US 33 (3)

?ICDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Colleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 27, 2010
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator; Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality, Central Office#
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to the proposed NC 33 widening
from existing U.S. 64 near Tarboro to existing U.S. 264 near Greenville, Edgecombe and
Pitts Counties, Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33(3), TIP R-3407.
State Clearinghouse Project No. 11-0108
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2010. The NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The NCDWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
I . This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. All streams are either class C; NSW or WS-IV; NSW waters of the State. The NCDWQ is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The NCDWQ
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to all streams. The NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide
treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
3. This project is within the Tar Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0259 for Tar-Pamlico. New
development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin should
be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0259.
Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as
"allowable with mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a
variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, must be provided to the NCDWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality
Certification. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities
classified as "allowable with mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer
?rQRules .or
Tralisponauon Permitting Unit y?nl r.r?C$[Ollrla
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 //
1-milion: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 ?atu1''QLL 1/
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] ?/
Internet: hftp:lm2o.encstate.nc.uslncwellandsl
An Equal opportunity 1 Af rmadve Action Employer
require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided to NCDWQ prior to approval of the Water
Quality Certification.
4. The document, while acknowledging that impacts to riparian buffers in the Tar-Pamlico River basin
are likely to occur, does not present any potential impact numbers. Potential impacts to riparian
buffers should be quantified and included.
General Comments:
5. Alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from
storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas,
preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
7. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland, stream, and riparian buffer impacts with
corresponding mapping.
8. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
9. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
10. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP). application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be
aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
11. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Tom Steffens, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form

Da¢
(firm aeaalrt
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Re Tonal Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Ai Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
-Asheville r -
- Fayetteville Water _ Coastal Management

Mooresville
on
Protectio
? Aquifer
? Wildlife \ C&sm
(.J, & r
Raleigh lL Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources
11 Water Resources Environmental Health
Washington -
Parks & Recreation - Waste Mgmt
Wilmington
_
! 3Wjate>3Quly - Radiation Protection
Winston-Salem
_ _ Air Quality - Other
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed
No convnent
_ hlsufficient information to complete review
/ Q#aLHs4 6P
/Other (specify or attach comments) 50y
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
14
H
Proposed NC 33 Widening
From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Federal Aid Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS No. 34539.1.1
TIP No. R-3407
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
. 3 /Q / o
Da e 61 regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
° 3NO " /7
Date John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed NC 33 Widening
From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Federal Aid Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS No. 34539.1.1
TIP NO. R-3407
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
March 2010
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
Oate
D e
Micl ele L. James '(/,
Project Planning Engineer
Project Engineer
6? qq 9 ?` v
m ,Sd OC3 s?R? ??? 9.r J
n?
3
k s??4'3
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... I
A. TYPE OF ACTION ......................................... ............................................................................... I
B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ............................ ............................................................................... I
C. SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED ............ ............................................................................... I
D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................... ............................................................................... I
E. NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ... .............................................................................. II
F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .. .............................................................................. II
G. PERMITS REQUIRED .................................... .............................................................................IV
H. COORDINATION ........................................... .............................................................................. V
1. CONTACT INFORMATION ............................ .............................................................................. V
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...............................................................................1
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .............................. ............................................................................... 1
B. SCHEDULE AND COST ................................. ............................................................................... 1
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..................................................................................2
A . PURPOSE OF PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 2
B. NEED FOR PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 2
1. Description of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 2
a. Functional Classification ...................................................................................................... 2
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ............................................................................ 2
1. Roadway Cross-Section ................................................................................................................ 2
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .............................................................................................. 2
3. Right of Way and Access Control ................................................................................................ 2
4. Speed Limit ................................................................................................................................... 2
5. Intersections/Interchanges ............................................................................................................ 2
6. Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................................................ 3
7. Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 3
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................. 4
9. Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 4
c. School Bus Usage ................................................................................................................. 4
d. Capacity Analysis (No Build Condition) ............................................................................. 4
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 4
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 5
e. Airports ................................................................................................................................. 5
f. Other Highway Projects in the Area .................................................................................... 5
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ...................................................................................... 5
a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ................................................................ 5
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans .................................................................................................... 6
c. Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................................... 6
C. SAFETY ...................................................................................................................................... 6
D . BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................. 7
II I. ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................... 8
A . PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................ 8
1. No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................. 8
i
2. Alternative Modes of Transportation ........................................... ......................................... 8
3. Transportation Systems Management .......................................... ......................................... 8
4. Build Alternatives ......................................................................... ......................................... 8
B. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES .................................................... ......................................... 9
C. CAPACITY ANALYSIS BUILD SCENARIO) ........................................ .......................................14
D. NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ......................................... .......................................14
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................15
A. ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION ............................................................................... .....................15
B. RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL ............................................................. .....................15
C. DESIGN SPEED & SPEED LIMIT ........................................................................... .....................15
D. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS .................................................................... .....................15
E. INTERCHANGES/INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................ .....................15
F. SERVICE ROADS .................................................................................................. .....................15
G. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ....................................................................................... .....................16
H. STRUCTURES ....................................................................................................... .....................16
1. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .............................................................. .....................17
7. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................ .....................17
K. NOISE BARRIERS ................................................................................................. .....................17
L. WORK ZONE, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING ..................... .....................17
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ...............................................18
A. NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... ..........................18
1. Biotic Resources ........................................................................................ ..........................18
a. Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................... ..........................18
b. Aquatic Communities ............................................................................... ..........................20
c. Wildlife ..................................................................................................... ..........................20
d. Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts .......................................... ..........................25
e. Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts ............................................... ..........................26
2. Water Resources ........................................................................................ .......................... 26
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ....................................................... ..........................26
b. Water Quality ............................................................................................ ..........................29
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ........................... ..........................30
3. Waters of the United States ....................................................................... .......................... 30
a. Wetlands ................................................................................................... ..........................30
b. Summary of Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts .......................... ..........................31
c. Permits ...................................................................................................... .......................... 35
d. Mitigation .................................................................................................. ..........................36
4. Rare and Protected Species ....................................................................... .......................... 37
a. Federally-Protected Species ..................................................................... ..........................37
b. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................... ..........................39
5. Soils ............................................................................................................ ..........................40
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. ..........................40
1. Compliance ................................................................................................ .......................... 40
2. Historic Architectural Resources .............................................................. ..........................41
3. Archaeological Resources ......................................................................... .......................... 41
C. SECTION 4(F)/6(F) RESOURCES ...................................................................... ..........................41
ii
D. FARMLAND ...................................................................................................... ........................42
E. SOCIAL EFFECTS .............................................................................................. ........................43
1. Population- Trends and Composition ......................................................... ........................43
2. Racial and Ethnic Makeup .......................................................................... ........................43
3. Income/Employment ................................................................................... ........................ 44
4. Neighborhood/Community Cohesion ......................................................... ........................ 45
5. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ................................................... ........................ 45
6. Environmental Justice ................................................................................. ........................46
7. EMS ............................................................................................................. ........................ 46
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................. ........................ 46
9. Recreational Facilities ................................................................................. ........................46
F. ECONOMIC EFFECTS ........................................................................................ ........................47
G. LAND USE ........................................................................................................ ........................ 47
H. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................ ........................47
1. FLOOD HAZARD EvALUATIoN/FEMA BUYOUT PROPERTIES ......................... ........................48
J. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ............................................................................... ........................ 49
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ................................................. ........................ 49
2. No-Build Alternative ................................................................................... ........................ 49
3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ............................................................ ........................ 50
4. Noise Barriers .............................................................................................. ........................ 50
5. Summary ...................................................................................................... ........................50
K. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. ........................ 51
1. Attainment Status ......................................................................................... ........................ 51
2. Carbon Monoxide ........................................................................................ ........................ 51
3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide ....................................................................... ........................ 51
4. Particulate Matter & Sulfur ......................................................................... ........................ 52
5. Lead .............................................................................................................. ........................52
6. Construction Air Quality Effects ................................................................ ........................ 52
7. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) .......................................................... ........................ 53
8. Summary ...................................................................................................... ........................ 53
L. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................ ........................ 54
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................................................58
A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS ........................................ ........................................58
B. PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................................. ........................................58
C. NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS ......................................................... ........................................58
D. OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION .................................................... ........................................ 60
iii
TABLES
TABLE S-1: SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS (COMBINATION OF ALL SECTIONS) ........... ....IV
TABLE 1: ExISTING HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES ............................................................................... ...... 3
TABLE 2: NC 33 MAINLINE ANALYSIS RESULTS LEVEL OF SERVICE - LOS) .............................. ...... 5
TABLE 3: ACCIDENT RATES ............................................................................................................ ...... 7
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ........................................................................ ....10
TABLE 4 (CONT.): SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ........................................................... ....11
TABLE 4 (CONT.): SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPACTS ........................................................... ....12
TABLE 5: TOTAL RESOURCES AND IMPACTS (COMBINATION OF ALL SECTIONS .......................... ....13
TABLE 6: HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... ....16
TABLE 7: TERRESTRIAL NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE STUDY CORRIDOR ................................ ....19
TABLE 8: TERRESTRIAL FAUNA WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, EDGECOMBE AND PITT COUNTIES .... .... 21
TABLE 9: AQUATIC FAUNA WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, EDGECOMBE AND PITT COUNTIES .......... .... 24
TABLE 10: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ........................ ....27
TABLE I IA: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION I -BEST-FIT WIDENING ........ .... 32
TABLE I IB: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 2 -NORTHERN WIDENING ..... .... 32
TABLE I IC: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 3 -NORTHERN WIDENING ..... .... 33
TABLE I ID: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 4 - NORTHERN WIDENING..... .... 33
TABLE I IE: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 5 - BEST-FIT WIDENING ........ ....34
TABLE I IF: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 6 -NORTHERN BYPASS .......... ....34
TABLE I IG: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 6 - SOUTHERN BYPASS .......... ....35
TABLE I IH: R-3407 WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS - SECTION 7 - BEST-FIT WIDENING........ .... 35
TABLE 12: FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES OF PITT AND EDGECOMBE COUNTIES ...................... .... 38
TABLE 13: SOILS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................................ ....40
TABLE 14: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... ....41
TABLE 15: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS BY SECTION* ...................................................... ....49
TABLE 16: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES ................................... .... 55
TABLE 16 (CONT.): KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES ..................... .... 56
TABLE 16 (CONT.): KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES ..................... .... 57
1V
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Figure IA
Figure 1B
Figure 2 (Sheets 1-17)
Figure 3
Figure 4 (Sheets 1-4)
Figures
Project Vicinity Map
Project Breakdown Map (Summary Map)
Aerial Alternatives Maps
Typical Section
Traffic Forecast 2004/2030
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Merger Concurrence Forms and Farmland Rating Form
Appendix D Relocation/Displacement Policies and Relocation Forms
v
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Proposed NC 33 Widening
From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Federal Aid Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS No. 34539.1.1
TIP No. R-3407
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Archaeological surveys will be required after the recommended alternative (LEDPA) has been
determined.
Another survey of the Tar River spineymussel will be conducted closer to project letting to
reevaluate the current biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
A Memorandum of Understanding will be required between NCDOT, FHWA and State Historic
Preservation Office regarding moving the Penny Hill Doctor's Office farther back on the property.
Division 2 Construction, Roadway Design
A bald eagle nest is located near NC 33 approximately 1 mile south of SR 1523 (Shiloh Farm
Road) in Edgecombe County. To prevent take of the bald eagle nest or its inhabitants, a work
moratorium will be required during the nesting season (November 15 - July 15). During the
moratorium, no work will be allowed to occur within 660 feet of the bald eagle nest. This time
window may be shortened if monitoring and observation demonstrate that young have fledged
prior to July 15.
NCDOT will need to coordinate with USFWS and other relevant agencies during the design, and
construction phases of this project to ensure that any proposed actions will not constitute take to
this bald eagle nest or its inhabitants.
Roadway Design
The Mountains to Sea Bike Route, NC # 2, runs along NC 33 from NC 42 to Old River Road. The
new roadway will have 4-foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicyclists.
R-3407 Environmental Assessment
March 2010 Page 1 of 1
Proposed NC 33 Widening
From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Federal Aid Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS No. 34539.1.1
TIP No. R-3407
A. Type of Action
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts
of this proposed transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not
anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of this proposed project.
A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) document.
B. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen NC 33 from the US 64 southeast of
Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties (see Figure 1).
This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State Transportation
Improvement Program (S TIP). The total cost in the STIP is $78,100,000 which includes
$6,500,000 for right of way and $71,600,000 for construction. The current estimated total costs for
all section/ alternative combinations vary from $91,412,414 to $93,053,224. The right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2014 (northern section only) and
Construction is currently unfunded.
C. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33
between Tarboro and Greenville.
D. Alternatives Considered
The project is divided into seven sections, with one to two alternatives per section under
consideration. They include corridors using existing facilities and corridors located on new
location. The alternatives studied in detail are included in this Environmental Assessment. Each
remaining Section/alternative is described below:
• Section 1, from US 64 in Tarboro to just west of NC 42: One alternative, Best-Fit.
I
• Section 2, from just west of NC 42 to approximately 0.35 mile east of NC 42: One
alternative, North Widening.
• Section 3, from approximately 0.35 mile east of NC 42 to approximately 0.30 mile west of
SR 1608 (Thigpen Road): One alternative, North Widening
• Section 4, from approximately 0.30 mile west of SR 1608 (Thigpen Road) to 0.40 miles
east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Road): Two alternatives, North Widening and North Bypass
for avoidance of the Penny Hill historic doctor's office.
• Section 5, from approximately 0.40 mile east of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Road) to
approximately 0.33 mile west of NC 222: One alternative, Best-Fit.
• Section 6, from approximately 0.33 mile west of NC 222 to approximately 0.46 mile east
of NC 222: Two alternatives, North Bypass and South Bypass, to avoid the Community of
Belvoir.
• Section 7, from approximately 0.46 mile east of NC 222 to US 264 in Greenville: One
alternative, Best-Fit.
E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative
A recommended alternative has been selected for Sections 1,2,3,4, 5 and 7; however, a
recommended alternative has not been selected at this time for section 6 (the two bypasses around
Belvoir).
The seven sections have been combined to form 2 remaining Alternates:
• Alternate A: Widening (Sections 1-5 and 7) with North Belvoir Bypass (Section 6)
• Alternate B: Widening (Sections 1-5 and 7) with South Belvoir Bypass (Section 6)
These two alternates will be carried forward in the public hearing. Comments received at
the combined public hearing will be reviewed and the additional coordination with other federal,
state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made.
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through the
development of alternatives. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is
anticipated as a result of the project. One property eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places will have a No Adverse Effect (subject to certain conditions). Impacts to archaeological
resources will be determined after the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
has been determined. A maximum of 49 residential displacements and 7 business displacements
will result from the proposed project. Further information can be found in
Table S-1.
11
There are two federally protected species listed for Edgecombe County, the Tar River
Spinymussel and red-cockaded woodpecker. The same two and the West Indian manatee are listed
for Pitt County. The current Biological Conclusion (BC) for the Tar River spinymussel is May
Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect. The BC for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the West
Indian manatee is No Effect.
The bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of August 08, 2007,
however, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The USFWS is
working to establish a permitting process for incidental take on bald eagles. Continued
coordination with the Service will be required prior to issuance of environmental permits for this
proj ect.
Table S-1 gives a summary of the resources and impacts of the alternatives currently being
studied. Figures IA and 2 show the 2 alternatives currently under consideration.
III
Table S-1: Summary of Resources and Impacts (Combination of All Sections)
Alternate A Alternate B
(Widening with (Widening with
Resource South Belvoir North Belvoir
Bypass) Bypass)
Length miles 17.6 17.9
Schools 1 1
Churches 1 1
Cemeteries 2 2
Residential Relocations 49 48
Business Relocations 7 7
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential 2 2
Churches 0 0
Businesses 1 1
Historic Properties (Listed on or Eligible 1 (No Adverse 1 (No Adverse
for the National Register) Effect Effect
Section 4(f)Properties 1 (de minimus 1 (de minimus
Historic impact) impact)
Prime and Unique Farmland Below Threshold Below Threshold
Im acts*
Wetlands Impacts acres 9.7 7.7
Stream Impacts feet 4276 3983
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas YES** YES**
Federally Protected Species within Corridor 1*** 1***
Underground/ Aboveground
Storage Tanks 12 12
Adverse / Disproportionate Impacts to
Minority/Low Income Populations
Low
Low
Right of Way Cost $10,927,000 $10,975,000
Utility Cost $14,133,414 $14,154,922
Construction Cost $66,350,000 $67,550,000
Total Cost $91,410,414 $92,679,927
*Impacts are below NRCS thresholds
**Water Supply Watershed for Greenville Utility Commission (Pitt County)
*** Bald Eagle (Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
G. Permits Required
Due to the amount of potential wetland and stream impacts, it is anticipated that a Section
404 Individual Permit will be needed for this project. Moreover, in accordance with the Clean
Water Act, a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be obtained from the
IV
NC Division of Water Quality prior to issuance of the Individual Permit. Additionally, Tar-
Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization will be needed for this project.
H. Coordination
Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted
with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* National Marine Fisheries Service
State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Division of Forest Resources
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
* Edgecombe County
Pitt County
L Contact Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:
John F. Sullivan III, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
V
Proposed NC 33 Widening
From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Federal Aid Project MASTP-33(3)
WBS No. 34539.1.1
TIP NO. R-3407
L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen NC 33 from the US 64 southeast of
Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties (see Figure 1).
A four-lane median divided facility with partial access control is proposed. It is anticipated
approximately 200 feet of right of way will be required to accommodate this facility. A median
width of 46 feet is proposed throughout the project. The sections vary from 0.51 to 4.67 miles in
length. The total length of the project ranges from 17.7 miles to 17.9 miles.
B. Schedule and Cost
This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State Transportation
Improvement Program (S TIP). The total cost in the STIP is $78,100,000 which includes
$6,500,000 for right of way and $71,600,000 for construction. The current total estimated costs for
the project (by combining section/ alternative combinations) vary from $91,412,414 to
$93,053,224. The right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)
2014 (northern section only) and Construction is currently unfunded.
IL PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Purpose of Proiect
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and capacity of NC 33
between Tarboro and Greenville.
B. Need for Proiect
1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
NC 33 is designated as a major rural collector on the North Carolina Statewide Functional
Classification System.
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
1. Roadway Cross-Section
NC 33 currently has two lanes with a pavement width that varies between 20-24 feet. The
unpaved shoulder widths vary from 4-8 feet.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
NC 33 has substandard horizontal alignment but a suitable vertical alignment.
3. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way along NC 33 is 60 feet and there is no control of access except at
the interchanges with US 64 and US 264.
4. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along most of the project area is 55-mph. The speed limit is reduced
to 35-mph within the communities of Scott's Crossroads and Belvoir Crossroads.
5. Intersections/Interchanges
This project portion of NC 33 intersects with two North Carolina routes. NC 42 is located
about 5 miles south of US 64. A stop sign with a flashing stoplight is located on NC 33 at the
NC 42 intersection. Currently, the intersection of NC 42 and NC 33 is configured so vehicles on
NC 42 have priority. Vehicles on NC 42 have a flashing yellow light, but do not have to stop as
they cross NC 33. NC 33 has right-turn lanes on the north and south sides of the NC 42
intersection.
2
NC 222 is located about 4 miles north of US 264. A flashing yellow light is located at the
NC 33/ NC 222 intersection. The traffic on NC 222 has to stop at this intersection.
Within the project limits, NC 33 intersects with fourteen secondary routes. These are all
stop sign controlled.
6. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings within the project limits.
7. Structures
There are several existing major hydraulic structures on this project. Table 1 gives further
detail on these existing structures.
Table 1: Existing Hydraulic Structures
Wetland/Stream System Major Hydraulic
Crossing Section Existing Structure
Cromwell Canal WA Yes 1 2@7'x7' RCP
UT 2 Cromwell Canal Yes 1 1@9'X 8' RCP
UT Tar River WN Yes 1 2@48" RCP
UT 5 Tar River WQ Yes 3 2@48" RCP
Suggs (Cheek Mill) Creek. WU Yes 4 91' BRG
Suggs (Cheek Mill) Creek. WU Yes 4 91' BRG
UT 6 Tar River Yes 5 48" CMP
UT 9 Tar River Yes 5 60" CMP
Conetoe Creek WAC Yes 5 120' BRG
UT 13 Tar River Yes 7 84" CMP
Note: "BRG" - Bridge "CMP" - Corrugated Metal Pipe
" CMPA" - Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch "RCP" - Reinforced Concrete Pipe
"RCBC" - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert "WA" - Wetland Site
3
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Mountains to Sea Bike Route, NC # 2, runs along NC 33 from NC 42 to Old River
Road (SR 1401). The NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division has requested that the new
roadway section be designed and constructed to accommodate bicyclists and address safety needs.
Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities in the project area.
9. Utilities
At the northern end of the project, there is an Edgecombe-Martin Electric Membership
Corporation headquarters facility. Just across the Pitt County line, in the parcel immediately north
of the Penny Hill Road/ NC 33 intersection, is an Edgecombe-Martin EMC substation.
Water lines extend both from the Tarboro area and from the Greenville area along the
proposed project corridor.
A small sewer line was extended by the City of Greenville Utilities to the Belvoir
Elementary School.
C. School Bus Usage
The Edgecombe County Public Schools have six buses that use NC 33 on daily routes.
The Pitt County Public Schools have 19 buses that use NC 33 to provide service to the four
public schools assigned in this area.
d. Capacity Analysis (No Build Condition)
1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
The mainline of this project, NC 33, was analyzed at both the northern and southern ends
of the project limits based on the differences in traffic volumes. The northern end of the project
near Tarboro is more rural and has lower traffic volumes while the southern end of the project near
Greenville is more urban and has higher traffic volumes. Mainline volumes in 2004 along NC 33
ranged from approximately 2,600 vehicles per day south of US 64A at the northern end of the
project to 10,700 vehicles per day north of US 264 at the southern end of the project. In the design
year 2030, volumes on NC 33 are estimated to range from approximately 4,900 vehicles per day
south of US 64A at the northern end of the project to 22,100 vehicles per day north of US 264 at
the southern end of the project.
4
2. Existing and Future Levels of Service
The capacity analysis was performed following the NCDOT Congestion Management
Section's Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Projects. Highway Capacity Software (HCS2000)
was used to compute Level of Service (LOS) and other performance measures for the roadway
segments along the corridor.
Both 2004 and 2030 traffic was analyzed. The mainline analysis for the 2030 No Build
Scenario indicates that NC 33 will reach capacity (LOS E) as a two-lane facility in the design year
2030 at the southern end of the project (see Table 2).
Table 2: NC 33 Mainline Analysis Results (Level of Service - LOS)
Location 2004 2030
No-Build 2-lane No-Build 2-Lane
Northern End of Project
C C
(near Tarboro, NC)
Southern End of Project
D E
(near Greenville, NC)
e. Airports
The nearest airport to the project area is Tarboro-Edgecombe County Airport, the only
airport in Edgecombe County. It is near NC 33, north of Tarboro.
f. Other Highway Proiects in the Area
There are two other TIP projects in the project vicinity, B-4932 and B-4234, in
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, respectively. These projects will not be affected by TIP Project
R-3407.
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
This project is currently included in the 2009-2015 TIP. Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in FFY 2014 (Section A only) and construction is unfunded (beyond 2015).
5
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans
The Edgecombe County Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1997. The Pitt County
Comprehensive Transportation Plan was completed in February 2009. This project is included as
a recommended transportation improvement in both plans.
c. Land Use Plans
The length of the proposed project in Edgecombe County is outside of a municipal
jurisdiction. Edgecombe County oversees land development in this area. The County has a Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) that establishes permitted uses (zoning), regulates the subdivision
of land, and includes regulations to reduce property damage in flood prone areas. The flood zone
regulations in this area were strengthened after Hurricane Floyd. Edgecombe County has an
existing Land Development Plan that was targeted for the years of 1997-2007. The current
document essentially mirrors existing land use along the NC 33 corridor in this area. In addition,
no specific area along the project corridor was designated an identified growth area within the
Land Development Plan. Edgecombe County recently updated the existing Land Development
Plan which has a time horizon of 2007-2017.
Pitt County's Northwest Area Land Use Plan, adopted in 2001, covers the northwest
portion of Pitt County, between the Tar River and US 13/ NC 11.
C. Safety
The crash analysis for this corridor was conducted and indicated a total of 172 crashes
reported along this location between February 1, 2006 and January 31, 2009. For crash rate
purposes, this section can be classified as a 2-Lane Undivided, Rural North Carolina (NC) Route.
Table 3 shows the comparison of the crash rates for the analyzed section of NC 33 versus the
2005-2007 statewide crash rates. The total crash rate is above the average statewide crash rate and
the critical crash rate for similar type facilities. The night crash rate is also above the critical rate
for similar type facilities. The above average critical rates suggest that there may be operational
and safety deficiencies along this particular section.
6
Table 3: Accident Rates
Type of Crash No. of
Crashes Crashes per
100 MVM Statewide Rate
1 Critical Rate
2
Total 172 202.65 175.41 199.65
Fatal 3 3.53 2.14 5.34
Non-Fatal 59 69.51 66.12 81.23
Night 73 86.01 60.38 74.84
Wet 24 28.28 26.41 36.18
(1) 2005-2007 Statewide Crash rate for 2 Lane Undivided, Rural North Carolina (NC) Route.
(2) Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value
against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something
besides chance must be the cause.
D. Benefits of Proposed Proiect
The proposed project will help motorists see an improvement in safety, capacity and
connectivity of NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville.
7
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Study Alternative
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative offers no improvements to the project area. This alternative will
not increase the capacity of the existing facility, nor will it provide a safer or more efficient means
of travel from US 64 to the US 264. Travelers will continue to use the existing facility and will not
experience any reduction in travel times.
Since the No-Build Alternative does not address the purpose and need of the proposed
action, it is not recommended. However, this Environmental Assessment utilizes the No-Build
Alternative as a basis for comparison of the other alternatives.
2. Alternative Modes of Transportation
Alternative modes of transportation, including transit options, would not meet the purpose
and need of this project since they do not provide a more efficient means of travel between US 64
and US 264. There are limited transit options in this part of Pitt and Edgecombe Counties.
3. Transportation Systems Management
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative includes those types of limited
construction activities designed to maximize the utilization and energy efficiency of an existing
roadway. Possible TSM improvement options with this alternative might include traffic signal
optimization or minor improvements to existing intersections in the vicinity of the proposed
project. However, intersection improvements alone would not adequately address the purpose of
the project.
4. Build Alternatives
The project was divided into seven sections; each section had at least two alternatives
associated with it. The complete list of sections and alternatives (within each section) is listed
below:
• Section 1 (from US 64 in Tarboro to just west of NC 42): Best-Fit Widening, North
Widening.
• Section 2 (from just west of NC 42 to approximately 0.35 mile east of NC 42): Best-Fit
Widening, North Widening.
• Section 3 (from approximately 0.35 mile east of NC 42 to approximately 0.30 mile west of
SR 1608 (Thigpen Road)): Best-Fit Widening, North Widening.
8
• Section 4 (from approximately 0.30 mile west of SR 1608 to 0.40 miles east of SR 1409
(Penny Hill Road)): North Bypass, North Widening, and South Widening.
• Section 5 (from approximately 0.40 mile east of SR 1409 to approximately 0.33 mile west
of NC 222): Best-Fit Widening, South Widening.
• Section 6 (from approximately 0.33 mile west of NC 222 to approximately 0.46 mile east
of NC 222): Best-Fit Widening, North Bypass and South Bypass of Belvoir.
• Section 7 (from approximately 0.46 mile east of NC 222 to US 264 in Greenville): Best-Fit
Widening, and North Widening.
Seven alternatives were dropped from further consideration at the Concurrence 2A meeting due
to higher wetland/ stream impacts, residential/ business relocations, and/or school property
impacts, when compared to the other alternatives in the same sections. The Public's input was
considered during the development of alternatives to be studied; however, due to higher
environmental impacts (relocations, wetlands), some alternatives were eliminated.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
The remaining alternatives that were carried forward for detailed study are listed below.
The impacts associated with each alternative are noted in Table 4.
• Section 1: Best-Fit Widening
• Section 2: North Widening
• Section 3: North Widening
• Section 4: North Widening
• Section 5: Best-Fit Widening
• Section 6: North Bypass and South Bypass
• Section 7: Best-Fit Widening
9
Table 4: Summary of Resources and Impacts
Resource Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Best-Fit North Widening North Widening
Length miles 4.7 0.5 1.3
Schools 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0
Cemeteries 1 0 0
Residential Relocations 9 8 1
Business Relocations 0 0 0
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0
Historic Properties (Listed on or

