properties located witiun the
.
project's area of potential e5ect and listed on the reverse.'
there is an e5ect on the National Register-listed prop e.^ty/properties wid, in the
proje^'s arm of potential eze-. The proce.-ty-properies and the e!iec:(s) are
lister on the reverse.
vll?
there is an e::ect on the National Register-eiigible prope.:r/properties within the
project's area of potential The prope ;;,r/properties and er:ec:(s) are listen
on the reverse.
S ianed
Representgtivi NCWT, Historic Architec:oral Resources Se--:ion
Fl-5VA, fad the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
?Ag/ 5
Date
Representative, SHPO Dat
IA L 2- ZLf a
tabs-^"r Presen-ation Offtcef D ct

CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Federal Aid T :5TP- y u i TIP T U' 3y }Z County V X11 SC3Yl
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if propery is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined elizible (DE).
i
Prope-nes within area of potential effer for which there is an e ect. indicate prope.^v starus (\R
or DE) =nd describe a ec:.
C one ex\kr,-ate. Pri mN,\1 v e- Bap?ist Duw &) COE)
Cona hon al no a-cUu se. e.?Ve&
a
Reason(s) why e::ect is not adverse (ifacplicabie).
Nc'DoT' o,q?u.QS ?p t??ow 51-}PD l?a re?V r t,?,?
3 cornmex\1 a? me?iGtr1 Cues
1
Initialed: NCDOT ?4 FHNVA SHPO ZQ-?
1 L L ?)y 1 L Ccurr: ?\l 1 IL)Orl
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT'S
Brief Projec: Desription
?n1i Pn tJGy2 from 1-q? !-a SiZ llf??
On representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transporzationo(NCDOT)
Federal I-Iistnwav Administration (Fi-I` A)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation OFce (Sc-:PO)
Other
reviewed the subject Projec: and a! reed
VV
there are no e:re-s on the National Register-liste_ oroce-v within the proie="
-ea of ootenti: i e::ec: a.*tc Iisted on thz reverse.
there are no a^ects on the Na::enai Re_ister-e!i¢ cie crcee-ies located wit:,in IM--
prole- '; area of potentiai e::ec: and listed on the rever=e.
t; ere is an e^e- on t`e National Register-listed properr,"arooe-ies within the
proie= 's area of potential The properri-procemes and the e.;ec;(s) are
:iced on the reverse.
Unere is an A,=ec: on the National Register-e!imbie
?rooe..ri;,rooe.-ies within the
proje,--.'s area of potential ewer;. The properz-riproce-:es c-c e:te -,(s) are listed
on the reverse.

t -Aar,,.,,,,
lZe?,
DOT, historic :architec;?ral Resources Se--:ion
Date
FHtiV or the Division . dministrator, or other Federal Astenc! Date
!tin ;
Representative, S 0 Date
f Y d
_A/ state Historic Prese-1at1Cn O('iicer /'Date
(ov--r)
10.1• Igge
1
F_deral Aid .T S?f f ?Cr 1 ? 1 M T_ J 1 1? Counr" ? 1 1?O• 1
Properties within area of potential ezect for which there is no ere=. Indicate if proper y is
NIatIcnai Re`ister-listed (VTR) or determined eiiszible (DE).

Proee-;eS within area of potential etie, for which there is an e.:ec:. Indicate prope.-,v status (vR
cr DE) a-d desc"be er:ec:.
ors tY4 r\erA- Prim'\) "ive Bof4 5; aurc- - Mo &cLvq.rse-
- r
??reC.?- ?6Z.. S-10.n? CLt11-h aX?. U?Zr SeC?iO?'1 GL.r?`
a 51-?v1d?r sec?ior?
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if acolicabie).

