The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNew Rail Connector (4)North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division /�~ �R�l ��,`�� r� *� * ��_�:��'�J� ,,,p� OF TR��I Greenville Northern Rail Siding CSX Transportation Greenville, Pitt County, NC STIP Project No. P-3309AB Administrative Action Environmental Assessment Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation i 7 "> � ..�%�7 ��/ � , j �` . Date Marc L. I�amel Rail Environmental Programs Manager North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division os - -.�,� �� r� * * d o �� / � Northern Rail Siding CSX Transportation Greenville, Pitt County, NC STIP Project No. P-3309AB Administl•ative Action Environmetltal Assessment Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c} US Departanent of Ti•ansportation I'ederal Railroad Administration and ;c1Q��3t�p North Carolina Department of T�-anspoi•tatio��`�'` ��''��,,�� ,,� �� p886C0P �r�,� ',. Document Prepared By: ```��d�'��i�,�•� �'% PBS&J w �Q'�" o �"" .. � S�Ai.� - , f � ; �� 3�,��►� 3 /� /�� .��- � d " � . ° � o. Z�� `�a _ r�t��c_o•°. .- Date �'ill GuraTc; T�E, AICP NEPA Project Manager Document Prepared For: North Carolina Depart�nent of Transportation, Rai llivisio , ti3/y/1�� ., . � , .. , , —� - Date Ryan White, PE Rail Environmental Plannir North Carolina Department Rail Division '',�� il9tlliit��4e G��l�! � ... .;�� i� � ' � ♦ . 'I�&4/4' 'y l ' �pt t •�� / 9 T gF " � ;��siroE�� `.°`. �%�►��,��(t�`�� !i�� TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ES-1 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................1-1 11 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..........................................1-1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................1-1 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT .......................................................................1-2 1.4 PROJECT SETTING .....................................................................................................1-3 1.5 RAIL AND ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................1-3 1.5.1 Existing Rail Network and Siding ....................................................................1-3 1.5.2 Existing Road Network .....................................................................................1-4 1.5.3 Future Train and Vehicular Volumes ...............................................................1-5 1.6 RAIL AND ROADWAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ........................................................1-5 1.6.1 Operations at the Existing Siding .....................................................................1-5 1.6.2 Crash Data and Safety ......................................................................................1-7 1.7 TRANSPORTATIONPLANNING ................................................................................1-7 1.7.1 State Plans ........................................................................................................1-7 1.7.2 Local Plans and Studies ....................................................................................1-7 2 ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................2-1 �i�0�.3�11/li�\NYDIyO�YY\�� 2-1 22 BUILD ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA ..............................................................2-1 2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE — RELOCATE YARD SIDING TO BETWEEN NC 903 AND STATON MILL ROAD (SR 1514) .........................................................................2-2 2.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ......2-4 2.4.1 Alternative Sites for Relocating the Rail Yard Siding ......................................2-4 2.4.2 Improve the Existing Rail Yard Siding .............................................................2-6 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................3-1 3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ........................................... 3.1.1 Land Use .......................................................... 3.1.2 Demographics ................................................... 31.3 Community Facilities and Services ................. 31.4 Section 4(� and Section 6(f) Resources ............ 3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................... 3.2.1 Noise and Vibration ......................................... 3.2.2 Air Quality ....................................................... 3.2.3 Farmland .......................................................... 32.4 Hazardous Materials and Geotechnical Issues 32.5 Mineral Resources ............................................ 3.2.6 Floodplains ....................................................... 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-6 3-6 3-7 3-7 3-10 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-14 � Greenville Northern Rail Siding i Environmental Assessment 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................... 3.4 NATURALENVIRONMENT ................. 3.4.1 Soils ............................................ 3.42 Biotic Communities and Wildlife 3.4.3 W ater Resources ........................ 3.4.4 JurisdictionalIssues .................. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3-14 3-15 3-15 3-16 3-19 3-20 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................4-1 4.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 CommunitiesandNeighborhoods .....................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Relocations ........................................................................................................4-2 41.3 Community Services and Public Health and Safety .........................................4-2 4.1.4 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................4-2 4.1.5 Economic Effects and Energy Use ....................................................................4-3 42 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ....................................................4-4 4.2.1 Land Use ...........................................................................................................4-4 4.2.2 Transportation Plans ........................................................................................4-4 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................4-4 4.3.1 Noise and Vibration ..........................................................................................4-4 4.3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Farmland ...........................................................................................................4-6 4.3.4 Hazardous Materials and Geotechnical Issues .................................................4-6 4.3.5 Floodplains ........................................................................................................4-6 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................4-7 4.5 NATURALENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................4-7 4.5.1 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ......................................................................4-7 4.5.2 W ater Resources ...............................................................................................4-7 4.5.3 Jurisdictional Topics .........................................................................................4-9 4.6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..............................................................4-11 4.6.1 Background .....................................................................................................4-11 4.6.2 Analysis ...........................................................................................................4-11 4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................4-12 5 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................5-1 51 EARLY PROJECT COORDINATION ...........................................................................5-1 5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION .........................................................................................5-2 5.3 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING AND CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS5-2 6 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION .......................6-1 6.1 REFERENCES ........................................ 62 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION....... 6-1 6-4 � Greenville Northern Rail Siding ii Environmental Assessment LIST OF TABLES E-1 1-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative ..................................... Average Daily Traffic Volumes at Crossings Near Existing Rail Yard Siding Racial Composition — 2000 Census .................................................................. Age Characteristics — 2000 Census ................................................................. Income Characteristics — 2000 Census ............................................................ National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................... Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County ..................................................... Estimated Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Receptors .................................... Impacts to Plant Communities ........................................................................ Impacts to Wetlands and Open Waters ........................................................... Summary of Impacts to Federally Protected Species ...................................... LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS PAGE ES-3 1-5 3-4 3-5 3-5 3-11 3-24 4-5 4-7 4-9 4-10 1-1 Existing rail siding just north of Arlington Boulevard .....................................................1-2 1-2 CSX rail line crossing at Arlington Boulevard — looking south ........................................1-2 1-3 Existing rail yard siding just south of Howell Street .......................................................1-4 2-1 Looking north at Staton Mill Road at-grade rail crossing ................................................2-3 2-2 Looking west over the CSXT rail line at the NC 903 intersection with US 13/NC 11 .....2-3 3-1 Looking south from Staton Mill Road at CSXT track and adjacent sand and gravel supply operation ............................ .................... ........................................................................... 3 -1 3-2 Looking north along CSXT track from NC 903 ................................................................3-2 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1-1 NC Rail Map (Excerpt) ................................................. 3-1 Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Criteria LIST OF FIGURES (Figures follow text) 1-1 Project Location Map 1-2 Existing Rail Yard Siding 1-3 Project Vicinity 2-la-d Preferred Alternative 3-1 Community Resources and Notable Land Uses 3-2 Existing Zoning in Project Vicinity 3-3 Demographic Study Area 3-4 Farmland Soils in Project Vicinity 3-5 Floodplains and Water Resources 3-6 Soils in Project Vicinity 3-7 Plant Communities in Project Study Area 3-8 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams APPENDICES A CREATE Noise Model Spreadsheets B Geotechnical Report C Agency Correspondence D Wetland Data Forms 1-3 3-8 � Greenville Northern Rail Siding iii Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS � Greenville Northern Rail Siding iv Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is located in Pitt County in eastern North Carolina. The proposed project would relocate the CSXT rail yard siding out of downtown Greenville, North Carolina to a preferred location along the existing CSXT rail line north of the city between the at grade crossings of NC 903 (crossing # 641 847B) and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) (crossing # 641 850�. The existing CSXT offices located at lOrh Avenue and Dickinson Avenue would be co-located with the new yard siding. The proposed action is included in the NCDOT 2009-2015Transportationlmprouement Program (STIP) as project number P-3309AB, which is part of overall STIP Project P-5000 to make rail improvements in the Greenville area. The project is proposed to be funded by the Rail Line Relocation program, administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In addition, the North Carolina General Assembly allocated $3.8 million for this project and for improvements to the CSXT/CLNA junction (STIP Project P- 3309AA). Other funding sources are also being sought. ilu:�l•�y�_�►i•�►iaa•�7•�:a�:z•��x•�� The purpose of the project is to improve the movement of freight and the safety of vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville by relocating the existing rail yard siding. The project would improve safety for motorists and train crews by reducing prolonged waiting periods for vehicles at the at- grade crossings and eliminating difficult maneuvering conditions for trains at the rail yard between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. CSXT