Eligible for the National Register) 0 0 0
Section 4(f) Properties

Historic 0 0 0
Prime and Unique Farmland Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold
Im acts*
Wetlands Impacts acres 1.8 0.3 1.1
Stream Impacts feet 420 0 948
Water Supply Watershed NO NO NO
Protected Areas
Federally Listed Species within 1** 0 0
Corridor
Underground/ Aboveground

Storage Tanks 1 1 0
Adverse / Disproportionate
Impacts to Minority/Low Income Low Low Low
Populations
Right of Way Cost $2,750,000 $855,000 $426,000
Utility Cost $3,145,232 $884,124 $1,345,848
Construction Cost $18,500,000 $2,250,000 5,000,000
Total Cost $24,395,232 $3,991,124 $6,771,848
*Impacts are below NRCS thresholds
**Section 1- A documented Bald Eagle Nest on west side of NC 33
10
Table 4 (Cont.): Summary of Resources and Impacts
Resource Section 4 Section 5
North Widening Best-Fit
Length miles 1.7 3.9
Schools 0 0
Churches 0 1
Cemeteries 0 0
Residential Relocations 6 5
Business Relocations 1 4
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential 0 0
Churches 0 0
Businesses 0 0
Historic Properties (Listed on or Eligible for 1 (No Adverse

the National Register)
Effect 0
Section 4(f) Properties 1 (de minimus

Historic
Impact) 0
Prime and Unique Farmland Below Threshold Below Threshold
Im acts*
Wetlands Impacts acres 2.5 1.5
Stream Impacts feet 320 1130
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas YES** YES**
Federally Listed Species within Corridor 0 0
Underground/ Aboveground
Storage Tanks 4 0
Adverse / Disproportionate Impacts to
Minority/Low Income Populations
Low
Low
Right of Way Cost $1,258,000 $2,041,000
Utility Cost $1,339,422 $3,992,692
Construction Cost
-- $6,800,000 $14,600,000
Total Cost
Or $9,397,422 $20,633,692
*Impacts are below NRCS thresholds
**Water Supply Watershed for Greenville Utility Commission (Pitt County)
11
Table 4 (Cont.): Summary of Resources and Impacts
Resource Section 6 Section 6 Section 7
South Bypass North B as
s Best-Fit
Length miles 1.5 1.8 4.0
Schools 0 0 1
Churches 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 1
Residential Relocations 2 1 18
Business Relocations 0 0 2
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential 0 0 2
Churches 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 1
Historic Properties (Listed on or

Eligible for the National Register) 0 0 0
Section 4(f) Properties

Historic 0 0 0
Prime and Unique Farmland Below Threshold Below Threshold Below Threshold
Im acts*
Wetlands Impacts acres 2.2 0.2 0.3
Stream Impacts feet 493 200 965
Water Supply Watershed Protected YES** YES** YES**
Areas
Federally Listed Species within

Corridor 0 0 0
Underground/ Aboveground

Storage Tanks 5 5 1
Adverse / Disproportionate Impacts

to Minority/Low Income Populations Low Low Low
Right of Way Cost $513,000 $561,000 $3,084,000
Utility Cost $201,900 $223,408 $3,224,196
Construction Cost $6,100,000 $7,300,000 $13,100,000
Total Cost $6,814,900 $8,084,408 $19,408 196
* Impacts are below NRCS thresholds
**Water Supply Watershed for Greenville Utility Commission (Pitt County)
12
The seven sections have been combined to form 2 remaining Alternates:
• Alternate A: Widening (Sections 1-5 and 7) with North Belvoir Bypass (Section 6)
• Alternate B: Widening (Sections 1-5 and 7) with South Belvoir Bypass (Section 6)
Table 5 provides a summary of impacts for these two alternates.
Table 5: Total Resources and Impacts (Combination of All Sections)
Alternate A Alternate B
(Widening with (Widening with
Resource South Belvoir North Belvoir
Bypass) Bypass)
Length miles 17.6 17.9
Schools Land Impacts) 1 1
Churches 1 1
Cemeteries 2 2
Residential Relocations 49 48
Business Relocations 7 7
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residential 2 2
Churches 0 0
Businesses I I
Historic Properties (Listed on or Eligible for 1 (No Adverse 1 (No Adverse
the National Register) Effect Effect
Section 4(f) Properties 1 (de minimus 1 (de minimus
Historic Impact) Impact)
Prime and Unique Farmland Below Threshold Below Threshold
Im acts*
Wetlands Impacts acres 9.7 7.7
Stream Impacts feet 4276 3983
Water Supply Watershed Protected Areas Yes** Yes**
Federally Listed Species within Corridor 1*** 1***
Underground/ Aboveground
Storage Tanks 12 12
Adverse / Disproportionate Impacts to

Minority/Low Income Populations Low Low
Right of Way Cost $10,927,000 $10,975,000
Utility Cost $14,133,414 $14,154,922
Construction Cost $66,350,000 $67,550,000
Total Cost $91,410,414 $92,679,927
* Impacts are below NRCS thresholds
**Water Supply Watershed for Greenville Utility Commission (Pitt County)
*** Bald Eagle (Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act)
13
C. Capacity Analysis (Build Scenario)
As a four-lane divided facility, the 2030 Build Scenario indicates that the mainline, NC 33,
will operate at an acceptable LOS A by the design year.
D. NCDOT Recommended Alternative
A recommended alternative has been selected for Sections 1,2,3,4, 5 and 7; however, a
recommended alternative has not been selected at this time for Section 6 (the two bypasses around
Belvoir).
As mentioned in the previous section, the seven sections have been combined to form
Alternates A and B. These two alternates will be carried forward in the public hearing. Comments
received at the combined public hearing will be reviewed and the additional coordination with
other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made.
14
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-Section
The proposed cross-section will consist of two 12-foot wide lanes in each direction, 4-foot
wide paved shoulders, 4-6 foot wide grassed shoulders, and a 46-foot wide median (see Figure3).
B. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed right of way for this project is 200 feet along the length of the project, except
in areas where the amount of right of way can be reduced. There will be limited control of access
on all new location sections and partial control of access on all widening sections.
C. Design Speed & Speed Limit
The design speed for improvements to NC 33 will be 60 mph with an anticipated posted
speed limit of 55 mph.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions anticipated for this project.
E. Interchanges/Intersections
No interchanges are proposed. For all intersections, NC 33 will become the dominant
movement. No signals are proposed at this time, but several intersections with NC 33 are
anticipated to warrant signals by the design year 2030. They are:
• NC 42
• NC 222/SR 1400 (Porter Road)
• SR 1415 (Briley Road)
• SR1402 (Barrus Construction Road)
• Billy Lane/ SR 1414 (Roosevelt Spain Road)
• SR 1417 (Belvoir School Road)
• US 264 Westbound Ramps
• US 264 Eastbound Ramps
F. Service Roads
There are no service roads proposed.
15
G. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on this project.
H. Structures
Several hydraulic crossings will be modified as part of the project. See Table 6 for existing
and recommended hydraulic structures.
A Concurrence Point 2A field meeting was held November 3, 2008. The Merger team in
attendance agreed with all of NCDOT's recommendations for hydraulic structures.
Table 6: Hydraulic Structure Recommendations
Wetland/Stream Major Existing
System Hydraulic Section Structure Structure Recommendation
Crossing
Cromwell Canal yes 1 2@7'x7' Retain and Extend
WA
UT 2 Cromwell yes 1 1@9'X 8' Retain and Extend
Canal
UT yes 1 2@48" RCP Replace w/2 @7'X5' RCBC
Tar River WN
UT 5 Tar River yes 3 2@48" RCP Retain and Extend
WQ
Suggs (Cheek Mill) yes 4 91' Bridge Replace: Existing Location 120',
Creek. WU New NBL 170
UT 6 yes 5 48" CMP Replace w/1 @6'X5' RCBC
Tar River
UT 9 yes 5 60" CMP Replace w/1 @6'X5' RCBC
Tar River
Conetoe Creek
yes
5
120 BRG Retain Existing Bridge;
WAC Add 120' Dual
UT 13 yes 7 84" CMP Replace w/2 @7'X7' RCBC
Tar River
`BRG" - Bridge
"CMP" - Corrugated Metal Pipe
" CMPA" - Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch
"RCP" - Reinforced Concrete Pipe
"RCBC" - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
16
L Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Mountains to Sea Bike Route, NC # 2, runs along NC 33 from NC 42 to Old River
Road. The new roadway will have 4-foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicyclists.
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
J. Utilities
Utilities will be relocated as necessary as part of the project.
K. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of this project.
L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasing
Construction phasing will be utilized to maintain traffic along NC 33 during construction.
All traffic control devices used during the construction of this project will conform to the most
current FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
17
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
Pitt and Edgecombe Counties lie entirely within the Coastal Plain physiographic province
of North Carolina. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 20 to 52 feet above
MSL. The Tar River is the dominant hydrologic feature in the project region. The study area
includes numerous tributaries to the Tar River including Cromwell Canal, Cheek's Mill Creek,
Conetoe Creek and a number of unnamed tributaries. A majority of these tributaries have been
altered for agricultural purposes.
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)
The Cypress-Gum Swamp community type occurred on backswamps, sloughs and other
areas flooded for long periods on floodplains of brownwater (alluvial) rivers (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). This community type comprised approximately 3 % of the study area. Canopy
vegetation consisted of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica). The
understory was generally sparse and included Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) and red maple
(Acer rubrum) in some areas. The herbaceous layer was sparse to absent in most areas.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was located on floodplains of small blackwater streams
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type comprised less than 1% of the study area.
Canopy vegetation included bald cypress, swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and red maple. Understory species included red maple, red bay (Persea
borbonia), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Shrub species included sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
leucothoe (Leucothoe axillaris), inkberry (Ilex glabra) and switch-cane (Arundinaria tecta). Vines
were also common including catbriers (Smilax spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and
Carolina supplej ack (Berchemia scandens).
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
Mesic Pine Flatwoods were located on mesic (non-wetland sites) on either flat or rolling
Coastal Plain sediments (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type was located on
forested uplands adjacent to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community type and
comprised approximately 7% of the study area. Canopy vegetation was dominated by loblolly
pine (Pious taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa) and southern red oak (Quercus, falcata). The shrub layer included
inkberry, sweetbay and red bay. The herb layer was dominated by bracken fern (Pteridium
18
aquilinum). Vines were also common including Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
catbriers, poison ivy and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens).
Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed communities consisted of road shoulders and residential
landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and
herbicide applications. Residential landscapes receive more frequent mowing, general
maintenance and disturbance. Maintained/disturbed areas comprised approximately 25% of the
study area.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering stormwater run-off and reducing runoff velocities. Herbaceous vegetation located in the
road shoulders consisted generally of mowed fescue (Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle, dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifoilium), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and other weedy species.
Vegetation associated with the residential landscapes included mainly unvegetated areas
and turfgrass. Trees and shrubs were also located in the residential landscapes including loblolly
pine and various ornamental species.
Pine Plantations
Pine plantations consisted of areas currently used for timber production including recently
clearcut areas as well as various age classes of plantations. Pine plantations comprised
approximately 15% of the study area.
Agricultural Fields
The agricultural field community included land currently being used for the growth of
various crops. Agricultural fields comprised approximately 50% of the study corridor.
Table 7 shows coverage of terrestrial natural communities in the study corridor. The width of the
study corridor ranged from 300 feet (along existing roadways) to 3000 feet (on new location sections).
Table 7: Terrestrial Natural Communities in the Study Corridor
Community Area (ac)
Maintained/Disturbed 361.6
Loblolly Pine Plantation 16.4
Mixed Pine / Hardwood Forest 21.9
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 6.7
Early Successional 10.4
Total Area: 417.0
19
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic communities within the study area included streams, man-made ponds and
ditches, and associated jurisdictional wetlands. Twenty-three intermittent or perennial surface
waters are located in the study area. Three of the 23 anticipated project stream crossings are
named streams: Cromwell Canal, Cheeks Mill Creek (Suggs Creek) and the Conetoe Creek. A
detailed description of the named streams is presented below. All of the unnamed tributaries are
perennial or intermittent streams that have been altered (straightened and deepened) for agricultural
use and retain few characteristics of natural streams.
Cromwell Canal (stream identification number 28-82), a tributary to the Tar River, is a freshwater
canal no longer used for shipping or transit. The canal was likely a natural perennial stream
historically, but it has been extensively manipulated by human activities and has been ditched and
straightened. It has reverted to a silty, slow flowing, partially vegetated stream corridor. It is listed
as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW), capable of supporting aquatic life and can be utilized for
secondary recreational activities (NCDENR-DWQ 2004b). In the areas investigated for this study
the canal ranges from 10 to 20 feet in width with depths from 0.5 to 2 feet. Shrubs and trees on its
banks included red maple, sweetgum, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), loblolly pine and various
shrubs.
Cheeks Mill Creek (stream identification number 28-85) is a slow to moderately flowing
perennial stream that is a tributary to the Tar River. Like the Cromwell Canal, Cheeks Mill Creek
has been disturbed by human activities and has been ditched and straightened in places. Cheeks
Mill Creek is listed as NSW capable of supporting aquatic life and being used for secondary
recreation (NCDENR-DWQ 2004b). In the area investigated the stream ranged from 60 to 70 feet
wide and up to 3 feet deep. The substrate was a mix of large rock and cobble with sand and silts
covering a majority of the stream bed. The stream channel itself was mostly devoid of rooted
vegetation. Shrubs and trees on its banks included red maple, sweetgum, wax myrtle, loblolly pine
and various oaks.
Conetoe Creek (stream identification number 28-87 (2)) is a major tributary of the Tar River. It is
a large moderately to swiftly flowing perennial stream, ranging from 80 to 100 feet wide and up to
4 feet deep in the area investigated. Associated with this stream is a significant floodplain area that
receives seasonal flood waters and stormwater during major precipitation events. It is currently
bridged by NC 33 and has some rip rap materials associated with the bridge abutments. It is a
NSW, an impaired water (upstream) and a water supply that is highly developed (NCDENR-DWQ
2004b). Its substrate is a mix of small boulders, rocks, cobble, sand and silt. The stream bed itself
is mostly devoid of rooted vegetation. Shrubs and trees on its banks included willows (Salix spp.),
red maple, sweetgum, wax myrtle, bald cypress, loblolly pine and various oaks.
c. Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities located within the study area. Each species fills its own ecological niche and
there are often complex interactions between all species present. Examples of these relationships
20
include symbiotic, competitive and predator/prey relationships. Tables 8 and 9 list terrestrial and
aquatic fauna that occur or may occur within the study area for the proposed project.
Table 8: Terrestrial Fauna Within the Study Area, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Common Name
Scientific Name I Common Name
Scientific Name
MAMMALS
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris beaver Castor canadensis
southern short tail shrew Blarina carolinensis eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys
humuli s
eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus
silver haired bat Lasionycteris
noctivagans cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
red bat Lasiurus borealis meadow vole Microtus
pennsylvanicus
big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus muskrat* Ondatra zibethicus
evening bat Nycticeius humeralis Norway rat Rattus norvegicus
raccoon Procyon lotor house mouse Mus musculus
mink Mustela vison eastern cottontail * Sylvilagus floridanus
river otter Lutra canadensis marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
gray fox Urocyon
cinereoargenteus whitetail deer* Odocoileus virginianus
BIRDS:
killdeer Charadrius vociferus northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
turkey vulture Cathartes aura brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum
red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus European starling Sturnus vulgaris
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis white-eyed vireo Vireo griseus
mourning dove Zenaida macroura red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus
ruby-throated
hummingbird Archilochus colubris prairie warbler Dendroica discolor
red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
northern flicker Colaptes auratus yellow-breasted chat Icteri a virens
21
red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes
erythrocephalus northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea
eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus indigo bunting Passerina cyanea
great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus
barn swallow Hirundo rustica field sparrow Spizella pusilla
blue jay Cyanocitta cristata eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna
American crow Corvus
brachyrhynchos red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor brown-headed Molothrus ater
cowbird
Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis common grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Carolina wren Thryothorus
ludovicianus orchard oriole Icterus spurius
blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea house sparrow Passer domesticus
gray catbird Dumetella
carolinensis
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS:
eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina rough earth snake Virginia striatula
green anole Anolis carolinensis eastern hognose
snake Heterodon platyrhinos
northern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus
ground skink Scincella lateralis eastern mud snake Farancia a. abacura
five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus rainbow snake Farancia erytrogramma
southeastern five-lined
skink Eumeces inexpectatus northern black racer Coluber c. constrictor
broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps corn snake Elaphe g. guttata
eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus ventralis black rat snake Elaphe o. obsoleta
six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus s.
sexlineatus eastern kingsnake Lampropeltis g. getula
eastern worm snake Carphophis a. northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix
amoenus mokasen
northern scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea white-spotted slimy Plethodon cylinraceus
copei salamander
22
eastern garter snake Thamnophis s. sirtalis e. narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne
carolinensis
eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus southern toad Bufo terrestris
northern brown snake Storeria d. dekayi Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousii
fowleri
northern redbelly snake Storeria
occipitomaculata squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella
Diadophis p. Pseudacris nigrita
southern ringneck snake southern Chorus frog
punctatus nigrita
eastern smooth
Virginia v. valeriae
earth snake
* Species Observed During Field Investigations
23
Table 9: Aquatic Fauna Within the Study Area, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name
BIRDS:
green heron Butoroides virescens mallard Anas platyrhynchos
great blue heron Ardea herodias wood duck Aix sponsa
Canada goose Branta canadensis
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS:
snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina southern dusky Desmognathus
salamander auriculatus
common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus eastern mud Pseudotriton m.
salamander montanus
eastern mud turtle Kinosternon s. subrubrum southern two-lined Eurycea cirrigera
salamander
eastern river cooter Pseudemys c. concinna little grass frog Pseudoacris ocularis
southern cricket
Florida cooter Pseudemys f. floridana Acris g. gryllus
og
yellowbelly slider Trachemys s. scripta green treefrog Hyla cinera
banded water snake Nerodia f. fasciata gray treefrog Hyla versicolor
northern spring
redbelly water snake Nerodia e. erythrogaster Pseudacris crucifer
peeper
brown water snake Nerodia taxispilota green frog Rana clamitans melanota
eastern cottonmouth Agkistrodon p. piscivorus bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
southern leopard
two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means Rana utriculari a
frog
red-spotted newt Notophthalmus v. pickerel frog Rana palustris
viridescens
FISH:
bowfin Amia calva swamp fish Chologaster cornuta
American eel Anguilla rostrata pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
American shad Alosa sapidissima lined topminnow Fundulus lineolatus
eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea eastern
mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki
24
chain pickerel Esox niger white perch Morone americana
redfin pickerel Esox americanus striped bass Morone saxatilis
common carp Cyprinus carpio flier Centrarchus macropterus