Initialed: NCDOT Wa- FHWA LSD 5HP0 b,
Va
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 2, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widen NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165, Wilson County,
U-3472, Federal Aid Project STP-42(1), State Project
8.13140801, ER 98-8650
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1998, transmitting the historic structures survey
report by Jill Marie Lord concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under the criterion cited:
Contentnea Primitive Baptist Church. The seat of an early Primitive Baptist
congregation, this church is typical of Wilson County's nineteenth century rural
churches and is eligible under Criterion A.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places:
Daniel Farm. This farm lacks special historical significance and integrity.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
L? ?avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
? ?.
%
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
September 4, 1997
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
0
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
C,
i
`P G r 10,
J
1 V 1 ? _
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Dr.) in
Wilson County, NC; TIP #U-3472
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4220-0194. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 11/14/1997. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Fumey
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Ernploycr
09/08!1997 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONIVItN iAL. tiu&-"t I IN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS RECEIVED DURING TWO-WEEK PERIOD ENDING 0910511997
RECEIVED DATE: 0812911997
SCH #:98E42200183 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 09/29/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements i-95/NC 50 Interchange from NC 50 to 140 in Johnson County; TIP #1-2812
REGION: J COUNTY: Johnston
rnurerr• Whir WPhh PHONE: [phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0812911997
SCH 0:9SE46000184 TYPE: NEPA Other
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 0912911997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Commerce
DESC: Environmental Checklist for the COBG for the Town of East Ardadia Urgent Nees Project - Sanitary Sewer Improvements to Arcadia Village
Apartments; 97-C-0355
REGION: N COUNTY: Bladen
CONTACT: Stephanie Morris PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910211997
SCH #:9SE42200186 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10/02/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Improvements to Intersection US 70 and South Miami Blvd ( SR 1959) /Mineral Springs Road (SR 1917) TIP #U-2808
REGION: J COUNTY: Durham
CONTACT: Whit Webb PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997
SCH #:981242200191 TYPE: NEPA Scoping REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10/03/1997
APPLICANT: N .C. Department of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements to the US 74 Bypass from the Eastern Outer Loop to the Proposed Monroe Bypass Terminus at US 601 in Union and
Mecklenburg Counties; TIP#R-3329
REGION: F COUNTY: Union, Mecklenburg
CONTACT: Frank Vick
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997
SCH 0: 9BE000001 92 TYPE: NEPA Record of Decision
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 10/03/1997
APPLICANT: Army Corps of Engineers
DESC: PCS Phosphate Company (formerly Texasgult, Inc.) Proposal to Continue Mining of Its Phosphate Reserve in Aurora, NC (this is being circulated
FYI only)
REGION: 0 COUNTY: Beaufort
CnNTACT: David Franklin PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910311997
SCH #: 9SE00000193 TYPE: NEPA Environmental Assessment
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 0913011997
APPLICANT: Army Corps of Engineers
DESC: Proposed Use of the Hopper Dredge'Curituck" with Overflow or Sidecast Dredge as Additional Maintenance Dredging Methods for Drum Inlet In
Carteret County, NC
REGION: P COUNTY: Carteret
rnNTACT: Frank Yelverton PHONE:[phone]
RECEIVED DATE: 0910411997
SCH 9:98E42200194 TYPE: NEPA Scoping
REVIEW CLOSE DATE: 11/14/1997
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept of Transportation
DESC: Proposed Improvements to NC 42 from 1-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Dr.) in Wilson County, NC; TIP #U-3472
REGION: L COUNTY: Wilson
PHONE:[phone]
rnNTAr_T- Fronk Vick PHONE:[phone]
OF Wq
1L ?1
ti ^'ORTH ?'?
office of the
City Engineer
September 16, 1997
CITY OF W LSON
norik Carolina
i RCOAOCA.rED 1"9
27894-0010
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
. ' G E._I FO
ScP 1 1997 z:
?r
RE: NC 42, from 1-95 to SR 1165 ( Forest Hills Rd.) Wilson County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1), State Project No. 8.1340801,
TIP Project No. U-3472
Dear Mr. Vick:
The City of Wilson does not anticipate any environmental impacts from the above
project, however, the expansion of Buckhorn Reservoir does involve Contentnea
Creek which is nearby this project. No permits will be required from Public Services.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at (919)-399-2465.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WILSON
'? '?'fv A?
Gary L. Mills, P.E.
Assistant Public Services Director / City Engineer
P.O. BOX 10, WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 PH: [phone]
OPERATIONS CENTER: [phone] FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
APPENDIX 2
RELOCATION REPORT
1[_ RELOCATION REPORT 11
El E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 * SECTION 1 - CURB & GUTTER
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM I-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR.) IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 2 4 6 2 1 3 2 0 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0.150 1 0.20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2D 40M 150-250 3 20-40M 25 150.250 10
Yea No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 2 250-400 40.70m 38 250-400 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70.100M 400-600 70-100m 39 400-600 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 2 4 102 30
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESSES ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION..
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY
- 6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. NOTE: DEANS CEMETERY - APPROXIMATELY 25 GRAVES
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Note: For relocation reports
X 11. Is public housing available? Section 1 -1-95 to US 264
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Section 2 - US 264 to Wilson Christian Rd intersection
housing available during relocation period? Section 3 - Wilson Christian intersection
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Section 4 - Wilson Christian intersection to SR 1165
financial means?
O
1
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list -
No
source). V
161998
?
15. Number months estimated to complete
?-

RELOCATION? 6-12
*Note: Proposed ROW width is the same for a 5-lane
curb and gutter section or a 4-lane divided median,
therefore, this relocation report applies to both.
Ze
R. B.
REVISED 11-6-98
Relocation Agent Date A roved b Date
Form 15 4 RwuW 02195 d Original 8'YCopy.' 'State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 1 - SHOULDER SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
::::....: ::,y...t...
-•'^°°°-?°°-?"'
NC 42 FROM I-95 TO S
R 1165 FOREST HILL DR. N WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 9 5 14 3 2 4 6 1 1
Businesses GLUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M 1 $ also 1 0-20M $ o-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2D-40M 0 160.250 3 2640M 25 IW250 10
Yea No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 6 260400 1 40-70M 38 260400 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70.1o0M 1 404800 70-100M 39 404600 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 goo up 100 up 600 up
displacement? TOTAL 9 5 102 30
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by NUnlbar)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESSES ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION..
Indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
- = employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
X 7. WIII additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. NOTE: DEANS CEMETERY - APPROXIMATELY 25 GRAVES
__.. families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. WIII there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available past
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCAnON1 6-12