train operations at the existing rail yard siding often conflict with vehicular traffic at the numerous at-grade crossings, and the efficient operations of both trains and vehicles are affected. Due to the number of rail cars, these operations often block the at-grade crossings at Fourteenth Street (SR 1703), Howell Street, and Arlington Boulevard, often at peak vehicular traffic hours. The efficiency of rail operations is compromised by the inadequate length of the existing rail yard siding to accommodate the numbers of train cars in use, and the conflicts with the at-grade crossings. i�:�aya:�:�a•�_��ra:�►r_vr�va The Preferred Alternative would relocate the existing yard siding and CSXT office to a location along the CSXT main line north of Greenville between NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). The proposed location would not have any at-grade roadway crossings. The Preferred Alternative would meet the project's purpose and need. By minimizing train operations through downtown, the project would improve the movement of freight traveling through downtown Greenville. Yard siding switching of rail cars would occur north of the city. Vehicular safety and vehicular delays would improve because the yard operations would not occur in downtown Greenville, where rail cars frequently block the at-grade crossings of Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street. Safety for train crews also would benefit from yard operations in a less developed area. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 ES-1 Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� The proposed project would include the following main elements as listed below. All proposed improvements would be located within the existing CSXT right of way (approximately 125 feet wide). In total, the two yard tracks and pocket track would provide 7,850 feet of storage. • Construct Yard Track 1 twenty-five feet west of the CSXT mainline track. This track would be 4,000 feet long between derails. It would serve as a yard siding and could also serve as a passing siding. • Construct Yard Track 2 fifteen feet west of Yard Track l. This track would provide 3, 500 feet of yard siding storage. • Construct Yard Pocket Track as a 500-foot extension to the north side of Yard Track 2, dead- ending near the proposed office building. This track would be used for repair activities and locomotive storage. • Construct CSXT yard officebuilding (2,000 squarefeet), parking area and utilities adjacent to the south side of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). • Construct a 24-foot wide gravel maintenance access road west of Yard Track 2. • Construct a new drainage ditch on the west side of the improvements to replace the existing drainage ditch filled by the new yard tracks. • Replace an existing culvert with a new 265-foot long, 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe culvert to carry water in the proposed new ditch under an existing industrial track siding. • Relocate the existing Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) crossing signal and gate mast to 15 feet from centerline of mainline track. Based on the design described above, the preliminary cost estimate to construct the Preferred Altern ative is $6, 804, 000. BUILD ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Other alternative sites along the CSXT mainline for relocating the existing rail yard siding were considered by NCDOT in addition to the Preferred Alternative. However, these were eliminated due to inadequate length between existing at-grade road crossings and/or the presence of streams and floodplains. Improving and extending the existing rail yard siding was determined to not meet the project's purpose and need. Improving the existing rail yard siding would not reduce train traffic through downtown Greenville. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The section summarizes the estimated direct and indirect impacts to the human, physical, cultural, and natural environments, and proposed mitigation, for the Preferred Alternative and No-Build Alternative. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The analysis of the No-Build Alternative is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and serves as a benchmark against which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 E S-2 Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� The impacts from choosing the No-Build Alternative occur from the continuation of existing conditions. The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way acquisition nor construction costs. There would be no short-term disruptions that would occur along existing roadways and the railroad during construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there be any residential or business relocations. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need. It would not improve the movement of freight and the safety of vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville. As discussed previously, the existing CSXT at-grade intersections interfere with rail yard operations and create safety issues and substantial delays at the at-grade crossings at Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. In addition, the lengths of the existing rail yard sidings are not long enough in total to accommodate trains with more than 60 to 75 rail cars. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FRA Procedures for Considering Enuironmental Impacts (Federal Register Volume 64, No. 101, May 26, 1999) provide a list of potential environmental impact areas that should be considered in the environmental assessment process. All areas have been addressed in this Environmental Assessment in Chapters 1 through 4. Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are summarized below in Table E-1 in the order they are listed in the FRA Procedures, along with a listing of the sections where they are described in more detail and proposed mitigation, if applicable. Table E-1. Summary of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative EA Sections ImpactArea �ontaining Summary of Impact Proposed Mitigation More Detail AirQuality 3.2.2, Noimpact. Theprojectareaisinattainmentforall Notapplicable. 4.3.2 criteria air pollutants. The Preferred Alternative does not include a significant air pollutant emissions source. New USEPA rules (March 2008) will dramatically reduce emissions from d iesel locomotives of all types. WaterQuality 3.4.3, Projectactivitiessuchasclearingandgrubbing, UtilizeNCDOT's8est 4.5.2 ripariancanopyremoval,in-waterconstruction, MonogementProcticesfor fertilizer and pesticide use for revegetation, redirection the Protection of Surfoce ofsurficialgroundwaterflowscouldimpactsurface WotersandDesignStondords water resources in the absence of appropriate Best forSensitive Wotersheds Managements Practices (BMPs). Noise and Vibration 3.2.1, No impact. The FTA Noise Impact Criteria were used Not applicable. 