satinfin shiner Cyprinella analostana
mud sunfish
Acantharchus pomotis
golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus
ironcolor shiner Notropis chalybaeus redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
rosefin shiner Lythrurus ardens warmouth Lepomis gulosus
white shiner Luxilus albeolus bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
highfin shiner Notropis altipinnis pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus
creek shubsucker Erimyzon oblongus largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus yellow perch Perca flavescens
yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis glassy darter Etheostoma vitreum
white catfish Ameiurus catus tessellated darter Ethostoma olmstedi
brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus sawcheek darter Ethostoma serriferum
margined madtom Noturus insignis swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme
tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus
d. Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described.
Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. Terrestrial communities in the study area will be impacted permanently by project
clearing and paving.
Plant communities found along the proposed study area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Project construction may reduce habitat for faunal species,
thereby diminishing numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge,
thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife farther
from the roadway. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas
25
suitable for these species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase of
competition for the remaining resources.
e. Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work
could affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible
effects.
Alterations in the aquatic community will result from the installation of bridges or culverts.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization of water and
scouring of stream channels. Water movement through these structures becomes concentrated and
direct, thereby increasing the flow velocity.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at
the site. Disturbances to the substrate may destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation, which
clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive
amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity
reduces light penetration, thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site
alters the terrain. Alteration of stream banks enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil, thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and
sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the
construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the
site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside
alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures,
which may impact many species.
2. Water Resources
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project is located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NCDENR-DWQ
subbasins 030303 and 030305 [USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020103]. The Tar-
Pamlico River Basin contains 8 subbasins. Study area waters drain to the southwest and south,
eventually flowing into the Tar River (NCDENR-DWQ 2004b). Physical characteristics of
streams within the study area are listed in Table 10.
The entire project study corridor in Pitt County is located within the protected watershed
area, classified as a Water Supply Watershed WS-IV-NSV, for the Greenville Utility Commission.
26
Table 10: Physical Characteristics of Streams Within the Study Area
NCDWQ Average Average
Stream No.
Stream
Stream Wet Wet Benthic
Best Usage
Map ID/
Name
Index Channel Channel Substrate
Classification
Seasonality No. Width Depth Composition
feet inches
1
**Cromwell Cromwell
28-82
17
28
silt sand
C; NSW
Canal Perennial Canal
2 UT to
^UT1/Perennial Cromwell 28-82* 6.5 24 silt sand C; NSW*
Canal
3 UT to
**UT2 Perennial Cromwell 28-82* 25 25 silty sand C; NSW*
Canal
4 UT to Tar 28-80* 23 26 silty sand C; NSW*
* *UT3 Perennial River
5 UT to Tar 28-80* 19 22 silty sand C; NSW*
* *UT4 Perennial River
6 UT to Tar 28-80* 18 22 silty sand C; NSW*
* *UT5 Perennial River
7 Cheeks cobble sand
**Cheeks Mill
Mill Creek 28-85 72 36
and silt C; NSW
Creek Perennial
8 UT to Tar 28-80* 39 24 silty sand C; NSW*
* *UT6 Perennial River
9 UT to Tar 28-80* 22 28 silty sand C; NSW*
* *UT7 Perennial River
10 UT to Tar 28-80* 16 24 sily sand C; NSW*
**UT8 Perennial River
11 UT to Tar 28-84* 16 15 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
* *UT9 Perennial River
12 Conetoe cobble sand
**Conetoe Creek Creek 28-87(2) 95 48 and silt WS-IV; NSW
Perennial
13 UT to 28-87 silt sand and
**UT 10 Perennial Conetoe (2)* 15 24 gravel WS-IV; NSW
Creek

1 UT to
**UT11
Perennial Conetoe 2?* 20 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Creek
15 UT to 28-87 20 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
* Perennial Conetoe (2)*
27
NCDWQ Average Average
Stream No.
Stream
Stream Wet Wet Benthic
Best Usage
Map ID/
Name
Index Channel Channel Substrate
Classification
Seasonality No. Width Depth Composition
feet inches
Creek
16 UT to Tar 28-84* 29 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
* *UT 13 Perennial River
17 UT to Tar 28-84* 20 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW*
* *UT 14 Perennial River
18 UT to
**UT15/Perennial Johnson's 28-91* 16 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Mill Run
19 UT to
**UT16 Perennial Johnson's 28-91* 33 28 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Mill Run
20 UT to
**UT17 Perennial Johnson's 28-91* 17 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Mill Run
21 UT to
**UT18 Perennial Johnson's 28-91* 25 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Mill Run
22 UT to
AUT19 Johnson's 28-91* 15 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Intermittent Mill Run
23 UT to
^UT20 Johnson's 28-91* 15 24 silty sand WS-IV; NSW
Intermittent Mill Run
* Unnamed tributaries (UT) carry the same surface water classification as the water body into which they drain.
** UT's subject to Buffer Rules
UT's not subject to Buffer Rules
The aquatic communities within the study area included streams, man-made ponds and
ditches, and associated jurisdictional wetlands. Twenty-three intermittent or perennial surface
waters are located in the study area. Three of the 23 anticipated project stream crossings are
named streams: Cromwell Canal, Cheeks Mill Creek (Suggs Creek) and the Conetoe Creek. All
of the unnamed tributaries are perennial or intermittent streams that have been altered (straightened
and deepened) for agricultural use and retain few characteristics of natural streams.
28
b. Water Quality
Nonpoint Source Discharge
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural land and timbering operations is likely to be the
primary sources of water quality degradation to the water resources located within the project
vicinity. Surrounding land use is mainly used for agriculture and timber production. Nutrient
loading and increased sedimentation from agricultural runoff and forestry practices affect water
quality. Nonpoint source pollution from a few private residences within the study area also are
likely to contribute to water quality degradation.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 303(d) list for North
Carolina indicates that the Tar River and its tributaries within the study area are not listed as
impaired waterways (NCDENR-DWQ 2004c). Conetoe Creek, approximately 5 miles upstream of
the study area, is listed as a Category 6 impaired waterway (NCDENR-DWQ 2004c).
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The NCDENR-DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the NCDENR-DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every 5 years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to
water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the
NCDENR-DWQ) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from 6 months
to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next
generation. Different taxa of macroinertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long
term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution
sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the
population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions. There is
1 biological station within 1.0 mile of the study area (NCDENR-DWQ 2004b). It is located at the
NC Highway 42 crossing of the Tar River approximately 0.75 mile west of the study area. This
site has been rated Excellent since 1992. Taxa that were abundant in all collections included
Stenonema, Tricorythodes, Brachycentrus numerousus and Hydropsyche venularis. The rare
caddisfly Ceraclea ophioderus was found in large numbers in 2002 (NCDENR-DWQ 2003).
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. All dischargers are required
to register a permit. There are no point dischargers located within 1 mile of the study area
[NCDENR-DWQ 2004b and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004]. The nearest
29
discharger is the Town of Tarboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant located approximately 1.25 miles
northwest of the study area (EPA 2004).
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of the proposed proj ect will impact water resources. The estimated linear
impact is the length and/or the width of the study area. Project construction may result in the
following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates
and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow resulting from construction.
• Increases in nutrient loading during construction through runoff from temporarily
exposed land surfaces.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
toxic spills and increased vehicular use.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface water and water
supplies will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Provisions to
preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly
enforced.
3. Waters of the United States
The USACE promulgated the definition of "Waters of the US" under 33 CFR §328.3(a).
Waters of the US include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries and wetlands.
Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR
§328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Any action that
proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of the US falls under the jurisdiction of the
USACE and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands delineated within the study area can be grouped into one of the
following classifications: forested depressional wetlands, forested floodplain wetlands and
emergent meadow (agricultural) wetlands. A detailed description of each of these wetland types is
given below.
Palustrine forested depressional wetlands (PFOlY): Palustrine forested depressional wetlands
are broad-leaved deciduous wetlands that contain 50 % or more woody vegetation, dominated by
30
trees. These wetlands are not closely associated with streams and other water bodies and do not
generally receive flood water on a seasonal basis. In general, these depressional wetlands are
derived from groundwater. The nature of this community's micro-topography results in a
shallower depth to groundwater, thus affecting the vegetation composition and the soils' ability to
absorb precipitation. This forested system exists at greater distances from stream/ditch corridors
and does not generally receive flood waters on a seasonal basis.
The tree species that dominated this community in the study area includes red maple, sweetgum,
tulip poplar, loblolly pine, water oak and ironwood. The community's outer fringe was less
saturated and drier than the inner, more deeply depressed areas. Soils in the depressional systems
ranged from mucks to sandy loams and areas of higher clay content.
Palustrine forested floodplain wetlands (PF01C): Palustrine forested floodplain wetlands are
broad-leaved deciduous wetlands that are immediately adjacent to stream and agricultural ditch
systems. These systems have close hydrological ties with the adjacent streams and trap and slow
flood waters after major precipitation events. A portion of their yearly hydrological cycle is
directly attributed to the flooding of their associated water bodies.
In the study area, these wetlands were floodplains associated with the numerous ditched streams
that intersect NC 33. The vegetation in these wetland communities was dominated by trees such as
sweetgum, red maple, bald cypress, sycamore, river birch (Betula nigra) various willows and oaks.
The soils within this community were generally saturated to the surface and consisted of sandy
loams that in many areas were covered by 2 to 5+ inches of organic muck.
Palustrine emergent meadows (PEM): Palustrine emergent meadows or emergent wetlands are
open wetlands with herbaceous vegetation such as sedges, rushes, grasses and other forbs. Shrubs
and trees collectively compose less than 50% of the dominant vegetation. Like floodplain forests,
these communities trap flood waters from swollen ditched streams. However, some of these
wetlands are not directly associated with streams and are simply depressional wetlands in open
fields that have not been ditched or the associated ditch has not been properly maintained.
For the NC 33 project this community was associated with open areas on the edges of agri cultural
fields and ditches. Farming activities have prevented vegetative succession. Vegetation contained
within the emergent wetlands with in the project corridor includes soft rush (Juncus effusus) flat
sedge (Cyperus spp.), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus),
switch-cane and cattails (Typha latifolia). The soils were saturated to the surface throughout this
community and in some pockets inundated. They consisted of mucks, sandy loams and clays.
b. Summary of Anticipated Wetland and Stream Impacts
Jurisdictional areas are present in the project study corridor within each of the alternatives.
Tables 11A-11H provide a summary of the wetland and stream impacts within each alternative.
Approximate locations of wetlands and surface waters are presented in Figure 2. Wetland and
stream impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake, plus an additional 25 feet outside of
each limit as determined from the current preliminary design plans for each alternative. The totals
are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre.
31
Table 11A: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 1- Best-Fit Widening

Wetland /

Wetland
Wetland
Area
Length of
Stream

NC DWQ Riverine / Non
Riverine
wetlands
Stream Identification Type Impacted
(Acres) Impacted
(ft) Rating Perennial /
Intermittent
streams
Pond 1 0 0
Pond 2 0 0
WA PFO1C 0.44 47
Cromwell Canal* 224 35.57 P
WC PFO1C 0.22
UT1 35 3.50 P
WD PFO 1 C 0.03 30
UT2* 161 39.75 P
WI PFO1C 0.76 57
WL PFO1C 0.14 70
WN PFO1C 0.16 40
WO PFO1C 0.01 48
TOTALS: 1.80 420
* Subject to Buffer Rules
Table 11B: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 2 - Northern Widening
Riverin
Wetland Length of Riv

Wetland /
Wetland
Area
Stream
NC DWQ
wetl
nd
Stream Identification Type Impacted Impacted Rating Pere
(Acres) (ft) ]
Inter
stre
WP PEM 0.30 16
TOTALS: 0.30
* Subject to Buffer Rules
32
Table 11C: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 3 - Northern Widening

Wetland/

Wetland
Wetland
Area
Length of
Stream

NC DWQ Riverine / Non
Riverine
wetlands
Stream Identification Type Impacted
(Acres) Impacted
(ft) Rating Perennial /
Intermittent
streams
UT3 * 327 25.5 P
UT4* 621 28.75 P
WQ PFO1C 1.14 71
UT5* 214 26.75 P
TOTALS: 1.1 948
* Subject to Buffer Rules
Table 11D: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 4 - Northern Widening
Riverine / Non
Wetland Length of Riverine
Wetland/ Wetland Area Stream NC DWQ wetlands
Stream Identification Type Impacted Impacted Rating Perennial /
(Acres) (ft) Intermittent
streams
WST PFO1C 0.89 56
WU PFO1C 0.31 75
PF
OO I C/
WX 1
28 43
P .
lphek
sMill Creek* 320 49.00 P
j
TTALS: 2.50 320
* Subject to Buffer Rules
33
Table 11E: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 5 - Best-Fit Widening
Riverine / Non
Wetland/ Wetland Length of Riverine
Stream Wetland Area Stream NC DWQ wetlands
Identification Type Impacted Impacted Rating Perennial /
(Acres) (ft) Intermittent
streams
PFOO
I
C/
WX 0
19 43
I
? .
UT 6* 228 42.00 P
UT 7* 161 32.50 P
UT 8* 166 24.50 P
UT 9* 138 30.25 P
WAC PFO1C 0.19 82
Conetoe Creek* 201 48.00 P
WAC PFO1C 1.14 82
UT 10* 236 29.75 P
TOTALS: 1.50 1130
* Subject to Buffer Rules
Table 11F: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 6 - Northern Bypass
Riverine / Non
Wetland/ Wetland Length of Riverine
Stream Wetland Area Stream NC DWQ wetlands
Identification Type Impacted Impacted Rating Perennial /
(Acres) (ft) Intermittent
streams
UT10* 200 29.75 P
WAR FD 0.15 58
TOTALS: 0.20 200
* Subject to Buffer Rules
34
Table 11G: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 6 - Southern Bypass
Riverine / Non
Wetland/ Wetland Length of Riverine
Stream Wetland Area Stream NC DWQ wetlands
Identification Type Impacted Impacted Rating Perennial /
(Acres) (ft) Intermittent
streams
UT10* 493 29.75 P
WAR FD 2.20 58
TOTALS: 2.20 493
* Subject to Buffer Rules
Table 11H: R-3407 Wetland and Stream Impacts - Section 7 - Best-Fit Widening