R. B. CHADWICK REVISED 11-6-98 rx~:. /
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
onginal 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Olnce
RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP42 1 SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO SR 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Businesses
Farms
Non-Prof t
Owners I Tenants 11, Total
01 11 1
Minorities 1 0-1
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers.
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
X 3. Will business services still be available after
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
Employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there Will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6
Altemate
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
1 0 0 0 0
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
0-20M i 0-160 0-20M $ 0-160
20-40M 160-260 20-40m 13 150-250 10
40-70M 250-400 40-70M 26 260400 12
70-100M 400400 70-100M 27 400400 8
100 up Goo UP 100 UP- Goo UP
TOTAL 0
1 1 10
1
30
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
3. NO BUSINESS ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION.
6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
11. WILSON COUNTY .
12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY.
14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
1
R. CHADWICK 10-02-98 r /4 S- S?
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d Original d 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent

2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION 'REPORT
a E.I.S. E] CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
- NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-1 M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 0 0
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0.20M $0-150 1 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040m 1 150-250 20-40M 13 150.250 10
1'ea No Explain all "YES" answers. 40.70M 2 250400 40.70M 26 250.400 12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-800 70400M 27 4004600 8
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 400 up
displacement? TOTAL 3 1 102 30
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. NO BUSINESS ACQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
Employees, minorities, etc. 8. AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. WILSON COUNTY /
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. OR BUILT IF NECESSARY. l
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. MLS, NEWSPAPERS, REALTORS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it fell there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATIONS 6

A
R. CH
D lC 10-02-98
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Farm 15.4 Revved 02/95 d
Original b 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
II RELOCATION . REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
ED E.I.S. [::] CORRIDOR F__J DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1340801 COUNTY WILSON Altemate of Altemate
I.D. NO.: U-3472 F.A. PROJECT STP-42 1 SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
NC 42 FROM 1-95 TO S R 1165 FOREST HILLS DR. IN WILSON CO.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0.20M $0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 150-250 20-40M 160-260
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-400 70.100M 400600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up Soo up
displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NO RELOCATION ON THIS SECTION.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). J
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
- 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

L ?
R.B. CH ADW
/ 10-02-98
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15 4 Reread 02195 d Original d 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Once
APPENDIX 3
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
H
01
CI
ro
a
N
1`
M
I
W O
rn a
H
E
YC
z W
W
W
M
N z U
U c
M 0
w m
w '4
z
E
N
a
U
z
to d' of d' M M M M IA d' d' M rI N N N M M N t0 M %0 V -0 M N
N a a

x 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
N 1 1 I I
I
( I
1 I
I 1
I

I'a
10
Io
M
r
O
Io
4•
?o
N
r
t'?
Io I
t
N
P
t0
Io
M
e?
O
?o
OI
?o
O
n
•"1
r
O
Io
O?
?u
m
?o
U1
Io
M
Io I
1
O
n I
1
3 1
I
3
!`
%D
O
h
0
IO
0
ID
M
W
0-1
r
3

1 1 1
M I 1
? 1 I 1
z 1 I
p >'
t t I 1 1 1 1 j I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I ; i l l l l l l

U
1 I 1 1
Q
O
O I
a 1
.7 1 1 1 I 1 I i
I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 i
t 1 i
I i
I I 1 1 1 1 1
6
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
E
H
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 p [
W O In o 01 OI ID M 0? O Ill M r M O O O O N N O M •T O? d <n O 0D N O
N O ,[ d' •i M N ,-1 M ,i ,i fl' ,-1 M N N N M N M 'd' U1 ei N •-1 M N N M -0 N
U

O
V
W c
t H

o W d

?o I
a
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
A. z N I
h
0
,
d
E a
z
to
M ~ N OI d' IO 0? el' OI T r/ OI d' ID OI OI IO P U1 N r1 QI V' !? M V V M N N M
z a w ?o ?o ?o ?o .o ?o m ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o Io ?o ?o .o ?o ?o ?o
a
V

m
3
H I
i
L
i
t
[
t
t
[
[
i
[
L
[
i
t
t
t
[
i
i
L
t
t
L
!
L
f
t
H a ~ z
z
P4
? w
w
a
m m m m m m m m m
? v m m m m m m m v m m m m m m m o m m m
H ?
v
t
O 14 01 01 01 01 01 m 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
w W m 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 m U U U U 0 U U m U 0 U 0 0 U U U U 0 .0 U
i3 m c c c c c c c m c c c c c c c m c c c c c c c c c c c c
M O 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 01 01 01 01 07 01 01
- 01
a -.I
1I c
+i b
.4 ?
•.1 •o
.a "°
+1 b
.4 ?°
+1 'c
.4 c
+1 v
.A b
-.r b
Y+ ?o
++ b
+I b
•.1 b
.1 -
..1
+I
..I
•.i
.4 4
.4 .1 --4
•a °
•4 .°
+1 -o
-4 v
+1 o
...I v
-.I
0 m m m m m m m 0 0 m 0 0 m m o m m
a
i a a
i a
i d m a1 m 0
) a m m 0
1 a
t at 001 01 00 00 a
t 0
a m m a a a a a a a m a a a a a a a m a a a a a a a a a a a a
W
U
pq
'-
1 N
M
d
' Ill
IO
P
OD
OI
O
rl
N
M
d
' U1
ID
P
co
OI
O
-4
N
M
-0
IA
ID
!-