Wetland/
Stream

Wetland
Wetland
Area
Length of
Stream

NC DWQ Riverine / Non
Riverine
wetlands
Identification Type Impacted
(Acres) Impacted
(ft) Rating Perennial /
Intermittent
streams
UT13* 173 34.25 P
WAR FD 0.14 58
WAS FF 0.16 24
UT 15* 134 18.75 P
UT 16* 155 32.75 P
UT 17* 116 20.25 P
UT 18* 168 31.75 P
UT 19 152 18.00 I
UT 20 62 6.00 I
TOTALS: 0.30 965
* Subject to Buffer Rules
c. Permits
Due to the likely placement of fill within jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, during
project construction, it will be necessary to obtain permits from the USACE and NCDWQ. A final
permitting strategy cannot be developed until an alignment footprint has been determined and
construction impacts are quantified. Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that
state water quality standards will not be violated for activities that either involve issuance of a
federal permit or license, or require discharges to Waters of the US. The USACE cannot issue a
Section 404 permit until a 401 Water Quality Certification is issued. Based on assessments made,
it is likely that a Section 404 Individual Permit requiring mitigation will be needed.
35
The project is located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is subject to the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0259). Streams subject to the buffer rules are noted on
Tables 11A-11H; also see April 1, 2005 memo from NC Division of Water Quality in Appendix B.
The main rule, called the buffer protection rule, requires that existing vegetated riparian buffers
within the basin be protected and maintained on both sides of intermittent and perennial streams,
lakes, ponds and estuarine waters. A total of 50 feet of riparian area is required on each side of
waterbodies. Within this 50 feet, the first 30 feet, referred to as Zone 1, is to remain undisturbed
with the exception of certain activities. The outer 20 feet, referred to as Zone 2, must be vegetated,
but certain additional uses are allowed. Specific activities are identified in the rule as "exempt",
"allowable", "allowable with mitigation" or "prohibited". "Allowable" and "allowable with
mitigation" activities require review by NCDWQ staff and include activities such as new ponds in
drainage ways and water crossings. The other 2 buffer rules are the buffer mitigation rule and the
buffer program delegation rule. The mitigation rule defines the process applicants would follow to
gain approval for activities that are identified in the buffer protection rule as "allowable with
mitigation". It also outlines acceptable mitigation measures. The delegation rule lays out the
criteria and process for local governments to obtain authority to implement the buffer rules within
their jurisdictions (NCDENR-DWQ 2004d). A Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certificate will need to be
obtained for the project prior to construction.
d. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the US, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimization of impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the US. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the EPA and the USACE, 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. Impacts to Waters of the US will result from roadfill and stream crossings.
Avoidance of all jurisdictional impacts is not possible along this section of NC 33.
Avoidance of some of the wetlands/streams was accomplished through elimination of some
alternatives. Those alternatives were:
• Section 1- North Widening
• Section 4 - South Widening
• Section 5 - South Widening
36
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to Waters of the US. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way (ROW)
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts
to Waters of the US crossed by the proposed project include strict enforcement of sedimentation
control BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project, reduction of
clearing and grubbing activity, reduction/ elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of
runoff velocity, re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide
usage, minimization of "in-stream" activity and litter/debris control.
All "Best-Fit" alternatives were designed to minimize wetland/stream impacts.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation will likely be required for all unavoidable losses after all practical
avoidance and minimization options are utilized. A specific mitigation plan cannot be developed
until final design is completed and actual impacts determined. NCDOT will evaluate the potential
for on-site mitigation once the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
has been selected. NCDOT will use the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet
mitigation requirements provided there is no suitable on-site mitigation available. In accordance
with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District" (MOA), July 22, 2003, the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources EEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to
satisfy the federal CWA compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
4. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) or Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, as amended. As January 31, 2008, the USFWS (2004) lists the
following federally-protected species for Edgecombe and Pitt Counties. A brief description of
each species' characteristics and habitat follows in Table 12.
37
Table 12: Federally Protected Species of Pitt and Edgecombe Counties
Federal Biological
Common Name Scientific Name County Habitat
Status Conclusion
Red-cockaded
Picoides borealis P
Ed No E No Effect
woodpecker ,
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus P No E No Effect
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana P, Ed Yes E MANLTAA
E - Endangered
MANLAA - May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect
P - Pitt County
Ed - Edgecombe County
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Large, contiguous stands of mature pine are not present within the study area. With the exception
of a few isolated woodlots with mature trees, the entire study area has been adversely impacted by
timber harvesting and agriculture. During helicopter and ground surveys, no RCW cavity trees
were found and no active clusters were located within 0.5 mile of the study area. Additionally, a
16 September 2004 review of the NCNHP database of threatened and endangered species revealed
no known populations or occurrences of RCWs within 1 mile of the study area. The nearest
known active RCW cluster is located over 50 miles southeast of the proposed project on the
Croatan National Forest. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
West Indian manatee
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project does not cross the Tar River, the only suitable manatee habitat within the
project vicinity. Additionally, a 16 September 2004 review of the NCNHP database of threatened
and endangered species revealed no known populations or occurrences of West Indian manatees
within 1 mile of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the
West Indian manatee.
Tar River spinymussel
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The Tar River spinymussel lives in relatively silt-free uncompacted gravel/coarse sand substrate in
fast flowing, well-oxygenated stream reaches of the Tar and Neuse River basins. It feeds by
filtering food particles that are suspended in the water. The Tar spinymussel is restricted to five
stream reaches in the Tar River system in eastern North Carolina. The project area is located within
the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
38
Suggs Creek contains potentially suitable habitat for the Tar River spinymussel. A mussel survey
was conducted on July 26, 2007 by NCDOT biologists, and no Tar River spinymussel populations
or occurrences were found. Another mussel survey will be conducted closer to project letting to
reevaluate this biological conclusion. A biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect is appropriate until further investigation is conducted. A search of the National
Heritage Program (NHP) database, updated February 2008, indicated that no Tar River
spinymussel populations are known to occur within Suggs Creek, or within 2 miles of the project
area.
Concurrence from the USFWS regarding the Tar River spineymussel will be requested after more
information is gathered from additional surveys for this species. The surveys are currently
scheduled for later in 2010.
b. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) primarily consists of mature forest in
proximity to large bodies of open water. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within approximately 1 mile of foraging habitat, such as open water. While the bald eagle
has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act (as of August 08, 2007), it is still protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA; see 2005 NRTR and 2008 NRTR
addendum). One active bald eagle nest is located approximately 1 mile south of SR 1523 (Shiloh
Farm Road) and approximately 300 ft west of NC 33 in Edgecombe County (see 2005 NRTR and
2008 NRTR Addendum). The active status of this nest was verified during an on-site (Pre-2A of
the NEPA process) field meeting on November 3, 2008.
The USFWS is working to establish a permitting process for incidental take on bald eagles.
Continued coordination with the Service will be required prior to issuance of environmental
permits for this project. It is important to note that interference with breeding (including nest
abandonment) would be construed as take by the Service. To avoid violating BGPA provisions, a
work moratorium will be required during the nesting season (November 15 - July 15). This time
window may be shortened if monitoring and observation demonstrate that young have fledged
prior to July 15. During the moratorium, no work will be allowed to occur within 660 feet of the
bald eagle nest. Furthermore, NCDOT will need to coordinate with USFWS and other relevant
agencies during the planning, design, and construction phases of this project to ensure that any
proposed actions will not violate BGPA provisions.
39
5. Soils
The Pitt and Edgecombe County Soil Surveys identify twelve soil types within the study area
(Table 13).
Table 13: Soils Within the Project Area
Soil Series (Map Unit) Hydric
Status Slope (%) Drainage Class
Altavista fine sandy loam (AaA) No 0-10 Moderately well drained
Alaga loamy sand (AgB) No 0-6 Somewhat excessively drained
Altavista sandy loam (A1B) Yes 0-4 Moderately well drained
Craven fine sandy loam (CrB2) No 1-6 Moderately well drained
Masada sandy loam (MaB) No 0-4 Well drained
Ocilla loamy fine sand (OcB) No 0-4 Somewhat poorly drained
Pactolus loamy sand (Pa) Yes 0-6 Moderately well to somewhat
poorly drained
Portsmouth fine sandy loam (Pu) Yes 0-2 Very poorly drained
Roanoke silt loam (Ro) Yes 0-2 Poorly drained
State loamy sand (StB) No 0-4 Well drained
Tuckerman fine sandy loam (Tu) Yes 0-3 Poorly drained
Tarboro loamy sand (TaB) No 0-6 Somewhat excessively drained
Wagram loamy sand (WaB) No 0-6 Somewhat excessively drained
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance
This project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of
the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
40
2. Historic Architectural Resources
One historic property has been identified within the project limit that is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places: the Penny Hill doctor office. Table 14 gives the details of the
effects.
Table 14: Historic Architectural Resources
Historic Property Status Section/Alternative Effects
Penny Hill Doctor's Office DE 4/North Widening No Adverse Effect*
DE - Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
* No Adverse Effect with the following conditions: NCDOT will move building away from road within historic
boundary and develop a Memorandum of Understanding with Federal Highway Administration and the Historic
Preservation Office to provide for stabilization of property on its new location.
The R-3407 Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects dated February 24, 2009 and
June 30, 2009 is located in Appendix C.
3. Archaeological Resources
In a letter dated January 5, 2005, the Office of State Archeology recommended that after
the area of potential affect for the project is better defined, that staff of the Office of State
Archaeology meet with NCDOT staff to delineate those project areas that need an archaeological
survey. Therefore, archaeological surveys will be required after the recommended alternative
(LEDPA) has been determined.
C. Section 40/6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) protects the use of publicly owned
parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic properties from USDOT actions.
USDOT may only approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly
owned land of a public park, recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of an
historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal State, or local
officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation areas refuge, or site) when there is no prudent
and feasible alternative to using that land and when the program or project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to the resource.
The Penny Hill Doctor's office is a historic resource protected under section 4(f). The
building is located in Section 4 of the project (see Figure 2, Sheet 8 for location map). The
proposed project will require moving the office farther back on the property.
41
Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended existing Section 4(f) legislation to simplify the
processing and approval of projects that have only de minimis impacts on lands protected by
Section 4(f). This revision provides that if a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a
de minimis impact on the property, an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the
Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete.
NCDOT and FHWA (in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office) have
determined that the proposed use of the land from the doctor's office will be considered a de
minimis impact because the highway improvements will only have a small impact to the property
and will not permanently inhibit the site's function.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act applies to the conversion of certain
recreation lands to non-recreational purposes. The act applies to recreation lands that have
received Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money. Any land conversions on property
that has received LWCF money must be approved by the US Department of the Interior-National
Park Service. Section 6(f) also requires that any applicable land converted to non-recreational uses
must be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location, and usefulness. No Section 6(f)
protected properties will be impacted by this project.
D. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation ofPrime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS). These soils are determined by the Soil Conservation Service and based on criteria such
as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. The Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA) requires that applicable environmental documents evaluate farmland impacts and comply
with FPPA guidelines to minimize impacts.
As is required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, Form NRCS-CPA-106 has been
completed. Since this project received a total point value of less than 60 points for part VI, and
since it therefore cannot score a total of 160 points or higher (which would require NRCS
evaluation), this site falls below the NRCS minimal criteria and will not be evaluated further for
farmland impacts. No other alternatives other than those already discussed in this document will
be considered without a re-evaluation of the project's potential impacts upon farmland. This project
will not have a significant impact to farmland.
A farmland conversion impact rating form (MRCS-CPA-106) was prepared for this project.
This rating form can be found in Appendix C.
42
E. Social Effects
1. Population - Trends and Composition
The population in the demographic study area, according to the 2000 Census, was 9,559.
This population represented an increase of 1,611 people or 20.3% from the 1990 population
numbers. The population growth rate in the demographic area was notably higher than in
Edgecombe County overall which lost 952 people or 1.7% during the same period but slightly
lower than Pitt County overall which increased by 25,874 people or 24% from 1990 until 2000.
The population growth was not uniform across the demographic area. The census numbers noted
that the portion of the demographic area in Edgecombe County lost 604 people or 21.0% of its
population from 1990 until 2000. The highest population losses occurred in the area around the US
64/ NC 33 interchange. Homes in the area just south of the interchange and in the Princeville area
were likely flooded and purchased by the Edgecombe County after Hurricane Floyd. Other
population losses in this area are likely a result of people moving to other areas due to the
economic conditions in the Tarboro area. On the other end of the project, in Pitt County, in the area
just north of the US 264 / NC 33 interchange, the census numbers noted that the population
increased by about 2,013 people or 55.2% from 1990 until 2000. Mobile home communities and
manufactured home subdivisions developed in the late 1990's line portions of NC 33, Barrus
Construction Road and Old River Road in this area. The population in this area has likely increased
since 2000 as more new homes have been constructed. The population in the central portions of
the project experienced modest (around 14% or 425 residents) increases from 1990 until 2000. The
population growth in this area is attributable to the new homes constructed in the Scott's
Crossroads area as well as, the residential units constructed on large parcels that front NC 33 and
other area roadways (rural homesteads).
2. Racial and Ethnic Makeup
According to the 2000 Census, 54.1% of residents in the Demographic Study Area
identified themselves as Black or African-American racially and 38.4% identified themselves as
White racially. The racial make up in the area was comparable to Edgecombe County overall
where 57.8% % of the residents identified themselves as Black or African-American racially and
39.8% identified themselves as White racially. The racial make up in the demographic area was
more diverse and had a higher percentage Black or African Americans than Pitt County overall
where 62.2% of the residents identified themselves as White racially and 33.7% identified
themselves as Black or African-American. The number of residents who identified themselves as
Black or African-American racially was notably high in the higher population areas on either end
of the project. On the northern end of the project the numbers likely reflect the racial makeup of the
neighborhoods along Ridgewood Road and Concrete Road (north of the project) and along Bogey
Street. On the southern end of the project, the numbers likely note the make-up of the
neighborhoods along Old River Road, Barrus Construction Road, and NC 33. The racial makeup in
the other areas along the project had almost equal numbers of Black or African American residents
as White residents in 2000. This likely reflects the historic settlement patterns in the rural areas
surrounding the proposed project.
43
According to the 2000 Census, 8.5% of the residents in the demographic area identified
themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnically. This was notably higher then the 2.7% reported in
Edgecombe County overall and the 3.1% reported for Pitt County overall. The census numbers
note that the vast majority (93%) of Hispanic or Latino residents within the demographic area
lived around the southern end of the proj ect, near the City of Greenville. The Hispanic or Latino
residents likely live in the mobile home communities or modular home subdivisions off of Belvoir
School Road, Roosevelt Spain Road, Barrus Construction Road, Old River Road or NC 33. The
presence of a high number of Hispanic or Latino residents in the area is likely a combination of the
proximity of agricultural operations, job opportunities in the City of Greenville, and affordable
housing in the area.
3. Income/Employment
According to the 2000 Census, the median household income for the demographic study
area was approximately $31,273. This figure is comparable to the median household incomes for
Edgecombe County overall at $30,983 and Pitt County overall at $32,868. The median household
income numbers were not uniform across the demographic area. The Census numbers noted that
the area around the US 64/ NC 33 interchange in Edgecombe County had a median income of
$20,000. Based on site observations this statistic may reflect the household income of the residents
in the Ridgewood Road and Concrete Road area (north of the proj ect) and the Bogey Street area.
The Census numbers also illustrate that the area just northwest of the US 264/ NC 33 interchange
in Pitt County had a median household income of $27,900. Based on site observations, this number
may reflect the household incomes of the residents in the areas along Old River Road and NC 33.
At the time of the 2000 Census, the unemployment rate for the demographic study area was 8.7%.
This number was lower than the rate in Edgecombe County as a whole, which was 9.6%, but
higher than the rate in Pitt County overall which was 6.8% during the same timeframe. The Census
numbers report that the same areas that had a low median household income also struggled with
high-unemployment rates. The area around the NC 33/US 64 interchange in Edgecombe County
reported an unemployment rate of over 16% in 2000. The area just northwest of the NC 33/US
264 interchange in Pitt County reported an unemployment rate of 11% for the same time frame.
Based on more current numbers provided by the North Carolina Employment Security
Commission, the unemployment rates in both counties have improved since 2000. According to
May 2009 data, the unemployment rate for Edgecombe County was 15.7%, while Pitt County had
a rate of 11%.
According to data from the NC Employment Security Commission for the 2nd quarter of
2005, manufacturing was the largest employment sector in Edgecombe County. This sector
accounted for 21.6% of total employment within the County and had an average weekly wage of
$576.00. Specific top manufacturing companies include Sara Lee, Carolina Systems Technology,
and Air System Components LP. The same data in Pitt County suggested that the health care and
social assistance sector was the largest employment sector. This sector accounted for 19% of
employment within the County and had an average weekly wage of $687.00. Top employers in Pitt
County include Pitt County Memorial Hospital, East Carolina University, Pitt County Schools,
DSM Pharmaceuticals and NAACO Materials Handling Group. According to the North Carolina
Cooperative Extension, farming, agricultural operations, natural fiber, and forests account for one-
fifth or 22.5% of Edgecombe County's income and employment. Although this number is lower in
44
Pitt county overall at only 1.3%, the sector still plays a role in the rural areas of the County.
The 2002 Census of Agriculture noted that there were 1231 farms encompassing 150,000 acres of
farmland in Edgecombe County and 448 farms containing 185,446 acres of farmland in Pitt
County. Agricultural products or crops in Edgecombe County include hog raising and processing,
poultry raising and processing, tobacco, corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and peanuts. Agricultural
products produced in Pitt County include cotton, soybeans, corn for grain, wheat for grain, and
vegetables. Another segment of agriculture that is important to the Pitt County's economy is
nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod products. Farmers in both counties have been affected by
recent declines in tobacco and peanut subsidies.
4. Neighborhood/Community Cohesion
Evidence of community cohesion was most evident in Belvoir Crossroads, Scott's
Crossroads, and the Bogey Farm areas. Signs of cohesion were especially apparent in the Belvoir
Crossroads area, which has a variety of land uses including commercial, residential (in the form of
established and clearly defined subdivisions and neighborhoods and rural residential), agricultural
and industrial. The presence of varying land uses solidifies the fact that this community is a viable
and functioning community. In addition, the Pitt County Northwest Area Plan identifies Belvoir
Crossroads as a rural crossroads community where new development should be concentrated and
the existing character preserved. This designation likely resulted from citizens of Belvoir taking an
active role in the planning process.
Scott's Crossroads did not have the variety of land uses seen in Belvoir Crossroads
however, there is a concentration of rural residential, in some cases new development, and
surrounding agricultural land. The rural residential traditionally served as housing for farmers but
also now includes housing for commuting residents not engaged in agriculture or farming
operations. Taken together, these land uses serve to form an identifiable community. Scott's
Crossroads is also situated on the east bank of the Tar River across the river from Old Sparta. Old
Sparta is the oldest community in Edgecombe County and was established as the Town Creek
settlement in 1726. This contributes to Scott's Crossroads' sense of place and history.
In addition to the two rural crossroads communities, there is a specific neighborhood along
the proposed project that has a sense of cohesion. The Bogey Farm subdivision has history,
established residences and proximate businesses including a pool hall where people congregate, a
fishing pond that attracts residents, and a daycare. The neighborhood's unique and somewhat
isolated location also adds to the sense of cohesion.
5. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
By combining the alternatives, the project could result in a minimum of 48 residential
displacements with 7 business displacements and a maximum of 49 residential displacements with
7 business displacements. Please see Appendix D for a copy of the Relocation Reports, a special
note regarding the Relocation Reports and the NCDOT's policies regarding displacements.
45
6. Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects individuals from discrimination on the
grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations" provides that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of
its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Special
populations may include elderly, children, the disabled, low-income areas, American Indians, and
other minority groups. Executive Order 12898 requires that Environmental Justice principles be
incorporated into all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three
environmental principles are: 1) to ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially affected
communities in the transportation decision making process. 2) to avoid, minimize or mitigate
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and
economic effects, on minority or low income populations. 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and
burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities, upon low-income and minority
populations. Bogey Street and several Hispanic communities near the Belvoir Elementary School
were identified; however, the project does not directly affect the communities. Based on an
environmental justice evaluation for this project, it is concluded that no low income or minority
community is being adversely or disproportionately impacted.
7. EMS
Edgecombe County Emergency Management noted that the proposed widening would not
effect emergency response time in the area. The Chief of Pinetops Station 4, noted that Station 4
(dispatched out of Pinetops) covered the portion of NC 33 between the NC 33/ NC 42 intersection
and the Pitt County line. The Chief noted that no negative effects were expected as result of the
project. The Pitt County Emergency Management Assistant Director noted that due to the number
of homes along NC 33, response times could increase during construction. The Assistant Director
asked that the access and scheduling information be shared when known and noted that the
proposed project would be beneficial in the long term and would likely reduce response time.
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Mountains to Sea Bike Route, NC # 2, runs along NC 33 from NC 42 to Old River
Road. The new roadway will have 4-foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicyclists.
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
9. Recreational Facilities
There are no recreational facilities that will be impacted as a result of this project.
46
F. Economic Effects
Several businesses in and around the Belvoir Crossroads area are located close to the
existing roadway. Some of these businesses would likely need to be purchased to widen the
roadway in the Belvoir Crossroads area. The area's close proximity to Greenville suggests some
of the businesses would not be replaced due to nearby competition. Removal of some businesses
in the Belvoir Crossroads area could impact the viability of other businesses in the area. The
project will likely impact the parking and storage areas of businesses along the corridor. Two
bypass options are being evaluated in order to minimize impacts to the Belvoir community.
The Penny Hill Mud Sling is located on family land near the Penny Hill Area, in Section 4
the mud sling is not along NC 33. Impacts to the viability of this business should be minimal.
G. Land Use
The length of the proposed project in Edgecombe County is outside of a municipal
jurisdiction. Edgecombe County oversees land development in this area. The County has an
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that establishes permitted uses (zoning), regulates the
subdivision of land, and includes regulations to reduce property damage in flood prone areas. The
flood zone regulations in this area were strengthened after Hurricane Floyd. These regulations
amounted to prohibiting development in the floodway and restricting development in the 100-year
floodplain by imposing certain criteria. There are no regulations governing development in the
500-year floodplain.
Edgecombe County has an existing Land Development Plan that was targeted for the years
of 2007-2017. The current document essentially mirrors existing land use along the NC 33
corridor in this area. In addition, no specific area along the project corridor was designated an
identified growth area within the Land Development Plan. The County is currently working on an
update to the existing Land Development Plan.
Pitt County's Northwest Area Land Use Plan, adopted in 2001, covers the northwest
portion of Pitt County, between the Tar River and US 13/ NC 11. This plan was specifically
developed to address the rapid growth that this area of the County was experiencing.
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The widening of NC 33 from its existing two-lane configuration to a four-lane median
divided facility will decrease total travel time between Tarboro and Greenville. This reduction in
travel time will result from an increase in NC 33's capacity and the reduction of traffic congestion.
Residential development is expected to continue in the area with or without the project.
Following statewide and national trends, continued residential development will likely drive
demand for commercial services and commercial development. Construction of the project is likely
to slightly increase the overall number of residences constructed. The location of the units will be
driven by the proximity to Greenville. The increased number of residences will slightly strengthen
47
the demand for commercial services. All development in the area will be tempered by flooding
concerns and the availability of similar properties in other areas around Greenville.
The project area has fairly stringent development management regulations especially
related to preserving water quality. The Tar River Basin protection rule requires that a 50-foot
existing vegetated riparian buffer be protected and maintained on both sides of intermittent and
perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuarine waters. All of the project area in Pitt County is
located within the protected watershed area, classified as a Water Supply Watershed WS-IV-NSV,
for the Greenville Utility Commission. The protection area includes density limits and a 30%
impervious surface requirement. Pitt County adopted a stormwater ordinance in October 2004.
The City of Greenville developed a stormwater management program in September 2004.
Development in the project area also goes further to address future land use. The purpose of
the Northwest Area Land Use Plan is to ensure that growth is organized and only occurs in suitable
areas. To accomplish this, the plan identifies the unsuitable areas and recommends that future
development should be clustered closer to the City of Greenville. This clustering is intended to
reduce the impacts to natural resources and agricultural lands and operations. The Northwest Area
Land Use Plan designates the land around the Tar River and the Grindle Pocosin as agricultural/
open/ natural resource. The majority of land in Edgecombe County is located outside of a planned
growth area.
Although the widening of the roadway may shift where development occurs in the project
area and shift some regional growth into the project area, the "build" scenario is not expected to
result in substantial indirect resource impacts. The water quality concerns of future development
with or without the project will be greatly mitigated by stream buffer and watershed protection
regulations as well as the open space designation on the Pitt County future development plan. The
storm water rules for Greenville and Pitt County will specifically address the run-off permitted
with new development. The majority of the development is expected to occur in Pitt County,
whether NC 33 is widened or not.
L Flood Hazard Evaluation/FEMA Buyout Properties
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties are currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Cromwell Canal, Suggs (Cheeks Mill) Creek and Conetoe Creek are included in
limited flood detail studies having established 100-year floodplains. A more detailed impact
analysis will be performed during the project drainage design.
NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and local authorities to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
FEMA buyout properties are protected by the federal Government with deed restrictions
which limit the ability to add fill/pavement on these properties. FEMA buyout properties were
identified from GIS and are located in Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the project (see Figure 2). All
currently proposed alternatives were designed to avoid these properties.
48
J. Highway Traffic Noise
In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures, for
Abatement of Highway Tragic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type I
highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are proposed
Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new location or
improvements of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical
alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23
CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures. When traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be
considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full
technical report entitled Traffic Noise Analysis can be viewed in Room 464, the Transportation
Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh.
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 15. The table includes those receptors expected
to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Note that no noise
impacted receptors exist in Sections 1 through 6 of the proposed project, including both the North
Side Bypass and South Side Bypass within Section 6.
Table 15: Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Section*
Section Traffic Noise Im acts
Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total
1-6 0 0 0 0
7 2 0 1 3
*Per TNM®2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
The maximum extents of the 72- and 67- dBA noise level contours, measured from the
center of the proposed roadway, are 78 feet and 119 feet, respectively.
2. No-Build Alternative
The Traffic Noise Analysis also considered traffic noise impacts for the No-Build
Alternative. If the proposed project does not occur, 49 receptors are predicted to experience traffic
noise impacts and the future traffic noise levels will increase by approximately 9 dBA. Based
upon research, humans barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more
readily noticeable. Therefore, most people working and living near the roadway will notice this
predicted increase.
49
3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated for
highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, buffer
acquisition and noise barriers. For each of these measures, benefits versus costs, engineering
feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other factors were included in the
noise abatement considerations.
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered
to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic
system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the negative
impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to
acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of
$35,000 per benefited receptor, causing this abatement measure to be unreasonable.
4. Noise Barriers
Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and noise walls.
These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this project, the cost
of acquiring additional right of way and planting sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the
NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor. Also, for this project, earthen
berms are not found to be a viable abatement measure because the additional right of way,
materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of
$35,000 per benefited receptor.
This project will generally maintain uncontrolled right of way access, meaning that most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
project, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. Businesses, churches and other
related establishments require accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers do not allow
uncontrolled access, easy accessibility or high visibility, and would therefore not be acceptable
abatement measures for this project. Based on the Traffic Noise Analysis, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended for this project because the majority of the project maintains uncontrolled
access and very few receptors are predicted to receive noise levels in excess of those allowed by
federal regulations; consequently, no noise abatement measures are proposed.
5. Summary
Based on this preliminary study, 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. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this
project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or
alignment.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for
50
which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public
Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local governing bodies are
responsible to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
K. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing 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). A copy of the unabridged version of the
full technical report entitled Air Quality Analysis Proposed NC 33 Widening can be viewed in the
Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Room 444, Raleigh, NC.
1. Attainment Status
The project is located in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, which have been determined to
comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an
attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
2. Carbon Monoxide
A microscale CO analysis was not performed for this project because Edgecombe and
Pitt Counties are attainment counties.
3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
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 (03) and nitrogen dioxide (N02). Automotive emissions of HC
and NOx 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 ten to twenty 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 in the atmosphere, and, in the presence of sunlight, this mixture reacts to form
51
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. Therefore, a project specific analysis
of 03 and NO2 emissions is not appropriate.
4. Particulate Matter & Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur
dioxide (S02). 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 project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS.
5. Lead
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of
regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with Catalytic
converters burn unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 gram per
liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 gram per liter. 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 expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
6. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure 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.
52
7. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).Mobile Source
Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The
MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic
compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes
through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels
or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from
impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule,
EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs,
including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV)
standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements,
and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in
VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,
and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by
87 percent.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel
standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under
authority of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could adjust the full 21 and the
primary 6 MSATs.
8. Summary
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of
pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New
highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle emissions,
but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and
because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway.
Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles
and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly.
53
The project is located in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, which complies with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not create a facility that is likely to
meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of this attainment area.
L. Hazardous Materials
No Hazardous Waste Sites or landfills were identified within the project limits.
Six sites presently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (UST's) or
aboveground storage tanks (AST's) were identified within the project limits (See Table 16). This
total number includes one active body shop, several abandoned gas stations and two residential
properties. It is anticipated that monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites to be
low to non-existent. NCDOT will determine if the proposed right of way limits will impact these
sites. If there are right of way impacts, a preliminary site assessment will be conducted to test for
contamination of the sites during the right of way phase of the project. Approximately six (6)
months prior to letting, if there is any contaminated material remaining on these sites, NCDOT will
remove it as necessary.
54
Table 16: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Little's Body Shop Jimmy H. Little
3227 NC 33 West PO Box 30614 N/A N/A
Greenville, NC 27834 Greenville, NC 27834
This active auto body repair shop is located approximately 0.5 miles north of SR 1402 (Barrus
Construction Road) on the west side of NC 33. There is a concrete containment area on the north
side of the building, where drums of waste fluids are stored for disposal. Three drums were noted at
the time of the reconnaissance. The drums are used to store waste paint, used solvents and thinners.
The tanks are over 150 feet from the centerline of NC 33. No monitoring wells were noted on the
site. This site will have a low impact to the project.
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Mattie R. Bullock
5585 NC 33 West Mattie R. Bullock Mattie R. Bullock N/A
Tarboro, NC 27886
This residential property is located approximately 1 mile south of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Road) on the
west side of NC 33. In March of 2004 a heating oil UST was removed from this property. The
former tank bed is about 198 feet from the centerline of NC 33. The tank had leaked and
contaminated soil was removed. Groundwater was also impacted. Although contamination above
state action levels still remains at the site, it appears the regulatory agency will close out the site
since it was assigned a low risk classification. If our project impacts these remaining contaminated
soils they will require special handling. This site will have a low impact to the project.
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Mattie R. Bullock
5585 NC 33 West Mattie R. Bullock Mattie R. Bullock N/A
Tarboro, NC 27886
This residential property is located approximately 1 mile south of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Road) on the
east side of NC 33. In October of 2002 two farm USTs (one gasoline and one heating oil) were
removed from this property. The former tank bed is about 56 feet from the centerline of NC 33.
Both tanks had leaked and contaminated soils were removed. Groundwater was also impacted and
a monitoring well was installed. Although contamination above state action levels still remains at
the site, the regulatory agency has closed out the site since it was assigned a low risk classification.
If our project impacts these remaining contaminated soils they will require special handling. This
site will have a low to moderate impact to the project.
55
Table 16 (Cont.): Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Abandoned Gas Station Mattie R. Bullock
5621 NC 33 West 5585 NC 33 West Mattie R. Bullock Unknown
Tarboro, NC 27886 Tarboro, NC 27886
This abandoned gas station is located approximately 1 mile south of SR 1409 (Penny Hill Road) on
the west side of NC 33. No information on the site could be located in the UST Section's registry.
Three fill ports were identified on the property (possibly two commercial tanks and one heating oil
tank). The closest UST and pump island are approximately 36 feet from the centerline of NC 33.
No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it does not appear that the site is currently under
remediation. This site will have a low to moderate impact to the project.
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Abandoned Gas Station Robert R. Scott
5914 NC 33 West 164 Appalicho Drive Robert R. Scott Unknown
Tarboro, NC 27886 Boone, NC 28607
This abandoned gas station is located in the northwest quadrant of the NC 33 and NC 42
intersection. No information on the site could be located in the UST Section's registry. One fill
port and two vents were identified near the west side of building. This area is about 115 feet from
the centerline of NC 33. The pump island is approximately 76 feet from NC 33. No monitoring
wells were noted at the site and it does not appear that the site is currently under remediation. This
site will have a low impact to the project.
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Abandoned Gas Station James R. Eason, Jr.
No Address PO Box 33 James R. Eason, Jr. Unknown
Tarboro
NC 27886 Macclesfield, NC
, 27852
This abandoned gas station is located approximately 150 feet south of SR 1605 (Britt Farm
Road) on the east side of NC 33. No information on the site could be located in the UST
Section's registry. One old pump island was located approximately 48 feet from the centerline of
NC 33, in front of the building. No fill ports or vents were identified at the site. Metallic
readings were noted at the site, but it was difficult to tell if the readings were USTs (the site was
very overgrown and there appeared to be scrap metal scattered over the site). No monitoring
wells were noted at the site and it does not appear that the site is currently under remediation.
This site will have a low to moderate impact to the project.
56
Table 16 (Cont.): Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID #
Exum's Grocery Charles Exum
243 NC 33 1501 Chauncey Drive Charles Exum Unknown
Tarboro, NC 27886 Tarboro, NC 27886
This former gas station now operates only as a grocery store and is located just north of SR 1628
(Concrete Road) on the east side of NC 33. No information on the site could be located in the UST
Section's registry. An old pump island was noted about 44 feet from the centerline of NC 33.
There was also a concrete pad about 39 feet from the road, but no vents or fill ports were located at
the site. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and it does not appear that the site is currently
under remediation. This site will have a low impact to the project.
57
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshops
A Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW) was held on October 21, 2004 at the Belvoir
Elementary School to introduce this project to the public and obtain their comments and
suggestions about improvements. Approximately 41 citizens attended. Comments from the
workshop were largely in support for the widening and curve improvements for the project.
Since that time, several new alternatives around the Belvoir Community and near the Penny
Hill Doctor's Office had been developed and were shown at a second CIW that was held June 5,
2008. The CIW was held at the Belvoir Elementary School. Approximately 150 citizens attended.
Comments from the citizens were favorable toward making improvements along NC 33 in the
project area; however, several people expressed concern about the project's potential for impacts to
their residences adjacent to NC 33.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public
hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements.
The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed
proj ect.
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process
The NEPA/404 Merger Process is a process to streamline the project development and
permitting processes, agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, FHWA, and NCDOT and
supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of government. To this effect, the Merger
process provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on
ways to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.
The Merger process allows agency representatives to work more efficiently by providing a
common forum for them to discuss and find ways to comply with key elements of their agency's
mission. It engenders quicker and more comprehensive evaluation and resolution of issues. The
Merger process helps to document how competing agency mandates are balanced during a shared
decision-making process, which results in agency representatives reaching a "compromised-based
decision" to the regulatory and individual agency mandates.
Concurrence Point 1: On February 17, 2005, the Merger team met and concurred on the Purpose
and Need of the project. The purpose of the proposed project is to "improve the safety and
capacity of NC 33 between Tarboro and Greenville."
58
Concurrence Point 2: Concurrence Point 2 (CP 2) was signed on August 24, 2006. At this
meeting, the Merger team agreed to consider the following alternatives for each section:
• Section 1: Two alternatives, north widening and Best-Fit.
• Section 2: Two alternatives, north widening and Best-Fit.
• Section 3: Two alternatives, north widening and Best-Fit.
• Section 4: Four alternatives, north widening, south widening, Best-Fit widening and
avoidance of the Penny Hill historic doctor's office.
• Section 5: Two alternatives, south widening and Best-Fit.
• Section 6: Best-Fit alignments with options in and around Belvoir.
• Section 7: Two alternatives, north widening and Best-Fit.
Concurrence Point 2A Field Meeting: A field meeting was held November 3, 2008. The Merger
Team reviewed wetland sites and potential bridge locations. At this meeting, the Agencies in
attendance agreed with all of NCDOT's recommendations for hydraulic structures (see Table 4).
Concurrence Point 2A: On December 11, 2008, the Merger team met to determine which
alternatives should be carried forward. At this meeting, NCDOT presented additional alternatives
in two sections for consideration. They were:
Section 4: To avoid both the Tar River and the National Register Eligible Property,
NCDOT evaluated one bypass option (North Bypass) in addition to the
widening alternatives.
• Section 6: In order to minimize impacts to the Belvoir community, NCDOT evaluated 2
bypass options (North Bypass and South Bypass) in addition to the widening
alternative.
Based on the additional informational available at the Concurrence Point 2A meetings, the Merger
team agreed to eliminate certain alternatives (due to higher relocations or wetland/ stream impacts) and
agreed to take the following alternatives forward:
• Section 1: Best-Fit Widening
• Section 2: North Widening
• Section 3: North Widening
• Section 4: North Bypass and North Widening
• Section 5: Best-Fit Widening
• Section 6: North Bypass and South Bypass
• Section 7: Best-Fit Widening
Copies of signed concurrence point forms are provided in Appendix C.
On June 30, 2009, NCDOT met with the FHWA and HPO to readdress the remaining
alternatives effects on the doctor's office and specifically to discuss the possibility of removing the
North Bypass Alternative in Section 4. After some discussion, it was determined that both of the
59
alternatives would render a call of "no adverse effect". The Section 4/North Widening Alternative
would include conditions. The conditions agreed upon are:
"NCDOT will move building away from road within historic boundary and develop a
Memorandum of Understanding with Federal Highway Administration and the Historic
Preservation Office to provide for stabilization of property on its new location."
The Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects was signed by representatives from
NCDOT, FHWA and HPO on June 30, 2009.
In August 2009, NCDOT requested the Merger Team drop the North Bypass Alternative in
Section 4 from further consideration and not take it through the EA or to the Public Hearing. The
Team agreed via email in that same month.
D. Other Agency Coordination
Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted
with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Division of Forest Resources
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Edgecombe County
Pitt County
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this
document.
MLJ/mj
60
APPENDIX A
MAPPING & FIGURES
??????1(roC? 22
i
END PROJECT
T ° " RoMQ7 264
0 5,000 10,000
Feet C?PQQI?MDDOQ
VICINITY MAP PITT&
of11ORTH°Q WIDENING OF NC 33 FROM County:
?w 9Oy NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Figure
OF TRANSPORTATION US 64 SOUTHEAST OF Div: 2 &4 l1P# R-3407 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS TARBORO TO US 264 1 a
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND IN GREENVILLE WBS: 34539.1.1
'9r pie ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
OFTRP'. EDGECOMBE & PITT COUNTIES Date: MARCH 2010
TIP PROJECT R-3407
BY: J.TORTORELLA
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
?P
h ?
0 '
y a
ti
mo aa
d
db S PPPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CL
Q? CO
?OIL?
F-
z?0w z
3:W?NW::)o
0
OMQ??
M
?Uw F?
Q z z c)
LL F- W
ul
LU
?-)
m0cn0?0MW
gd
Zt?0wZ0d
W
? F-
LU U) LU
w
w
CL

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010

Figure
lb

BY:
J.TORTORELLA
BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Legend
Best Fit Alternative (Construction Limits)
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
Delineated Streams
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
Delineated Wetlands
FEMA Buyout Properties
f
,.i
l4, ?' 'J
py
L ?
- P
r
41
.. A
0 400 800
«a Feet
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
2 4
y a
ti
yo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
2
U
Z
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
W
0 OQz
a
3 Q
2 J
z?U
uQ
r
J?2>F
?
LU
a LL
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oaW
U)
0 LL W
a: 0 z
LL ?NW ::)o
?'?fAfAJ 0M
MQ J 0
?W
a
F
w
LL
-
0
0
M
0
M
W0
Ucn00 coo
Z??Z OD-

LU
W
3
Z
County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2&4
R 3407

WBS:
34539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 1 of 17

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
0 LL W
o: 0 W z
LL ?Nw ::)o
MfAfAJ 0M
M a J U
F-?
F-
Z Z
F-
a
?
w
ILF
w
?-,
0
M
0M
w0
UNOga
Zoa

LU
w
Z
County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2&4
R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 2 of 17,

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
0 LL W
o: 0 W z
LL ?NW ::)o
MfAfAJ 0M
M a J U
F-?
F-
F-
Z Z
a
O
W
ILF-
W
?-,
0
M
0M
w0
-
co
U) 0 a
7
ZOD-

LU
w
Z
Count .
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2&4
R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 3 of 17,

?„ ? ? r u ? ti3?•? ?h" ? eS ry 39 S 2 ,^" h N i'? s s?+.t r ' r'?,; f 1,« ?L ?'{
AS G 0 { fir E
y,..?5•,{.?? i '.'.? ? #?r w{,1, ?;i ra?xt y.???? ,?y??i. ?'#?fr 4J i..l
F#'°"r< * }turr 4 r` rt GSy 1 yt iyj-;?r„ * a
+A ?iJ '-¢ i? t fib ? - " Y} iT i'1?4•?'r?N i"?' fr ? ?;?? ?
,ji
4. V
4 '4
{X x i - r I '.1 F }? r L ' l' I•F ??# r ? - { ? 9 ''i«? ?
+a r??.w
`3 ?„++ ? :1?y1 1 (.. d r y A `1 AF ' i. i 1 ? vl h ?I' }IP y ??
FF ?
l 1?
?l yy u
r r
J, r'6 _J •? 1 e_ ?fi ? T•; 141 ?'.?..
Y_
33
,p
I+ _ ? 3 ...
1 T ? ? ? "' r7 -0 h r ?
'? 1 .,k f.-r• ra4{i `'??'d,,?`+.yr ??''.. R a ' 7'?„ y.. e{r? -A t `s!? fii,n'? `Y•tYw +?`?"`"? Y 1 ;?.
' { 1, t ?'* .-.IN -u n h i r ?` V r t'7 r`,J. v ,ti3 ? 4 ,F ?f
?' - ?IR? ' , ? ?.,?+r''.. r' '.*, ? ? ';1' ? ?Yi? ? ,?" ??y .F ,?. •.s {6r, 1'? R Y±F 6 ;'?I ?? ?'
33
I.M
0. 1
wr
Tx
` #e r?P" O
>yyr ?
+
'4.
I Y
+
I
1rJ?5 , ,?.? . ,'•: 0 , 400 800
a L.
aim,
a°
Feet
BY:
J.TORTORELLP
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
z
H Q?
U
H
Z }
J
0
a
Q
?OQ
Z? U
j
U
Jm2>F
0
aaow
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0
N 7
Oa>wZ
z0oaw
G CO
0 LL W
a:0? Z?
LL ?NW ::)o
M(q(nJ OM
MQ?J U
W
O
L
P z - c)
a
LU
ILF
W
0
0MM w0
0
t7cn00 cod
ZZ OD_

LU
W
Z
Count .