CD

OI
04 Q r l •- 1 r l r l r l •-1 r l rl .-1 ei N N N N N N N N N N
N
O
m ?
m 00
3
,d
m w
0 0
w
W 4)
0c C
.
43 w
O
80
w 01
41
m x
c 01
M
41 to
09
-d
V
O m
U m
m lu
4.) d
O -4
001 0)
v a
>/ c
1
W
ti 54
O
0 4)
A U
+4 b
411 m
O N
U !`
41
0) m
,-1 a:
lu a
+4 U
M
N
m
w
ro
b U
fd to
0 0.
w
4) a)
m m
+I
0 c
am
ami w
0 0
c c
'O b
I L
a«
1 =

N
01
ea!
a
N
1`
v'
r1
I
U3 D
00 ?
U a
H
E
z z
as
N
a
H
Ezc°?
r C
H 0
w
C
3
E
N
v'
z
61

13 O

11
N
10
r1 N
\
l?
v'
rl
r1
r1
r1
Uf
IA
rf
N
r1
N
rl
rl
rt
N
r1
rl
N
r1
a0 0 ej N 1

z
x + + + + + + ! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
64
H I 1
I
I 1
I

N
?? y
\
w
O
1!1 ?
1`
0 I
1
O?
w
w
h
m
1`
01 1
1
m
N
H
N
i
m
fry
m
r
w
w
o
ls
+ ? w 1? ?o ?o ?o ,3 ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?0 3 r r r t? P ?o P ?o ?o ?o ?o I?
W7 M Ln
ea 4t a « « « « « a « « « « « « «
N

H I I
1 I
Z I
I I I I l l j l l l l l l l j l l l l l l l l l l l l

H
I
I
I
a s 1 1
^ I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
b
41 1 1
C
O
U
E
v OD
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
H
m m r4 0

3 I
i

01

0

o

O

?

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
A
%
of
H
d
to rl O V rl O O v %D v r1 en m en O rl H O N ID -i co a
1 en
- en
- in e O
v' N ? rn en N N fn N N N rl N H H H N .-4 . 0 .
4 N n V M N
a ?a
? U
U H a
?
A a
i a

P4 W V
w
?o
Z U)
0 H 0
a
0 1
f
t I
:
i
t
t
t
=
_
=
i
i H I
?
?
i
c
c
c
t
i
c
c
t
c
t
c
o 0 a a
0
4
a ii
z N N 1

i° a
? c
b 1

E-4 N a
m
o 4
c
en
0
H w ?
H o
0 v at v H N N 1` m r1 in V' in c4 v o O o co c O N o t` v' N %D c-
m z .3 1
1 W %D %D
V %D en eD ID %0 W e0 %D %D %D %D
04 1` r- r W 1` P ID I` %D 10 %D e0 %D
a %D `O O
N
0 m
•
-4
3 1
Y
N a <T
C
N
0 z p

,
2 i i t L t t i i t t t = V s s c s s f L c c t t t
U
)
0
H 1
H z m z m z
a
z
x 41
0 C
a w a

O U' 04 m m m 04 U m m m m 0 0 m m N U m m m m m m m 0 m 0 0 0
14 $4 $4
1-4 E4

I I ?
H 01 01 N 01 m 01 01 01 01 01 N 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
0 17 O U V m 0 0 0 O m m U U m O D U U U 0 U m O m m m
z Ul r. C C C C m C C C C m m C C C m C C C C C C C m C m m m
o J» 01 m 0 01 C 0 01 01 01 0 0 m 01 01 0 m 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 m 01 01 m 01
+1 U b b +1 V 0 C b b b V C C V b +1 C b b b b V V V C V C C C
iJ W •.1 •.1 JJ •4 W "4 +1 .4 "1 •.I -a .1 *A •.1 o .1 4 "4 -.1 +1 +1 -4 •.I •.1 •.1 .4 •a +1
u a m m n m a m m m m m m m m m o m m m m m m m m m m m m
a m
W

ao ?7 m 0 a a J a 0
a a
a a a a a 00 o n o a a J m a a a a a a a o o o a in a
s go
o
U
Od 'IM O H N r1 -0 v1 %D I- 0) Ko N m v u1 eD t- co 0, O H N
r) r1 rl en r1 cn r1 d V v v a v v m w m of en en en
H
00
at
m \
>4 Go
to
'O
ed 11
0 0
1? -4
x 41
0
o .4
w 1e
w 01
V
0 m
+1 m
7 m
ja g
vI
0m
m
.-e
m 4)
01 >
C H
b m
?4
1+ C
PQ
ro o
c ON
-01 41
A U
14 C
0 id
0 N
U h
t`
.-1
D $4
m ro
.a a
m a
-me U
C m
N
m
11
01
to
>. a
fd
'30 U
Id cd
W E
m m
+1
14 C
a Id
a? d
0 0
C C
b b
1 t
1 f

m
41
O
ro
a
N
n
1
W O
w4k
tQo a
W H
H
OC
z W
W
m
H
F z V
U C
M 0
w m
w '4
3
a?
E
N
z