COMBE
EDGE

Div: TIP#
2&4
R 3407

NBS:
3453

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 4 of 17

Idm
-il

rE3;j3]-
............ F.
few.
? r

gk?7U UM 710

.d AN&L
? a

M
Legend
Best Fit Alternative (Construction Limits)
Delineated Streams
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
a Delineated Wetlands

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
d
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
x
U
H Q
w zm

}
Z
J
MO QWz
a
3 Q
2 J
zH D
U<
L
J?2>H
?
w
aU- o
Qy0
UZZUZ
xQOWO
W?y-,-
0U->wz
z0oaW
CO
0 LL W
?0W z
LL 1.- NW Do

M
M(A(AJ
MQ J O0
?w
O
a
W
LL F
W
00
w
?-,
w
WO
t7cn00 CO20
-
00-
0 z

0
LU
W
<?Jz
County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 5 of 17

BY:
J.TORTORELLA
:1 lump-,
?h?.^- A; G4i 4?,k,_r'L''fys+,•r`'c"%yr .._ •,:1'?,r ?? Il;llll??ll ll? '
M.N.
' i V I.. y 5 S vi 5. w M l?L: ' { 1?p' a dl a,y .. +! t 1 ..7
RT
?t y, ° "g ??t *? 'rte
I L1.1
It
-7-7 7
r
Ar)
"YO
R
r'4 { ° is
Ja.
{ .ti* { r a.:. / /E rYy A a t dr'? ] ',r' w..•r:
• r
4V
MUM
of
Legend i q C
0 ?IA .T
?,tl 4
?i Best Fit Alternative (Construction Limits) 2
North Widening Alternative (Construction Limits)
?t
'S
Delineated Streams ' Fa ''`
. ,i r +d ?I L4w'?
--I-- GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
GIS Ponds Lakes Rivers
0 400 800
a Delineated Wetlands {
%
-'r lax
FEMA Buyout Properties
BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Feet
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
W m
z
z
J
W
MO Qz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHt7wQ
JOE>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0o(L W
CO
0 LL W
M0? z
LL ?NW ::)o
MfAfAJ 0M
M a J 0
?W
a
O
w
IL?
W
?-,
0
w
0w
W0
UU)0 COa

00-
-
Z0
?
0
LU
W
2
County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2&4 R 3407

NBS.
34539.

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 6 of 17

0
t
' F Fr ?
s ?-
w4
??F;. rr ? ??F r f 1t
.t

UNNAMED

t,

Legend

North Widening Alternative (Construction Limits)
Delineated Streams
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers ;
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers r
a Delineated Wetlands S4'
560I@0 40 0o3 mm#b Q off aff logo
DI1K 9400 Q Peuoy NO QdoD
5

E
•?? y j.
1
r,3 K _j 11?
1-44
r
r? ?•.? ?° `?':? fir:
k
PR?IZN
0 400 800
e ?
Feet
Oy?P Na;b?•
P
0
4P
F p
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
W Dm
Z
H Q?
}
Z
J
0 OQWz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHt7wQ
j >F
0
w
arr.o
Qy0
UZZUZ
2Q0LU

0 LL
z0OaW
CO

W
0 LL
00, Q Z
LL ?NW Do
M(n(gJ OM
M a J 0
Lu 5;
O
a
w
LL F
W
0
0WO
0 0 2d
Z?MZ 0
0-
'
V
LU
W

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R-3407

WBS:
34 39.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 7 of 17

BY:
J.TORTORELLA

Legend
North Widening Alternative (Construction Limits)
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
Delineated Streams
t s GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
;;a Delineated Wetlands
CountyBoundaries
Penny Hill Historic Property Boundary
3 Sri ? y ??'y'?fe A I
'wry'; ,',y?, ? ? *?a ? h #? ?? y: r'!. •t
h4 t I Y
4yt ' S? ' r .4
+: ,?' ?''_ •,_ t u ? -? '.? .§9?' ?• it ??? -? s*r ?_ =?" ? •{ ? .?F ? i4I _ ..
-
t[ _ a n
'. 41
,r ?y .,rr i%., =•., Ai???... '?#._?? r *•..;. _..+?, . ,' ? *!"•y. Kti 4???5 ?L ? v % .: '?? •r; d j , .?, . 71 " 'L? '1
' .. A+. 2? 4 }:..,y.,??y t.t.+... ''$r},• . "',may ? ??}',? +.,. ?1°?'''?• ?? ...µ ?c??.?
; +-*-• '?•'*$ P iti ? ?4? '°' ?p ? P i LL ,Nu ? P1 .I41 I}.'
'?.".] ,yj'4'y` 7• 'T' *? i tf ••+ ,"Syaf i4y,? ..M• . ,y
41
1"' r, ? ? ?i'..,?ri-.'l.??ylrhf? '•?i.?.:f °?. ?*F` ,pV`.??7?'" ;? '}? ?.,L . ro .1wtiy? ? "?? rd., } ? F
l
y ? ' M? 4r
e
Ik
i k
33
Tk
y
rIF
pp? 4'"# • { OA U
0 400 800
Feet
BY:
J.TORTORELLA
SMYOa 40 0.3 MOO WOZ9 @V an flad
Mgpm Ad) go OA m0a smag @9
ZQ 1,602 f ft9my NO Rd.
y?P N01[b?'
PO
0
OP
S p
0 0
2
?
'k S . OEPPP4
x
U
z
w om
z
Z
J
U)
LU
0

>
a
> O Q
Q
ZHU
jQ
I
J?21H
LU
?
aIL
Qy0
UZZUZ
xQOWO

OrL>w z
z0O(L W
G CO
0 LL W
?0W z?
LL ?NW ::)o
M(A(AJ OM
MQ?J U?
O
f- Z
a
W
LLF
W
.6 -,
0
0MM W0
t7cn00 co20
-

Z?mZ
0
?
P
P
Q' U
Q
W
qq?116
County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 8 of 17

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
0 LL W
a: 0 W z
LL ?NW ::)o
?'?fAfAJ 0M
M Q J U
??
a
O
?F-
w
W
?-,
00
M
w0
M
t7cn00 co Of
Z??Z OD-
0U)?
LU
w

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 9 of 17,

Legend
rn r, ' r, o -N,.o Best Fit Alternative (Construction Limits)
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
Delineated Streams
z ' t't GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
•?, { ?? r '?r e ; . Delineated Wetlands
pMES 9W
1 8(gUGENE0
Y
SKI
y ?^ ?' Ll a;at
Iy ? ? Frt„
low
i
ISE II II N 5. `0016 M998 ?5fA1tb7lS VI A' lu g w" 5'A??M
_...?1- - +i 9 pct G;Ifl?? G3?lo {sb e
ISR
I/I'?I ?g o
e
a r -- - wSS IIUp1l?Q ?1
e MC =2
•. r•
-.n_ .. , & ate' ;•... .." - ?? ?, ?.
f F.+ry? r?i? s.• ?
t? - --.rr? rl 11' f ?v C
r
t
. -?
A .4
0
5
O&V ,
I
?•IYi x.
A-s i
MAW y?. 1 } 1 1 +
41 -
L ,
?U ?i1 FYI ° ,,.'?!
t ,Ck
VW :?1tl
' tM ?4 'ags •. d.?.
L-
WFAM
.u.
' it*
4 0 400 800
Feet
BY:
J.TOR
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
2 4
y a
ti
yo a?'
d
fb S , b PAPS
x
U
z
w zm
? Q

}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2
J
zHt7w
Q
-j > F
Z
W
a LLQ
Qy0 2
UZZUZ
0
0W
2Q
N
y
LL
F IL ^
'
?
/
/ Z
0 LL
LL
z0oaw
CO
w
0
0 z
LL 1.- NW Do
MfAfAJ 0M
M a J U
F-?
a
O
w
ILF
W
0
0MM w0
UU)00 coa
Z?MZ Oa
LU U) LU F-
LU
w
3

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

FFS
34539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 10 of 17

f,
ZQ 9462 d any HE Rd.) go
13rop e wazg @9 MC 222 ?
?a
S I ?liyr 4 fi_ ti°yl,ly I!y
°tti.k h4tll?'4 k'I'ti 6+3 § ,,kit y}li°
4!' 7 t I i y 1 it 1 !l ' !? ?. I °I r "V.
IF MA
I
?` ?'?•`-`. _ _ ?- •? ty? ?'k ikt t +Irk i,L11,lI1,9' ? ?'•o..k,.
':.:_ s°„! . : •. ''-?__-_.. - , i}. L i ; slu l y ? ? , , I 4 ? } t?~ ? `~n.
17 L L 7
7*4
r i 1 t r: '.: t k
-fir ?,+y
Z.
t, !_7
t fi# '1.4 .;4
.f
00
IIIIII?L`VV/ ?' .
M 'A'A
SI rL y:[. . ?y 1. JtF• ',41'- ?• '•Y L?
Clt ? , ., Y, l N ?, ?' Y 1 4
f
k 11, X !
_ ,yam c q
tab*
C
q T• 1, ,... ?. c
{
x G
W
S. c
°516Y , Sa ^4.,y,4
LYl 1 '? , A •Y ?.y__ SY, ;?, ? } y? ,ill ?
- _ 4"yr-??`„ +w u v ?- f"•?1? ..1 rye _ ?v •f,? ? ary.?.? ?k?. J ;??F?.? C
, ?' 'r??,k1'ti'?ti,•u,?+wr^e"M°,.'.f"'? 'S1F ' .' r? { I: . ? ?r.+ a44 Pv;,?4• i -:, Y a?,-:, G
je' S '
3• } r? .
F _
t r d . may.
A
Legend
'" A pkx P.
Best FitAlternativ (Construction Lima )
L
IS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
:
0 400 800 V Delineated Streams
i
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
k 1 ?~
a Delineated Wetlands
Feet •,.,?f,,:. Y
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
W Zm
H Q?
z
J

?
W
Q
O Z

>
a
> Q
2 J
-
i
L
L
i
00=WZ
?aaow
Qy0 2
F
UZZ
Z
2QOW0

0 LL
z0o(L w
C CO
0 LL w
?0w z
LL ?NW ?o
MQ?J 0UM
Uw05;
a
?
W
LL F
W
00 -3
0
M
0M
w
o
v)00 UUd
Zq Ex Od

0
LU
W

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R-3407

WBS:
34539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 11 of 17,

BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
0 LL W
a: 0 W z
LL ?NW ::)o
M(q(nJ OM
M Q J U
F-?
F-
O
F-
Z Z
a
LLF-
W
W
?-,
0
M
0M
w0
06500 co Of
Z OD-
?
?
O
0?
LU
w

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 12 of 17,

BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Kil
4 I
M
® ???I11IQ1111 Uo 0o33, m0,6 I%I%aza off nn
VU
Mo??" awa off MCA 222
wc 222 t ? 0.166
? asn y y? I ?`
ff P
^1NI
s Wo nM• a,, A M999 comae 0F
s ?..
? ?140p ? pQapouy. no me.
LT,
q y
oar &998 w8se@9&q6 222 d....T.
+J1w T-4
r, q
- 11
? S` + I
J
"" 1177 •1 r•?'-
' All. Ns 4r
" .... , ?. M; ? ? ,. i •.. +I , k yy;.ir.?, ."?I: ,rte ,, .
33
a
... jJ// 11'.1I1M.?I{.1y??{ipity y IY?
WrtrtrtIAffvv AAFF !!!„„„
_
_• by
rte: '
..i
s a ?r
Legend
ti Best Fit Alternative (Construction Limits)
ti Northern ByPass Alternative (Construction Limits)
Southern ByPass Alternative (Construction Limits) W'
GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
Delineated Streams0 400 800
o' y
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers lo- k
a Delineated Wetlands
_Rr Feet
?'.. it
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
2 4
y a
ti
mo aya
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
W Zm
H Q?
U

F
}
z
J
0
a
Q
?OQ
WQ
J?2>F
LL
?
a-
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oaw
G CO
0 LL W
w0? F-
LL 1.- NW zo
M(n(gJ
MQ?J O0M
W
0
0
-
LL F-
0
0MM w0
fn05 CO of
Z?IM
z oa
LU U) ED
0
LU
W

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R-3407

WBS:
3,4539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 13 of 17

BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
aaow
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0o(L w

0 LL W
a: 0 W z
LL ?NW ::)o
M(q(nJ OM
M Q J U
F-?
F-
O
F-
Z Z
a
LLF-
W
W
?-,
0
M
0M
wo
t7cn00 co Of
Z??Z OD-
?
0?
LU
w

County: PITT &
EDGECC)NARF

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R-3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 14 of 17,

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
O
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
W
z
o: 0 w
LL ?Nw ::) o
M(n(gJ OM
M a J U
?
Uw0> F -
z
F-
a
w
ILF
w
?-)
0
M
0M
w0
v)00 co W
Z Oa
F-
oU)?
0
LU
w

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 15 of 17,

Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo aa
d
fb S , b PAPS
U
Z
H Q
W m
Z
H Q?
U
H
}
Z
J
?OQ
Wz
a
3 Q
2 J
zHtDwQ
J?2>F
?
w
aao
Qy0
UZZUZ
2QOW0

0 LL
z0oCL w
CO
0 LL W
a: 0 W z
LL ?NW ::)o
M(q(nJ OM
M Q J U
F-?
F-
O
F-
Z Z
a
LLF-
W
W
?-,
0
M
0M
w0
06500 co Of
Z OD-
?
?
O
0?
LU
w

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div:
1 TIP#
2&4 R 3407

WBS:
34539.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 16 of 17,

J '
I a ?.I aYl: (Yl eY,.. Tr Y
a f l w}Y ? ?ti ?.
7
-4e 10YA
Aieh%
"s a
,e I? Ilr }h i 'W't! a X 6.11110111'1 0 DAIS MMS slga ve
4 N r a '!•„ .?y?. fff Yid
222 go us 21M on On 0 R a:
r? v. r t 4 ?,"fi a ?.I
44,
Roo's
VeLr
adlk
r
? r
d
f I ;'
4-4 -V
4' -7
. ? r-A;
I? s aT? ?? ? , J a' .r
r ? ?-. ?''"? ??`' '.. .' r• ? ` 264 *-7 4C' 0
Al,
END PROJECT
1-7 SIP Q4U ., .:
JOIN Q
rit 4? -Jr a
B[ dO?R- .
L N7-,
Al'-_ ,
?-
Y
r
E3]
Mwp?
MMMMMMMIU?
4r: t'
-Ile 33 ? } _
nnnn?? 264
?'yam k '? $ . i* ®z rf '4? j
3
"11#17ARY 0,
.77
IF' .
ii Legend
iRa ''4 ark : 4 , 'r .
ONwo Best Fit Alternative GIS Creeks, Streams, Rivers
0 400 $00 ? v' + '` +? tr"r . nr•- Deli eated Streams
GIS Ponds, Lakes, Rivers
Feet i' "? "' a Delineated Wetlands
1. 910
•. r -s ..
BY:
J.TORTORELLA
Oy?P Na;b?"
P
0
4P
f a
2 4
y a
ti
mo asa
d
'
rys . tl V
x
U
Z
w
m
z
H Q
cn
H
}
z
J
Z
G
a
Q
O
Wa
j >F
W
w
ar Lo
QyO 2
F
UZZ
Z
xa0W0
-, 95
0rL>wz
z0oaw
N
w
0
0 z
LL ?NW Z) 0
M(n(gJ OM
MQ?J U
W
a
O
yw
LL F
W
W
0
0MM w0
fn00 cod
ZZ OD-

w
3

County: PITT &
EDGECOMBE

Div: TIP#
2 & 4 R-3407

WBS:
34539.1.1

Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
2
SHEET 17 of 17

Z
O
F-
L)
W
J
a
C)
a
F-
a
w
U)
O
a
O
w
a
NOT TO SCALE
W
cn
O
a.
O
DC
a
U.
O
t?
LPL
0
Ln
N
OF ryONTH 0.4
F qPy NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
y OF TRANSPORTATION
a z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
'qr Pie ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?FNT OF TRAH'Qo

z
_a
w
N

B01 ii a
TYPICAL SECTIONS
WIDENING OF NC 33 FROM
US 64 SOUTHEAST OF
TARBORO TO US 264
IN GREENVILLE
EDGECOMBE & PITT COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-3407
W
W
Q
a
°w
0
0
a
W
W
Q
C)
W
PS - Paved Shoulders
PITT &
County: EDGECOMBE
Div: 2&4 l1P# R-3407 Figure
WBS: 34539.1.1 3
Date: MARCH 2010
200412030
0
TRAFFIC 0 o
m c ?cn c
N
Z
N D? N
I N? t'n-
I ?? ?N ? D° a) a)
-Ph
40h ?° m X D
m 0
I 1 m D
? v
(n O O cn O
I
I
W
= W
00
co) I N? I\V N? W ?? C N? W? v
ZI ?? O N? W? W N? 00
JI O 00
I
O O
U I Uri O O
?I
I
Pm Pm I
PM 60 10 60 10 6010 60 (3 '10 60 (3 10
i 60? 10 112 113 313 28143 15126 417 112 24145
NC 33 1-I3 NC 33
I
1-11 C212 215 11115 517 C811 0 11118 C6110 214
30166 30165 35166 31159 31157 26149
I
I
I
O w o
I
3
I
-a -4
K) 0 PQ -0 a)
I IV W cry 00 N?
J
I
O 0 m ° o
' mG)
' mn
?o
I coo 0
Legend ? C) m v 0
0 z c
DHV (D tom c G? m? m
100 / 100 VPD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DAY y_ cn 0 -1 -L
IN 100-S (2004/2030) Q m a) 0 O M C1
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 Z Z -Ph C) ? 0 G
K30 = 3071-1 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME co () D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) I O
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) C D
(REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK) y v
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%)
UP??n • nroify1?oo-?'s
ti r
0
4 ?
0 X02
?Sb13 ? PPP4
x
U
z
w Zm
H a (A
a U) Z
co z
D0= J
o 2 >
Z
?a-LL w
0
o Z
UZZU
m 2LU0
0LL >
w z
z00aw
U)
LU

Qw
?
N z
o

L W cp
w
?
L

LL
?
w

p

W m

2
OiW
c
W
F- 0 0
M W d
04 Z?
OQ ? Q
N -
^
LL
Z?>
County: PITTAND
EDGECOMBE
Div: TIP#
2,4 R-3407
WBS:
34539.1.1.3
Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
4
SHEET 4 OF 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cf)I
I
WI
I
WI
zI
JI
II
?I
gl
I
I
5510
I
I
I
112
44187
I
I
I
I
I
I N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
lm
10
dim
010
0!Z--
Cj00
z!m
?In
10
Iz
I?
I
z
-Ph
N
0
W N
O
200412030
TRAFFIC
Legend
M
DHV
D
(d,t)
1001100 VPD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DAY
IN 100-S (200412030)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30
K30 = 3071-1 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
-------- 0- DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
(REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK)
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%)
5510 55m11 60? 10 7114
NC 33 ! 316 60? 10 60 ?3M10
NC 33

Cl 419 i
C112 213
Cl1 213
C214 213
141 214
142
43186 40179
I 38177 34170 32168

N i
!
I ?
I

?

W

w
N?