04

m

N

m

m

m

m

N

N

m

N

m

N

M

m

m

v

N

N N

N V

I

N

r-1

N

N

N

H

H

•-1

.-1
N
y a
?
M
z
z
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
a
M
o %D
L!1 V'
n n n n w m w m m m 0 w tD 0 H .-1 M M O o-I m O W M O M n r - H
?D ?D ?D •v ?D ?D ?D ?D ?D ?D n ?D ?D ?D n n ?D ?D n n ?D ?D ?D ?D n ?D ?D ?D n
147
64 H
0
W
m
M
z
I
p ?'
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

M
Q
14
a
a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0
.1
0:
a
.4
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3 H
4N-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q Ca %D en IA V O %D Ch O V O V M 0% N M N O CO V 'l rl W N N V Ifl n1 V
O
N O P1 fn m m w N N en V' M N ry N N 11 N N N N N N N m V' N N rn M N

a

a
W
? .
W I
a ? I

m
?o

E1
w ''I
Go
N
H I" a et 1A V' s1' N? ?D ?D tD N 1D n ?D It1 tD tD n n n \ \ ?D to ?D r1 O m ?D ?D O
04
z
%D
1D
%D
%D
%D
0
%D
%D
%D
%D
%D
%D
%0
%D
M
r%
%D
%D
%0
%D
kD
%D
%D
%D
r-
M
0 O
41

co
x N
W I
-+ 3
O \ v s e = = s e e c s = _ = s s s s s s s : e : = s : s s s
?
ea
z -4 z
.-I
W
? a

z
V
m
m
m
V
m
m
m
V
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
W
pO
On
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
E H p4
1
?, m at d m m m a? m aI m m a1 m m a1 m to o1 01 01 m a1 a? w
W m U U U m U U U m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
H C m C C C m C C C W C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
? 0 01 01 01 01 01 m 01 01 01 Ol m 01 01 m m m m 01 .-I X 01 OI m m 01 01 01 OI
. m
'
a 4
41 C
-A v
..1 b
-A -o
-4 C
-A o
-4 b
+1 b
.4 a
.4 b
-4 b
•d b
-A b
• 4 b
•d b
+1 v
+1 'o
+1 b
? 4 0
O U
W 10
+I '0
•d 'O
•d
• 4
..1
-A .0
-A 0
•d 0
-A
U m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m r. 0 m m m m m m m m m
01 0 01 m 01 0 01 01 01 A d 0 01 01 v 01 01 01 01 0 .9 0 01 m 01 01 01 01 01 m
,-1 to m a a a m W. a a m a a a a a a a a a in U a a a a a a a a a

-
4
N ? 0% 0 n in ? n r f, co g co m W
a A Ln LO in ? r
0 ["
o ? ? to to ? n c
o a
o co
H
O
m ?
00
v
ro ?
O 0
N -.d
14
U W
? C
O -1
$4
0 .4
$4 W
w W
m x
0 °)
.4 m
41 ro
-.4
'
I
$4 0
4
0 m
U m
.-1
m d
d >
41 O!
0 ?i
N 01
10 m
G
W
b w
0
0 4)
.
4 y
41 U
t:
$4
ro
O N
U n
.n
4) 4J
W b
r+ a
to w
-4 U
C N
N
m
w
> a
3 41
V ro
10+ E
d 01
m m
4
O G
$4
lad
m m
at a?
bb
I s
a «
I =

V
m
a
a
Ad
N
N
i
aN ?
D ?
Qy M
W H
z W >z
W N C
M
H z v
U C
H 0
a. m
w 4
3
N
qw
z
? N
W .a a
M
z a z +
H
N
M
a
la
N
z
1
O H 1
W 1
M
Q
a 1
a a 1
E
H n'
H
3 M O
Q Q
H ?[ C4
a r7 N
U
U) J?
WR W o 1
U
a z 1
N
%D
z
W
p° z o 'O
V
w
V
H 1 z 3 Hi N
N z d
?D
z i az
W ?
>4 a
0: ?'
IO.1
H ?
a 1
as '"
z M m
11.1 O O m
41 -4
H
a m ?
la
U
W M
a A ao
M
IWI
I
co
m \
3 %D
'O
a w
O O
N +1
N
14 0)
.C C
O
o
w >a
w m
m x
O m
-.4 m
+1 a
7
A
$4 O
41 C
o m
v m
to m
m >
++ m
0
? m
H C
w
.0 0
.4 y
A U
$4 C
4 a
O N
U P
00 m
? a
m a
U
-4
O
C f'1
N
m
m W
>q a
3 '++
b U
$4 E
d m
m m
14
?0
O
14
wa
Ai 41
0 0
C C
m m
V b
1 t
a«
I s
APPENDIX 4
WETLAND INFORMATION
Wetlands Located Within the Project Area
Each of the thirteen jurisdictional wetlands located within the project study area
are described below. The wetlands have been separated according to their location along
NC 42. Approximate estimations of impact area that may occur to each wetland are
provided. Jurisdictional wetlands associated with this project should be delineated to
provide a more accurate estimation of impacts:
North Side of NC 42
Wetland 1
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflower, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly. The estimated
area of impact is approximately 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of
l OYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is
Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1).
Wetland 3
The site is dominated by Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane, smartweed, bugleweed,
sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils.
This wetland is isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is
approximately 0.1 hectare ( 0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of
3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 5
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fem, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.04 hectare ( 0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of 1 OYR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 6
The site is dominated by tickseed sunflower, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.08 hectare (0.2 acre). Soils at the wetland
had a hue of l OYR, a value of 6, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this
site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 7
The site is dominated by netted chain fern, tickseed sunflower, Cyperus, soft rush,
giant cane, smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, water oak. a
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is isolated and highly disturbed.
The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.26 hectare (0.6 acre). Soils at the
I
wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification
for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 9
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.41 hectare
(1.0 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of IOYR, a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO1). This site is within the project limits of 9-1023 AB.
Wetland 11
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.17 hectare
(0.4 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO 1).
Wetland 12
The site is dominated by greenbrier, water oak, yellow jessamine, willow oak,
sweet pepperbush, sweet gum, sourwood, Southern red oak, huckleberry, and wax myrtle.
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.12 hectare (0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1).
South Side of NC 42
Wetland 2
The site is dominated by soft rush, giant cane, cattail, silverling, Asian spiderwort,
red maple, and sweet gum. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is
small, isolated and highly disturbed. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.05 hectare (0.1 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
Wetland 4
The site is dominated by Virginia chain fern, Cyperus, soft rush, giant cane,
smartweed, bugleweed, sweet gum, red maple, loblolly pine, and water oak. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland is small, isolated and highly disturbed. The
estimated area of impact is approximately 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had
a hue of l OYR, a value of 4, and a chroma of 2. The Cowardin classification for this site
is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO 1).
Wetland 8
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.15 hectare
(0.4 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PF01). This site is within the project limits of R-1023 A.B.
Wetland 10
The site is dominated by lizard's tail, sedge, sedge, red maple, black willow, ditch
stone crop, Asian spiderwort, chesnut oak, soft rush, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators are saturated soils. This wetland lies adjacent to Shepard's Branch [DWQ
Index No. 27-86-(5.7)]. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.12 hectare
(0.3 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR , a value of 3, and a chroma of 2. The
Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
(PFO1).
Wetland 13
The site is dominated by greenbrier, water oak, yellow jessamine, willow oak,
sweet pepperbush, sweet gum, sourwood, Southern red oak, huckleberry, and wax myrtle.
Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils. The estimated area of impact is approximately
0.32 hectare (0.8 acre). Soils at the wetland had a hue of l OYR, a value of 3, and a
chroma of 1. The Cowardin classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-
Leaved Deciduous (PFO1).
rv zz
I i •? \ I i
i I W ? I j/ " 1
O
CD
CD auS 1
- -_ coo- ? •
ti
(D
N
(n
szoor,,7L
Swam t
(/) --- --
=?
N
-j
00
Z SGNv-I.LBM"VNO1101Qswnr 0NV s631M 30djans d0 NOLLV
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources ,. n .,
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor FN 1%
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 1, 1999
NI IEi\10RANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn ??
From: John Hennessy
Subject: Comments on EA (and Natural Resources Technical Report) for Widening of NC 42 from
I-95 to SR 1165
State Project # S. 1340801, TIP # U-3472
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact waters of the state
including wetlands. Completion of the project as proposed in the Environmental Assessment will require
the discharge of fill material into a maximum of 3.454 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 552 linear feet of
streams. The 552 linear feet of stream impacts is distributed among 5 perennial streams. None of the
streams are expected to have impacts greater than 150 linear feet. Moreover, the proposed impacts were
calculated using the entire proposed right-of-way. Consequently, site specific impacts to water resources
are likely to be less than those proposed. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the
aforementioned document:
A) Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams were calculated using the entire Right
of Way. While the methodology is excellent for determining the maximum potential impact, the
NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical prior to
approval of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Based on the impacts described in the EA,
wetland mitigation could be required for this project. As discussed above, potential impacts were
estimated using the entire right-of-way for the impact footprint. Therefore, site specific
implementation could result in impacts of less than 1.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Should
the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands actually exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in
accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) ).
B) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Based on the
information presented in the EA, none of the streams are expected to have impacts in excess of 150
linear feet. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules
115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
^n Equal Opportunity ^„''irrra+i:e ^cticn Bmployer 50% recycle / 1n? pest-ccnsumer raper