W ! N? IN W-a

N 01

W

N

I\V
w
I .., W
o cn
I
I ?, cn (n

C
°

?
m
z I
I
!
!
=

°

2
F
0
? cn z
_ c C)
X ! m c
;U
0
cn N
Ti
m m
? F
O ? ! z ?, ?
X 0 0 00 ? W
D D v 0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I
Ir
Im
I
1=
Im
Im
I?
60m10
I
I
I
I
30166 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
UP??n • nroify1?oo-?'s
0
4 ?
e ?e=
?Sb13 ? PPP4
U
z
H
w Zm
H a (A
a U) z
110<Z
D0= J
z -j 0 Ix > Z
Ix aLLow
UZ0ZUZ
m 0LUIx
Ix 0 >
0 Ix z
z0oaw
..
F- U)
w
o

a?
w ?
z
? N
V1 440
0 0
M

L-L H
w
M
LLw 40
44 0
w
H 0w
0
0
0 ? p C7o

40 d
04 Z

0?
N
d
Z?>
County: PITTAND
EDGECOMBE
Div: TIP#
2,4 R-3407
WBS:
34539.1.1.3
Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
4
SHEET 3 OF 4
aP vory!
Qo so
hP ?? iF
Q
oo _ LL
2 O
4 W=
2
U
z
H
W Zm
H QN
a U) W?
wzaaz
D0= J
0?2>
?aLL o Z
w
U Z 0
zUZ
0W0
U)0>
0LL >_wz
z0oCL w
?. U)
F- W_
?Ow z
Q w N 0 0
W
LL w ?
LL w Z 0(.)
F-????4 WO
o W
a LUa
W z
O
C4
d
Z
County/: PITT Awff-1
EDGECOMBE
Div: TIP#
2,4 R-3407
WBS:
34539.1.1.3
Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
4
SHEET 2 OF 4
I

200412030
Legend I

I
TRAFFIC
DHV D
(d't)
C
fn
100/
loo
VPD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DAY

N 00
F
0
DHV IN 100-S (200412030)
DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30
Z cn K30 = 3071-1 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
N N X
--1 - D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)

N (REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK)
m 0 (d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%)
? I
0 I
z I
cn 0 I
I
n

in -0
Ooh ?
O
W

N?

? Ir
Z
Im
.. O
O ?? t0

., ??
v
., 4
I
1 =

o

cn

o
Im
I --1
IN
PM
11 ? 55 PM
11 ? PM
60 11 ?
60 11 PM
? 60 PM PM
1155 11?
55 PM
11 ? 55 I
I
(4,3)
14128 (5,4)
41188 (5,4)
315 112 (5,4)
32164 318 (4,3) (4,3) (4,3)
I
I
n

W
5111
rl5132
8116
5112
12126
318
9120
418
1-12
1-11- 1-12
1-11- I
I
I
701140 1071221 1041217 931196 641140 591128 591126
I
cn cn w
I
_ I
(nom

00
W
N-a
07
W
??
N
I

..
..
00 a) 00

0 4

0

o
a

cn
rn

0 w

o I

I
I
m 0 v 0 I
0
m ?
m (n
? z
Z z
0 c I
I
C N ? cn 0 -Ph
0 c n ? z v ? I
0 -4
D
°
m
0
I
°
0 I
° v I
i
??F . NO,f b1?o
UQQ ?Z
F aj
0
3?b15 N FPPM1
2
U
Z
H
LU Z 00
H a (A
a UW?
0
LUZ 0< Z
D0= J
0w2>Z
?aLL ow
0
UZZUZ
200
0LL >_wZ
ZOOaw
p w
W
O
Q ?
? w?
O2 z
Q M H W 00
U
V U ?? M?
?
m
G
LL
w
O
zow
F- ? ? LLJ
(5
o
0
M
z
z
C/D
o
w
04

Q V)

??
?-
?
O Q
04
d
z
County: PITTAND
EDGECOMBE
Div: TIP#
2,4 R-3407
WBS:
34539.1.1.3
Date:
MARCH 2010
Figure
4
SHEET 1 OF 4
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, & LOCAL AGENCIES
U 4 -----
?
`
l cood
R
'An
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ?'""ULi_N
NATURAL RESOURCES D -Z
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
ye3374rorrl eA?in ?iP¢nvi?? l?.S??
Project Name /? ZZ-Aoro _W*eco„7,a.z?&, Type of Proje
Comments provided by:
? Regional Program Person
x Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
?Cent aI Office program pe i
Name: t
T l
d
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
? No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
?_,_ See comments below
er
?' e 6mL_
JJ /I1Z?3
C
Date:
4
?U-71? T,e
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
er'
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
Scilu "1LZ5
THE KEYS TO SUCCESS: HOME, SCHOOL, COMMUNITY
77
s
cEB ..
f ?
t..tL PLAl,1 NI?
January 28, 2004
Dr. J. David Edwards
Section Chief, School Planning
NC Department of Public Instruction
6322 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-5322
SUBJECT: National Environmental Policy Act
TIP Project No. R-3407
Dear Dr. Edwards:
In response to your letter dated January 23, 2004, concerning improvements to NC 33
from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro, we currently have seven (7) buses that
travel this road. There are no schools located on this road, nor do we have plans for a
proposed school site near this area.
Sincerely,
James T. Lamm
Director of Support Services
JTL/lt
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
P O Box 7128 - 412 PEARL STREET - TARBORo NC 27886 - TELEPHONE [phone] - FACSIMILE 252-641-5714
WEB SITE: http://schools.eastnet.ecu.edu/edgecomb/
t
- AN EQUAL OPPORFUNI"FY EMPLOYER -
United States Department of the
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 4, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
InteriQrf-???

This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed safety and capacity
improvements to NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro, Edgecombe and Pitt
Counties (TIP No. R-3407). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road improvement projects such as widening, realignment, bridge replacement and culvert
replacement, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
rim, n*
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CA'R-,oLINA
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION :: Howard N. Lee, Chairman W W 1lIF N ?P U B L hC S C H O O L S b Fi G
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent r
,t t
February 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Department of Transportation
FROM: J. David Edwards, Section Chief, School Planning A
RE: NC 33, from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro, Edgecombe and Pitt
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33(3), State Project No. 8.1221701,
WBS 34539.1.1, TIP Project No. R-3407
Enclosed is a reply from Edgecombe County Schools regarding the above referenced project.
DE/ed
Enclosures
.: SCHOOL PLANNING - DIVISION OF SCHOOL SUPPORT :: www.schoolclearinghouse.org
6319 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6319 919.807.3554 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: county: Date Received: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
J Dl q CP eC°?'?21? / O z /D (0 l -
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville • Air oil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? ? Fayetteville Water ? Coastal Management
i
I ? Mooresville
IIII -round,,at-r Wildlife ? Water Resources
I ?alei?'i Land Quality Engineer Environmental Health
ashina on ? Recreational Consultant Forest. Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? W-i_'r`ngton ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? ';inston-Salem P ks & Recreation ? Other
/
I
%' ater Quality - J , ,
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manor, Sign-OffRegion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
I Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)

Kr.1 UKIN 1 U:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water ConservationA-iA
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM: February 9, 2004
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Improvements for NC-33 from US-264 at Greenville, NC to US-64 at Tarboro,
NC. Edgecombe and Pitt Counties. Project # 04-0196.
The NC Department of Transportation is studying proposed improvements to NC-33 in
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties.
If construction is restricted to existing right-of-ways, there should be no impact to Prime
or Statewide important Farmland. Any acquisition of additional right-of-ways for increase size,
capacity or changes in approach could affect Prime or Statewide Important Farmland. In that
case, the environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
Edgecombe County
n:
Planning' ('_5-2) 641,-70
Inspections: (2W-)) 544,7802 g
Fax: (252)) 6-11-69t3'• t
1 -34
A February 9, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
RE: NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro
Edgecombe County, NC
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
PLANNING K INSPECTIONS
\ i
004
or
A Cy J?

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request concerning safety and capacity
requirements to NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro. This project has
been on the "Resolution of Support for the Transportation Improvement Program
Priorities for Edgecombe County", approved by the Transportation Needs Committee,
County Planning Board and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for eight
years. We fully support this project and feel that it would enhance safer travel and could
promote economic development potential for the southern part of the county.
Thank you for allowing the County to address this matter and should additional
information be required, please feel free to contract our office at [phone].
Sinc ely, 45t-?
Mr. Lorenzo V Carmon
Edgecombe County Manager
C: Mrs. Ola Pittman, Planning Director
Mr. Chris Lukasina, Upper Coastal Plain
Council of Government
Post Office Box 10 • 201 Saint Andre\\ Street • Tarboro. North Carolina 27886
Nortll Carolina • r
Department of Environment and I North Carolina
® Natural Resources FOREST Division of Forest Resources wrib-0 "N SERVICE
CDEIn llichacl F. Easley, Governor N-*C
St
anford i\L Adams, Uircctor
%t'illiani G. Ross Jr., Secretary 2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
February 16, 2004
Am 2004 ?' .
r..j Q0
FD a
ofp oce
MEMORANDUM K?
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Improvements to NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in
Tarboro
PROJECT #: 04-0196 and TIP # R-3407
The North Carolina Division, of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and
offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. The widening of an existing roadway usually has fewer impacts to forest resources than a new
location project. Nonetheless, impacts to forestlands are likely. So that we can evaluate constriction
impact, the total forest land acreage that would be removed or taken out of forest production as a
result of the project should be listed by timber type.
2. Additionally, efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the
following order of priority:
• Managed, high sire index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged. fullv stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
3. The EA should include a summary of the potential productivity of the forest stands affected by the
proposed project. Potential productivity is quantified by the soil series, and is found in the USDA Soil
Survey for the county involved.
4. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub
grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and
smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
1616 NIMI Service Center, Raleiuh, North Carolina 27699-1601
P1 nit 911) - 7 1 ;- Ih2 \ FAX 9 19 - 7) i-0I iS \ Inroriwt wv w dlr `tale nc in
5. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 throu(Th G.S. 113-60.31. Edgecombe County and Pitt
County are non-high hazard counties, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would
apply.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill,
exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
7. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on our
forestland be considered during the planning process.
cc: Barry New
Michael F. Easley, Governor
'.Nilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
20 February 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Inter,_,overnmental Affairs
FROM: Sarah McRae, Freshwater Ecologist,ly?,? JU,_,
NC Natural Heritaue Program
SUBJECT: Scoping Coirtn-ients on Safety and Capacity Improvements to NC
Edgecombe & Pitt Counties. DENR Project No. 04-0196: TIP
Project No. R-3407
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes safety and capacity
improvements to NC 33 in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties. The proposed project corridor
is located in the Tar River basin. and has the potential to impact several streams.
The project has the potential to impact significant natural heritaue areas as vNell as several
r1.e anti eadan,,ered species. A significant natural heritage area is an area of land or
water identified by the NC Natural Heritage Progran: (NHP) as being important for
protection of the State's biodiversity. Significant natural herita(-),e areas contain one or
more Natural Heritage elements - 11111h-quality or rare natural communities. rare species.
and special animal habitats. Several significant natural herita(ye areas may be affected by
impacts associated with this project: the state si,-inificant Lower Tar River Aquatic
Habitat. and the regionally si,_?nificant Tar River Floodplain, Belvoir Carolina Bavs and
Flats. Otter Creel: Natural Area. and Tar River/Blue Banks Farm Slopes.
NHP is particularly concerned about impacts of such a project to sensitive and rare
species. Rare aquatic species likely to be impacted by this project include the state
endangered and federal species of special concern Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolate).
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia mcrsoni), and Yellow lampmussel (L(1117ps•ilis CCWi0A.61), file
state threatened Triangle floater (Alasiniclonta undidata). Eastern lampmussel (Lanihsilis
racliata). Tidewater mucket (Lgwoclea ochracea). Roanoke bass (Ainhloplites cavilrons).
and the proposed state threatened Carolina madtom (Notitrus furiosus): the federal
species of concern Pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus nmlztlinus), the state species of special
concern Neuse River waterdog (Necturus letivisi) and North Carolina Spiny crayfish
((h'c'onectes Caro llnensis).
One
160 "alai! Seraic, Ceril r Raleigh, Niorth Carol,_, 27,600-11610111
NOrthCarOllna
hcre 3' 49_Vdr,4 '?: ? GaG_, 206 0 1 . r Aaturally
: 9119-7, ; i. ;'1
P -??o', ,erne:: .er r.stat c . u s Ei R-
NHP is concerned about impacts to sensitive and rare species. For guidance. v%e refer the
applicant to the document: "Guidance memorandum to address and mitigate secondary
and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality"
published by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Au"ust 2002 located at
wN.vtiv.ncwildlije.or_/p_07_y??ildlifeSpeciesCot?/I - C_) impacts.pdf.
Because of the likely increase in development that \a-ill be facilitated by this pro ' Icct. and
the subsequent threat to aquatic species. NHP strongly recommends a review of
cunnilative impacts and implementation of stronu mitiuTation efforts. ]'he cumulative
impacts should be assessed relative to past. present and known future actions mthin the
project area.
Please let me know if I can provide more information. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program looks forward to a collaborative effort to help protect the States
natural diversity_ . If I can be of assistance. please do not hesitate to call me at 919-715-
175 1.
CC via email: Travis NNVilson. \VRC
Maria Tripp. V\'RC'
Danielle Pender. WRC

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Aj enc//y Project Review Response
Project Name /? 7Z.-kxo Zalqgec 4. IXLlld, Type of Proj
Comments provided by:
? Regional Program Person
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
? Central Office program person
Name:
Project Number
O -0YA;
County
?Cqe ?om?
i
??? /-
Date:
i
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
Public water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
n , No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
See comments below
t`
?
c" 1 f1 f'.1.'? l< J lam-,)25
?-i'?E''? cE r'? l ? ???--'T?_<<?? c? sic l ??? ???? («-i>?? s L; r=-K 1--?-t? c_?
Vt 6??'c?? j' <1c ?j cc. L? l?rr ?? zl/L i
10
C.? [F
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Project Name Type of Proje
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be. classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
? If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Reviewer
Section/Branch
Date
Pi4?,-0
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
N CDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number. ?? -?ue Date: <
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this proji
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this for
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process T11
(Statutory Time Lir

? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 der before
days begin construction or award of construction

facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems ,
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual 30 days

not discharging into state surface waters. .
(90 days)
? NPOES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
di
h
i
i conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 - 120 da
s
sc
arg
ng
nto state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or i y
ssue
of NPDE5 permit-whichever is later. (N/A)
? Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(WA)
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the

installation of a well. 7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site insperti". Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (90 days)
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC WA

(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material mu, be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.11 I0 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Croup 919-733-0820.
? Complex Source Permit required under. 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
. 30 days
? Mining Permit On-sits inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C, Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five

in coastal N.C..with organic soils.
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested day
1

at least ten days before actual burn is planned." (N/A)
? Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90- 120 days
(N/A)
® Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.

An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification
A mini 30 days
.
mum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee (60 days)
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
n, ;
r
i lrt?yl
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Tir
(StatzitoryTr.Af in

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any

well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according 10 days
(N/A)
to DENR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
Ll State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
0 30 days)
L3 CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
030 days)
0 CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
0 Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
1 N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh,N.C. 27611
Abandonment of anywells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 20.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
(??S C' ? L `. ,! r' -f- ,?^ _ S W r.J TIZU 1 -I uST- (3 A-00A-Ft tS',- >
i, rr ?-Z- ?ArL-?or?•-? ? ?/ 1`l ? P ?-r`s ?'P(?? ? f?-??r?.. ?? ?pr?
?rJ Jsr- ,?S>? V4 ,
Q J •'?- I ???-(Lt r`'ti ?i?` 'i S ?+J r M rt-r?i 7?1?'(',?l ?v U TJ? V (_?
k;
J
p ?(z +Esf !]
D'J 1ti T S ?t ? Ll lg ! /LS > "u ST-

?
41,

? /
? rn
REGIONAL OFFICES
i, `.ae5tions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
f757) 446-6481
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
Revie
AA State of North Carolina
Reviewing affi??
- ..,,NCDEW Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Prox
R Number. --
Date:
-? INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS"- _ - ?- _
After review of ifusr --
project it has been determined that the DENR pear t(s) and/or approrvak indmeted may TO comply with North CmDfina Law Questions regardin these y need to be obtained in orderforthis project
AD a i?Uti - _ . g permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form
App ons„ information and guideLnes relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional office.
PERMITS SMON PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Trme
1 _ (StatutnryTrn teLfmitJ
LJ1 Pemutto conmuct& operate wastewatertreatment
fac16es se+msystemaaensioru&sewersystems.
not discharging into state surface watem
Ell N? PC7TTmit to discharge inm surface water an d/or
Perm+tto operate and mnstru¢ wastewater facilities
.6-barging ir= state surface watem
Wat=t use Permit

ction Permit - `
F
67
ed,
Fill Permit
I
Permit to Construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
faa7itis and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
N/A
rar Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in =mpliiance with 15 A NCAC2D.1900 _
Dfrtion or renovations ofstn ctures corraining
os material must be in compliance with
CAC2D-1110 (a) (1) which requires natification N/A
moval prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
l Group 9?9 T3 0B20.
lewSource Permit required under 15 A NCAC
0
dimentation Pollution Control Act of 19-73 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity, An erosion & sedimemation
plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Offence (Land Quality Section) at least 30
fore beginning activity. A fee of 540 for the first acre or any part of an acre
dimenation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
I? Mining Fermrt On-site inspection tauaL Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acts of affected land. Any are mined oreater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
?I North Carolina Burning permit I Orrsite inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if
permit exceeds 4 days
1E)I Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 coumies On-sire inspection by KC. Division of Forest Resources required 9f more than five
in coasal N.C_with organic soils- acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
Oil Refining Faai ties
C
Dam Safety Permit
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction _ .
contracts. Dn-she inspection: Post-application technical conference usual 3D days
(90 days)
Application 180 days before begin activity. Dn-site inspection preapplication
conference usual.Additionally, obtain Permit to mnstruM wastewater treatment 90-12D days
!crony-granted after NPDES. Reply time 3D days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later (N/A)
I Preapplitation technical conference usually necessary
-------------
Complete application must be received and permit issued priorto the
installation of a well
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On site inspection.Preapplication conference usual Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C.Deparmer of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
N/A
3D days
(WA)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 days
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
(30 days)
30 days
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(WA)
I day
(WA)
90 -120 days
(WA)
If Permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire MC. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans- May also require permit under
mosquito control proaram,and a 404 Permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verity Hazard Classification A minimum 30 days
fee of S2D0.00 must accompanythe application. An additional processing fee (60 days)
based on a percentage orthetoal project cost will be required upon completion.
pr3?NTS
I
I SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process rmeT
I - -
-- - _ -. (StatutoryTmme Limit)

Permit to drib exploratory oil or gas well - File surety bond of SS= with DIENR running to State of N.C mrmdnional that any p
1 days
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations. (N/A)
Geophysical aplomion Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application 10 days -
by lettu No standard application form - . (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 -2o days
- & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
_ (130 days)
F CAMA Pemvtfor MAJOR d-velopment 5250Ao fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
CAMAPennitforMINOR developmesrt -... .:. -_
_ S5amfeemust accompanyapplication 22 days
r (25 days)
y - Severaloeodevcmcnumentsare located in ornewtheproject areatfanymonumerrtneedstobemovedordestroyed,pleasenotify:
_ N.CGeodetic SurmBax27687.Raleigh N.C27611
Abandonment of anywells if required must be in accordance withTnle 15A-Subchapter 200100.
0 Nctification of the proper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.

Compliance with 15A NCAC2H 7000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45
days
(N/A)
Other comments (atcach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority) .
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Reaional Office
59 Wooden Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C-28115
(7D4) 663-1699
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilm7ngton, N.C.28405
[phone]-
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C. 283D1 - Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone] [phone] [phone] -
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Charles R. Fullwood, F,,cecu6ve Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM.: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 25, 2004
S-L BjECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
proposed improvements along NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64
in Tarboro, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, North Carolina. TIP No. R-
3407, SCH Project No. 04-0196.
This memorandum responds to a request from Gregory I Thorpe of the NCDOT
47- fr.,r 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
(N" RC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S_C. 661-667d).
We have no specific concerns regarding this project. However, to help facilitate
document preparation and the review process, our general infoi-maticnal 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
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N_ C. 27699-1615
[phone]
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fishc;ries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
"Telephone: [phone] exc. 281 - Fax: [phone]
ce 39vd GC868ZSGTG 60:9Z VOK/SZ/Ze
Memo
2 February 25, 2004
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P_ O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type: maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction- Wetland identification may be
accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover, type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A. cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. if construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
TharL: you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
V0 DJdd 6EBGezsGT6 E0:9T ti00Z/SZ/Z0
February 25, 2004
Jackie,
This responds to your January 13, 2003, letter requesting National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAH Fisheries) comments on the proposed improvement to NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville
and US 64 in Tarboro, North Carolina. Based on the map provided with your letter, tributaries of
the Tar River that may be effected by this work include Johnsons Creek, Conetoe Creek, Mill
Creek, Cromwell Canal and numerous unnamed tributaries.
The Tar River, it's tributaries and their adjacent forested wetlands provide spawning and nursery
habitat for a variety of anadromous species including river herring. We recommend consultation
with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the Wildlife Resources Commission
for detail information of what species are likely to occur at each of the stream crossings.
Forested wetlands are the predominate wetland type that will be affected by this project. The
environmental document for this project should consider the value of these wetlands to fisheries,
their role in the aquatic food chain, and how they function to maintain good water quality. Every
effort should be made to avoid wetland losses. However, if the proposed highway
improvements involve unavoidable wetland losses, appropriate mitigation of these losses must
be provided. Since this project may effect streams and wetlands that support NOAA-trust
fisheries resources a seasonal restriction on in water work should be a part of the project plans.
Also, based on the information provided in your letter, and our current guidance on essential fish
(EFH) habitat for federal managed species, EFH will not be effected by this work.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments early in the project planning process.
For questions or comments please fee free to contact me.
Ron Sechler
Fishery Biologist
NOAA Fisheries
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
AGA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Nlichael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

4
AW
MEMORANDUM 2004
(C) I
O
F&CEIVED
N ? r
00
A
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse

FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 04-0196 Scopir_g for improvements to NC 33 in Greenville to US
64 in Tarboro
DATE: March 2, 2004
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed in.formati_on. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
n is SrATF
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March 4, 2004
Ms. Jackie Obediente
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental An
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Obediente:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4220-0196; Scoping; Proposed project is for the safety and capacity
improvements to NC 33 from US264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. I I3A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental revie vv documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
s. Cs Baggett
Envirommental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region Q
Region L
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affnrmative Action Employer
?T *"'TNFu
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David L. S. Brook, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
April 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook , Lou- U- R
SUBJECT: Scoping, NC 33 fro US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro, R-3407, Edgecombe and
Pitt Counties, ER04-0260
Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of this project:
(ED 865) Edmondson House
(ED 866) Latham House
(ED 867) Latham Barn
(PT 51) B. W. Brown House, N side of NC 33, 0.3 mi E of jct. with SR 1408.
(PT 52) John Reddin Brown House, N side of NC 33, 0.4 mi E of jct. with SR 1417.
(PT 513) House, S side NC of 33, 0.6 mi E of jct. with SR 1440.
(PT 514) Brown House, SW side of NC 33,035 mi E of jct. with SR 1417.
(PT 516) House SW side of NC 33, 0.2 mi SE of jct. with SR 1408.
(PT 612) Godfrey A. Stancil House, NE side of NC 33, 0.2 mi NW of jct. with SR 1409.
(PT 613) Doctor's Office and Store, NE side of NC 33, 0.25 mi NW of jct. with SR 1409,
on the State Study List.
(PT 614) House, SW side of NC 33, 0.05 mi NW of jct. with SR 1409.
(PT 615) House, SW side of NC 33, 0.2mi NW of jct. with SR 1409.
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures
over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
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.
www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •7153801
&? ' ?
65 7
May 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM t-?o
To: Melba McGee
From: John E. Hennessy ' ?C i]L y'? ; y t),T
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro
in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-33(3), State Project No. 8.1221701,
TIP R-3407, DENR No. 04-0196.
Reference your correspondence dated January 13, 2004 in which you requested comments for the referenced project.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and Jurisdictional
tiands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stria n Nam,
I-- - Rive; Basin Stream Classification(s) i Stream Index Number
1
Johnson Mill & -
Unnamn.ed T ributaries Tar Pamlico (03020)) WS-IV" NSW 4
-- 2 8 9 t
-- =---
i Tar River U Cinnamed ?
Tributaries Tar-Pamlico (030205) I WS-IV NSW CA I ?8 I
C_onetoe Creek & -- ; -
?Unnamed Tributaries_ Tar-Pamlico (030205) WS-IV NSW (303(4)) 28-87
Cheeks Mill Creek Tar-Pamlico (030205) C NS N 28-85 -
LCrom ,-ll Creek Tar-Pamlico (030205) I C NSW
28-82

Further ir.v sti adons at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
_j_!1 isdic,ional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water
Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
`_. One of the surface water impacts sites for project is the Tar River. In the project area, this surface water has
a Water Quality Classification of WS-IV Critical Area. Therefore, the potential for impacts to waters that are
used for municipai drinking water is possible. Please locate and identify all water intakes in the projects
study area. In addition, please include their locations in all future documentation. In addition, it should be
noted that alternatives to avoid impacts upstream of any water supply intakes will need to be considered
during the development of the environmental documents.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a 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.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Division of Water Quality

NCDENR.
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\G G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(0 7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
>_ r
--f
D. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical Area in the
project study area. Given the potent for impacts to these resources during the project implementation, the
DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled ''Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply
for any area that drains to streams having WS CA(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
E. Review of the project reveals that Water Supply Critical Area Waters will potentially be impacted by the
project. If an alternative located upstream of the drinking water supply intake is selected as the preferred
alternative, the NCDOT will be required to design, construct, and maintain hazardous spill catch basins in the
project area. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that
runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream, and in consultation with the
DWQ.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control structures/measures)
to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be
chosen. Mitigoation for unavoidable impacts ;:ill be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of
cane acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
If. Borrow waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be
regr;ired if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
L if foundation test borings are necessary: it should he noted in the document Geotechnical work is approved
under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
3. In accoruan,:,° with the Environmental Management Commission's Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.050Uh)(6 I, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial
stream. In the event that mitigation become; required, th= aeon plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC
211.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) rnaps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
M. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
N. The NCDOT is reminded that they will need to plan, design, and construct their project so that they comply
with all the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. Issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification is
contingent upon adherence to the Neuse Rules.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
d`? p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militcher, USEPA
Personal Files
C:\ncdot\T[P R3407\comments\R-3407 seeping comments.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
F R0 111
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
?a,?;1611 j ??
g
??\\
MAY2001
cc)
N'telba McGee
project Review"Coordinator
'04-0196, Tarboro. Ed-ecombe n_ Pitt Counties
.1 Z7
iyiav 18, 2004
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The attached comments were received by this office after the response due date.
shese c01-1-1ments should be fonvarcied to the appiicant and made a part of our previous
comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
a ?a SrATt
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
May 19, 2004
Ms. Jackie Obediente
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental An
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Obedient:e:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4220-0196; Scoping; Proposed project is for the safety and capacity
improvements to NC 33 from US264 in Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. I I3A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Enviromnental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region Q
Region L
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Couricr #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys.Baggetl a.ncmail.net
An Equal Opporleoiity/Affirnraiive Action Employer
vc?
e
JAS Z6 200
.r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 5, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways ??,[ ,,
FROM: Peter Sandbeck os' p ?A,& "?""
SUBJECT: Safety and Capacity Improvements, NC 33, R-3407, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties,
ER 04-0260
On November 12, 2004, Brian Overton of your staff met with Dolores Hall of the Office of State
Archaeology concerning the above project. It had come to our attention that the proposed safety and
capacity improvements were more extensive than originally proposed and that the project included curve re-
alignments outside of the existing right-of-way.
After examination of aerial photographs and additional project information, we concurred that historic map
research is needed for this project and that some areas of curve re-alignment may need to be subjected to
archaeological survey. We recommend that after the area of potential effect (APE) for this project is better
defined, that staff of the Office of State Archaeology meet with your staff to delineate those project areas that
need archaeological survey.
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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Brian Overton, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
-4
tin
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
March 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck v 1 l;?e c.44 ?
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Improvements to NC 33 from US 264 in
Greenville to US 64 in Tarboro; R-3407, Pitt and Edgecombe Counties, ER 04-0260
Thank you for your letter of January 20, 2005, transmitting the survey report for the above project by Heather
Fearnbach of Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is listed on the State Study List and remains eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places under the criteria cited:
Penny Hill Doctor's Office, east side of NC 33 one-quarter-of-a-mile north of its intersection with
SR 1409, Penny Hill, Pitt County. The property is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A
and C, as one of the few nineteenth-century doctors' offices remaining in North Carolina and is also
an example of sophisticated Italianate design in rural Pitt County. We concur with the proposed
National Register boundary as defined and delineated in the survey report.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because they lack
historical/ architectural significance and (or) integrity.
? Property 1. Fleming Chapel African American Episcopal Zion Church, 1321 Belvoir Highway (NC
33), Pitt County.
? Property 5. Stancill's Village Mart, 1710 Highway (NC 33), Belvoir, Pitt County.
? Property 7. W.J. Hardy Grocery, 2238 Belvoir Highway (NC 33), Pitt County.
? Property 17. Shade and Addie Elizabeth Harris House, 3761 NC 33, Pitt County.
? Property 20. Belvoir School, 4095 NC 33, Pitt County.
? Property 29. Little-Tyson Farm, 4627 NC 33, Pitt County.
i
/ Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
l ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
? Property 46. Cromwell-Daniel-Thrash Graveyard, on a hill, east side NC 33, one-mile south of
intersection with SR 1523.
? Property 50. Brown House, east side NC 33 just north of US 264/NC 33 interchange.
? Property 51. John Reddin Brown House, east side of NC 33, just south of intersection with SR 1417.
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Fury, NCDOT
Scott Power, Eastern SHPO Office
K ?LAo?-
Y-V_1?(d . to -- & o8
,q?' is STA1F a
X71' ? ? ? ?
aw+
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 16, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck 91 Pklev SzVJ1V6L
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Historic Structures Survey Report, additional information on north and south Belvoir By-
Passes, R-3407, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, ER 04-0260
We have reviewed the above referenced report prepared by Vanessa Patrick and received by us on September
8, 2008. Based on the excellent information provided, we concur that the Belvoir School is not eligible for
listing in 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.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
Federal Aid #: MASTP-33(3) TIP#: R-3407 County: Pitt
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Widen NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville
to US 64 SE of Tarboro.
On February 24, 2009 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
? There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register .eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signe
6
Representative, NCDOT Date
2.71. a
FH A, for e Div Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer l` Date
Federal Aid #: MASTP-33(3) TIP#: R-3407
County: Pitt
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
bids V'J aC
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).

Initialed: NCDOT FIIWAeP HPO
,)ure,rcea,e4 erTe-c,15
Federal Aid #: MASTP-33(3) TIP#: R-3407 County: Pitt
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Widen NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville to US 64 SE of Tarboro
On June 30, 2009 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed within the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
C?--v-j2-Z- YJA ?J- 6 - 30
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
a
0
M
it
M
M
M
d.
a
w

?
p
V

?
Q
q

m

? U
b

O v

o W
a ?
? J

W
z
a? d
N ? w
v
? Jo Jo
1
a o
1.. o
CL
o
a
W?
?o

0
`
O O Ct
U
N 0) c
O
c
O
U
CA
O

E
c
D
o •

a-
?
_
_
C _ ?
O

a
_ M o
3 LL -o o-
w
Q
U
z
-o
APPENDIX C
MERGER CONCURRENCE FORMS
O3 ,01/2005 0`S:.50 1A 711 4"'„ BEN fTRLABDRAWRi I n02 003
l
02/14/2005 to! 31 NO. 65E M02
02 2
-0208/2005 11 . 20 1 : ac P C !IV 14A i E FISHER MGE -
$ i
?`e T
xav, Sapp
do, q QM 14

oil
"owls. At a ,
,...a'apQCOVES! 0.0n,a?6002)
,

- 4
m,

'
Eve

D v,

AMR,

-
`S•Qt

Dc"A

not
(v=
NCDOT 24k.-e
Name
NCWRC
Name
PHWA 46t/
Name
2 /I7'/®S'
Date
Date
7?
Date
i•;L DOT PDEH y 91252"?3c172B
25`2)-346-3967 iJG DIV rma,Ri?IE r 15HEp
Sockn 404[.N'EPA Inmragncy Merger Atreemew
o ',r r ep, Point No. 2 Detziled SWdy t1 cm4tivos Cut-iried Forward CDSA)
cam; Wid"iag of NC N rrom LIS 64 Southeast at Tarboro to U5 254 in
C mr v'- ilr-, Ugecombe and Pitt Counucs, TIP Project No. P,-3407, W BS No. 34539.1.1,
'Rzii
k:•a. A d Flro;ect No, NIAS -33 (3)
?gas concusrod avitb the detal ?ccl study alteMaUVC9 caraaed forward IS
rl ?i < an page Z.

•?"a r ?r+ "wg'- 1
/IRV
Jl ? Nr< :r,j ? ? ?-
a ?
f
&Qf,X
?NCDO Tw
lJ SACE
-NCDW
?.. FHWA
USEPA
US''S
Sm -
NTvTS
NCTJMF
NTCWRC

i Hn Ir ?? r7 ,H . -at,dH
D •»-
FJO. 313 i1 I
F luE aJ/ 0
tJ??. ?%S J1-?

LR?
cr
O,1?__p'J_7Q7 L-C'QT Gi:,
Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Alternatives Carried Forward/ Bridging
Project Name/Description: Widening of NC 33 from US 264 in Greenville
to US 64 Southeast of Tarboro;
Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
TIP Project No.: R-3407
WBS Element: 34539.1.1
The Merger Project Team agreed to carry forward the following alternatives:
Section 1: Best Fit
Section 2: North Widening
Section 3: North Widening
Section 4: North Bypass, North Widening
Section 5: Best Fit
Section 6: North Bypass and South Bypass
Section 7: Best Fit
The approximate bridge lengths and culvert sizes are on the attached sheet .
The Merger Project Team has concurred on this date of December 11, 2008, on the
above mentioned Alternatives for Study for TIP Project R-3407.
USACE NCDOT
FHWA USFWS
NCWRC NCDCM
NCDWQ EPA
v
NMFS
NCDMF
N C D C R v
APPENDIX D
RELOCATION/DISPLACMENT
POLICIES AND RELOCATION
REPORTS
Special Note Regarding Relocation Report
The Relocation Reports reflect results of the relocation assessment prior to the elimination
of several alternatives that were studied during the planning process; therefore, the
"alternate" numbers on the Relocation Reports will not directly coincide with remaining
alternatives presented in the EA.
The Relocation Reports (RR) are broken down as follows:
"Alternate 1 of 5" RR includes an evaluation of a Best-Fit Alternative for Sections 1-7
combined.
"Alternate 2 of 5" RR includes an evaluation of a North Side Widening Alternative for
Sections 1-7 combined.
"Alternate 3 of 5" RR includes an evaluation of a South Side Widening Alternative for
Sections 4 and 5 combined.
"Alternate 4 of 5" RR includes an evaluation of a North Side Bypass for Section 6.
"Alternate 5 of 5" RR includes an evaluation of a South Side Bypass for Section 6.
NCDOT's Relocation/Displacement Policies
NCDOT's policy regarding relocations involves providing assistance to those affected by
transportation improvements per the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties
Acquisition Policies Act. All alternatives under evaluation will result in the displacement of
homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DCI Study Area appear to be low-income. If so,
and if they are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (PL 91-646) may be used.
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the
effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or
businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience
of relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to assist
displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for
sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program
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 the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site
in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project
for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation 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 that
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices
of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced,
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also
assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching
for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental
of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing Owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other
state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the
costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT
will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants
for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses
may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required
when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been
offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before 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. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary.
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34539.1.1 COUNTY Pitt, Ed ecombe Alternate 1 of 5 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3407
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of NC 33 From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
, Edgecombe, Pitt cou nties
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 42 25 67 10, 2 14 35 12 4
Businesses 6 -0- 6 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 1 -0- 1 -0- Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit -0- -0- -0- -0- 0-20M _0_ $ 0-150 _0_ 0-20M 40 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M -0- 150-250 1 20-40M 118 150-250 19
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 33 250-400 5 40-70M 150 250-400 59
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 6 400-600 19 70-100M 175 400-600 73
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 3 600 up -0- 100 up 640 600 up 56
displacement? TOTAL 42 25 1123 209
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARK S (Respond by N umber)
after project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be ample supply of similar type businesses not affected
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. By the project.
4. 1)Graphix-sm-4empl. 2) Scotts Farms-md-10 empl 3) Muha-
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Mmed Hair and beauty-sm-4 empl.- Minority 4) Stancil and
x 6. Source for available housing (list). Friends-sm-2 empl 5) MC Motor-sm-2 empl. 6) Belvoir
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? Manufactoring-Lg- 15 empl. 7) Clark Restorations-md-5 empl.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 6. & 14. Realtors, MLS, Newspapers, etc.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 8. As mandated by law
families? 11. Princeville Housing Authority
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Or built if necessary
x 11. Is public housing available? Note: There are (2) cemeteries containing approximately 17
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Graves together
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? 24

2/23/10
Nancy wilson Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM 15-E
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34539.1.1 COUNTY Pitt, Ed ecombe Alternate 2 of 5 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3407
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of NC 33 From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
, Edgecombe, Pitt cou nties
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 52 11 63 8 1 9 28 15 10
Businesses 4 -0- 4 1 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms -0- -0- -0- -0- rs Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit -0- -0- -0- -0- 0M _p_ $ 0-150 _p_ 0-20M 40 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 0M 8 150-250 _0_ 20-40M 118 150-250 19
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 0M
[ 10 250-400 _0_ 40-70M 150 250-400 59
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 0M
70-1 12 400-600 9 70-100M 175 400-600 73
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by uP 22 600 uP 100 uP 640 600 uP 56
displacement? AL 52 11 1123 209
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARK S (Respond by N umber)
after project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be ample supply of similar type businesses not affected
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. By the project.
4. 1) Teel Auto Parts-sm-2 empl.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 2) Muhammed Hair and Beauty-sm- 4 empl.-minority 3) Stancil
x 6. Source for available housing (list). And Friends-sm-2 empl. 4) Clark Restorations and 5empl
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 6. & 14. Realtors, MILS, Newspapers, Etc.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 8. As mandated by law
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Princeville Housing Authority
families? 12. Or built if neccessary
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Note- There will be (1) cemetery containing approximately 26
x 11. Is public housing available? graves
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? 24

`7 f f? 2-23-10 2/23/10
F Nancy wilson Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34539.1.1 COUNTY Pitt, Ed ecombe Alternate 3 of 5 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3407
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of NC 33 From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
, Edgecombe, Pitt cou nties
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 10 -0- 10 1 0 0 2 8 0
Businesses 2 -0- 2 -0- VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 2 -0- 2 -0- Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit -0- -0- -0- -0- 0-20M _0_ $ 0-150 -0- 0-20m 40 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 -0- 20-40m 118 150-250 19
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250-400 _0_ 40-70M 150 250-400 59
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M $ 11 400-600 0 70-100M 175 400-600 73
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 5 600 up 0 100 up 640 1 1 600 up 56
displacement? TOTAL 10 0 1123 209
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by N umber)
after project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
X 4. , Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be ample supply of similar type businesses not affected
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. By the project.
4. 1) Graphix-sm-4 empl. 2) Scott Farms-md-10 empl.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 3) Farm Operation-sm- 4 empl. 4) Unidentified sm bus. possibly
x 6. Source for available housing (list). abandoned
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 6. & 14. Realtors, MLS, Newspapers, Etc.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 8. As mandated by law
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Princeville Housing Authority
families? 12. Or built if neccessary
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Note: There will be (1) cemetery containing approximately 8
x 11. Is public housing available? graves
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
RELOCATIONS 24

t
`7 - ` 2-23-10 2/23/10
Nancy wilson Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34539.1.1 COUNTY Pitt, Ed ecombe Alternate 4 of 5 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3407
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of NC 33 From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
, Edgecombe, Pitt cou nties
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 1 -0- 1 -0- -0- 1 -0- -0- -0-
Businesses -0- -0- -0- -0- VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms -0- -0- -0- -0- Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit -0- -0- -0- -0- 0-20M _0_ $ 0-150 _0_ 0-20M 40 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M _0_ 150-250 _0_ 20-40M 118 150-250 19
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 _0_ 40-70M 150 250-400 59
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M _0_ 400-600 _0_ 70-100M 175 400-600 73
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up -0_ 600 up _0_ 100 UP 640 600 up 56
displacement? TOTAL 1 -0- 1123 209
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by N umber)
after project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be ample supply of similar type businesses not affected
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. By the project.
6. & 14. Realtors, MLS, Newspapers, Etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 8. As mandated by law
x 6. Source for available housing (list). 11. Princeville Housing Authority
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 12. Or built if neccessary
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? 24

2-23-10 2/23/10
Nancy wilson Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34539.1.1 COUNTY Pitt, Ed ecombe Alternate 5 of 5 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-3407
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: Widening of NC 33 From US 64 Southeast of Tarboro to US 264 in Greenville
, Edgecombe, Pitt cou nties
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential -0- 1 1 1 -0- 1 -0- -0- -0-
Businesses -0- -0- -0- -0- VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms -0- -0- -0- -0- Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit -0- -0- -0- -0- 0-20M -0- $ 0-150 -0- 0-20M 40 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M -0- 150-250 -0- 20-40M 118 150-250 19
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M -0- 250-400 1 40-70M 150 250-400 59
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M -0- 400-600 -0- 70-100M 175 400-600 73
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up -0- 600 up -0- 100 up 640 600 up 56
displacement? TOTAL -0- 1 1123 209
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by N umber)
after project? All residential displacees are counted as families.
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be ample supply of similar type businesses not affected
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. By the project.
6. & 14. Realtors, MLS, Newspapers, Etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 8. As mandated by law
x 6. Source for available housing (list). 11. Princeville Housing Authority
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 12. Or built if neccessary
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? 24

2-23-10 2/23/10
Nancy wilson Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E