Melba McGee Memo
04101199
Page 2
C) Sediment and erosion control measures should not placed in wetlands.
D) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
E) The document is mute on impacts to Neuse Buffers. A quantification of the anticipated impacts to
Neuse Buffers should be included in future documentation. Please be advised that impacts to
Neuse Buffers will require approval by the NCDWQ via an application submittal.
F) Future documentation should address the proposed methods for stormwater management
G) Based on the information presented in the EA, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams
could potentially require the issuance of an individual permit by the Corps of Engineers; and
therefore, a 401 General Certification will not be available for this project. However, as
previously discussed, the methodology used to determine the potential impacts probably
overestimates the project's actual impacts. A 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream
uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the
NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be
contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical and inclusion of appropriate mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Danny Smith, NCDWQ Regional Office
C:\ncdot\T1P U-3472\ U-3472 FONS1.doc
s State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 30, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO. Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator-A-5
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0194; WQS# 11780
NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165
TIP U-3472; Wilson County
?NTA?`s``?rr?rc
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
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
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G . If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. 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.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H. The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
I. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new roads, highways and interchanges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary roads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 4
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road improvements
and interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area and along
connector streets that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may also result in increased stream sedimentation or loss of wetlands. And over the
longer term, development features such as increased impervious surface areas and
stormwater drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems.
Predictable impacts could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and
streams, loss of aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. DWQ is also concerned about secondarywetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
L. 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 DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off 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 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0194 DOT Scoping
October 30, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis:\980194 NC 42 Nilson Co. Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit
9 .
to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may
destroy or modify proposed critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which
the Service does not have enough scientific information to
support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant
listing at the present time. These species receive no statutory
protection under the ESA, but could become candidates in the
future if additional scientific information becomes available
indicating that they are endangered or threatened. Formal
listing places the species under the full protection of the ESA,
and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area
is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NCDOT to
avoid any adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
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 you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
AL)Z?4 -?-" /?O
Howard F. Hall
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Attachment
CJ "
John orney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USA Corps of Engineers, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, US EPA, Atlanta, GA
FWSFrank/R4:HHMcBall:ride,10/29/9NCWRC,7:NWPo:A:rthswilide,u3472NC.097
cc:
MENT OF l
LO 9
9
ACN 9 ?0a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND IVILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 29, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Improvements to NC 42, TIP No. U-3472,
Wilson County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of August 26, 1997, requesting
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the above-
referenced project. This report provides scoping information and
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). This report also serves as initial scoping comments
to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Your letter indicates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 42 from a two-lane
roadway to a multi-lane facility. The proposed project has been
divided into two sections. Section A would extend from the I-
95/NC 42 interchange (the western terminus) to the proposed
future interchange with US 264. Both a five-lane shoulder
section and a five-lane curb-and-gutter section will be
considered for this section. Section B would extend from US 264
interchange to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Drive). Only a five-lane
curb-and-gutter design will be considered for this section.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations,
we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations should help guide
the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Regarding
avoidance and minimization of impacts, we generally recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to
existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use
existing crossings and/or occur on structure wherever feasible.
Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and circulation regimes without scouring or
impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed. Highway
shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized
by using appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques.
Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside the seasons of fish spawning and migratory bird
nesting.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state
permits at the time of public notice issuance. Resource agency
coordination should occur early in the planning process to
resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the
following (the level of detail should be commensurate with the
degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project,
including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action and an analysis of the
alternatives for the proposed project that were considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads, if applicable,
and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the action area of the proposed project which may be
directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, that are to be impacted by filling, dredging,
clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Wetland impact
acreages should be differentiated by habitat type based on
the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and
permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result
of the proposed project. The assessment should also include
the extent to which the proposed project would result in
secondary impacts to natural resources and how this and
similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would
be employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct
loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other
mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland
crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend
that every effort be made to identify compensatory
mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should
include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for
offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via
conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached page identifies the federally-listed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species that are known to occur in
Wilson County. Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available
habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present
within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Environmental documentation should
include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this
guidance, the following information should be included in the
environmental document regarding protected species. The level of
detail should be commensurate with the degree of environmental
impacts:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed
species and the habitat of the species that may be affected
by the action, including the results of any onsite
inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed
species and associated habitat which includes consideration
of.
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the
effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors
leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and
private activities in the project area and cumulative
effects area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the
proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are
part of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the
action under consideration); and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private
activities (not requiring federal agency involvement)
that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect
any listed species or associated habitat including project
proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or
the degradation of habitat are all ways in which listed
species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measurement
of potential effects. Criteria may include post-project
population size, long-term population viability, habitat
quality, and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the
project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect
threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which
the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no
statutory protection under the ESA, federal agencies are required
i J ( 5,-V
3-::)-) -9-?

-IT
C ,?j
J ?
24-
iJ
/4 Z-
.9
n ? 51AT[
RECEIVED
1,14R 1 01997,
EIVVIR ONhfENTAL SCIENCES
^IJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 6, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM-DEHNR
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager ??
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest
Hills Drive), Wilson County, State Project No. 8.1340801,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-42(1), TIP U-3472
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 March 27, 1997 at 1:30 P.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 Rob Hanson, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, extension 249.
RH/j i
Attachment
6)
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: March 5, 1997
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
TIP # U-3472 _ Programming
_x_ Planning
PROJECT # 8.1340801 _ Design
F. A. PROJECT # STP-42(1)
DIVISION: 4
COUNTY: Wilson
ROUTE: NC 42 from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Arterial
LENGTH: 5.5 miles (8.8 kilometers)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: To increase the traffic carrying capacity and improve the
safety of NC 42. NC 42 is a major facility providing access to the City of Wilson from
Interstate 95.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proposed
project will include widening NC 42 to a multi-lane facility from I-95 to SR 1165 (Forest
Hills Road). The US 264 Wilson Bypass (TIP Project R-1023) will include a new
interchange on this section of NC 42. The new interchange will be constructed prior to
construction of U-3472.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA completion - July 1998
FONSI completion - June 1999
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO x
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT:
($) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges 0* Grade Separations 0* Stream Crossings 2
*assumes interchange at I-95 will not be included in this project, new interchange
with US 264 Bypass to be constructed as part of TIP Project R-1023
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: Two lane shoulder section, short sections of three lanes near
entrances to subdivisions
Proposed: Five lane shoulder from I-95 to proposed US 264
Five lane curb and gutter from proposed US 264 to SR 1165
TRAFFIC (ADT):
Current (1997): 10,800 at eastern end of project, 5400 at western end
Design Year (2025): 21,300 at eastern end of project, 12,900 at western end
2 %TTST 3 % DUAL 10 % DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO x 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 50 mph for curb and gutter sections
60 mph for shoulder sections
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) $ 11,900,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation, utilities and
acquisition) (TIP Right of Way Estimate) $ 3,500,000
Force Account Items $
Preliminary Engineering $
Total Cost $ 15,400,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction $ 9,300,000
Right of Way $ 3,500,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE $ 12,800,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Est imated Cost of Improvements:
x Pavement: $
x Surface $ 1,340,800
x Base $ 1,901,200
- Milling and Recycling $
- Turnouts $
_ Shoulders
- Paved $
- Earthen $
x Earthwork $ 1,215,020
- Subsurface Items $
x Subgrade and Stabilization $ 592,325
x Drainage (List any special items) $ 979,500
- Sub-Drainage $
x Structures Width x Length
- Bridge Replacement $
x New Bridge 68' x 120' $ 530,400
- Widen Bridge $
x Remove Bridge 28' x 60' $ 13,440
x New Culvert 2@10' x 8' x 44' long $ 56,760
- Culvert Extension $
- Retaining Walls $
- Noise Walls $
- Other Misc. Structures $
x Concrete Curb and Gutter $ 316,800
_ Concrete Sidewalk $
- Guardrail $
- Fencing: WW and or CL $
x Erosion Control $ 92,000
- Landscaping $
- Lighting $
x Traffic Control $ 180,900
- Signing:
- New $
- Upgraded $
- Traffic Signals
- New $
x Revised $ 20,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED(X) COMMENTS COST
RR Signals:
- New $
_ Revised $
- With or Without Arms $
If 3R
- Drainage Safety Enhancement $
- Roadside Safety Enhancement $
- Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
x Utility Construction
x Water $ 300,000
x Sewer $ 175,000
x Pavement Markings
_ Paint $
x Thermo. & Markers $ 123,250
- Delineators $
x Other Clearing, grubbing, mobilization, misc. $ 2,478,600
Contract Cost Subtotal $ 10,316,000
Engineering and Contingencies $ 1,584,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs $
Force Account $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 11,900,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH:
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
YES _ NO x
x New Right of Way Needed: Width 100' to 150' $
- Easements: Type Width $
x Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal (TIP) $ 3,500,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 15,400,000
Prepared by: Rob Hanson Date 3/06/97
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
9 Mmm In R'
- ?? ? , al =? •?• sa
? ?I I Sri .
F
?I -'I LO
?• a
1
n ?.I
i
?^ 9il
r
i
r
?JI
?n
CI ''
zz
_I
I
1.4
•1 ! w 't. `1
&gl I.
I .?
1
3 I j \
s/ 1
r
I ?I /• I .n
• \I 1.
1
/ I
r
a s r -,
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
-•FOR THE PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 42
FROM 1-95 TO FOREST HILLS DRIVE
Project 8.1340801 U-3472 Wilson County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 1997 in the
James Hunt High School Cafeteria located at 4559 Lamm Road west of Wilson. This
will be an informal open-house workshop conducted between the hours of 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend may do so at their convenience during these
hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present information, answer
questions, and receive comments during the planning and early design stages of the
proposed widening/improving of NC 42 from 1-95 to Forest Hills Drive (SR 1165). The
project proposes to widen the roadway to a multi-lane facility. Information presented at
this workshop will be general in nature because no detailed designs have yet been
developed. Public comments will help determine the best design for the project.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will be available to discuss
the proposed project with those attending. Anyone desiring additional information
about the workshop may contact Mr. Robert Hanson, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch, P. 0. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at [phone] - Extension 249.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the workshop. To receive special services, please call Mr. Hanson at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the workshop.