4.3.1 to determine whetherthe Preferred Alternative would result in noise impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receivers. All receiversfall into the "No Impact" range. Vibration impacts were determined to not be of concern for this project due to low speeds and infrequent operations. Solid Waste 4.1.3 No impact. The Preferred Alternative would not Not applicable. Disposal generate substantial solid waste, including hazardous waste. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 E S-3 Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� Table E-1. Summary of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative EA Sections ImpactArea �ontaining Summary of Impact Proposed Mitigation More Detail Ecological Systems 3.4, 4.5.1 Permanent impacts would occur within the existing Not applicable. (BioticCommunities CSXTrightofwayto3.6acresofmaintained/disturbed and Wildlife) areas, 2.0 acres of non-riverine wet hardwood forest, and 2.6 acres of pine plantation. Short-term displacement of wildlife would occur, butthere would be no significant habitatfragmentation. Wetlands 3.4.4.1, ThePreferredAlternativewouldimpact0.77acresof Compensatorymitigationwill 4.5.3.1 open water and 3.75 acres of wetlands. In addition, be required as part of the temporary impacts would occurto an additiona10.75 Section 4041ndividual Permit acres of wetlands. The Preferred Alternative avoids from the US Army Corps of andminimizesimpactstowetlandstotheextent Engineers(USACE)andthe practicable by placing the proposed improvements Section 401 Water Quality within the existing CSXT right of way, adjacent to the Certification from the NC existing main tracks. Division of WaterQuality (NCDWQ). Final determinations on compensatory mitigation are made bythe USACE and NCDWQ as part of the permitting process. Endangered Species 3.4.4.3, No impact. No suitable habitat exists in the Preferred Not applicable. 4.5.3.2 Alternative study area for red-cockaded woodpecker, West Indian manatee, orTar River spinymussel. Flood Hazards and 3.2.6, No impact. There are no floodplains in the Preferred Not applicable. Floodplain 4.3.5 Alternativestudyarea. Management Coastal Zone 1.4 No impact. Pitt County is not in a coastal zone. Not applicable. Management Energy Resources 4.1.5 Positive Effect. The Preferred Alternative would have None needed. a positive effect on energy resources by reducing delaysfor vehicles atthe downtown Greenville at- grade rail crossings, which in turn would reduce fuel consumption. Other Natural 3.2.3, No impact. The Preferred Alternative would be Not applicable. Resources (water, 3.2.5, entirely within the existing CSXT right of way. Adjacent minerals, timber, 4.3.3 pine plantation and agricultural lands would not be farmland, etc.) impacted. Aesthetics and 3.1.1.2, No impact. The Preferred Alternative, where visible, Not applicable. Design Quality 4.1.1 would be in scale and character with the surrounding residences. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 E S-4 Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� Table E-1. Summary of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative EA Sections ImpactArea �ontaining Summary of Impact Proposed Mitigation More Detail Impacts on 2.3, 4.1.1 Positive Effect. Vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians Not applicable. Transportation� nearthe Preferred Alternative would not be impacted since the Preferred Alternative limits do not cross existing roadways. Vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians in downtown Greenville would experience less congestion and delays at the at-grade rail crossings of Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street with the relocation ofthe existing rail yard siding. Freight operations would be more efficient with the relocation ofthe rail yard siding out of downtown Greenville where adequate siding lengths can be provided. Possible Barriersto 4.1.1 No impact. The Preferred Alternative would not Not applicable. Elderly and divide or isolate neighborhoods or change travel Handicapped patterns. Land Use 3.1.1, No impact. The Preferred Alternative is consistent Not applicable. 4.2.1 with existing land use and local land use plans and zoning. Socioeconomics� 3.1.2, 3.1.3, No impact. The Preferred alternative would not create Not applicable. 4.1.2, 4.1.5, or eliminate jobs, no relocations of businesses or 4.2.1 residences are required, neighborhoods and communities would not be disrupted, business districts and other downtown Greenville areas would not be negatively impacted; includingthe West Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area and the Center City Revitalization Area. Environmental 4.1.4 No impact. No direct or indirect impacts to any Not applicable. Justice neighborhoods, residences, or churches, including potential minority communities, would occur. Public Health 4.1.3 No impact. The Preferred Alternative would not Not applicable. generate substantial hazardous waste nor would operations pose a public health concern. Public Safety 1.6.2, Positive Effect. The Preferred Alternative would Not applicable. (including 4.1.3 impact safetyfor motorists and train crews by reducing Hazardous prolonged waiting periodsfor vehicles (including Materials) emergency responders) atthe existing at-grade crossings in downtown Greenville and eliminating difficult maneuvering conditions for trains at the existing rail yard siding. Regarding hazardous materials,there are no contaminated sites identified in the Preferred Alternative study area. Recreational 3.1.3.4, No impact. There are no parks or other recreational Not applicable. Opportunities 4.1.3 facilities within the Preferred Alternative study area. Historic 3.3, 4.4 No impact. There are no significant historic Not applicable. Architecturaland architecturalorarchaeologicalresourceswithinthe Archaeological Preferred Alternative study area, as confirmed bythe Resources State Historic Preservation Officer. Section 4(f) 3.1.4 No impact. There are no Section 4(f) resources in the Not applicable. Resources Preferred Alternative study area. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 E S-5 Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��iuu.r.�r� Table E-1. Summary of Impacts from the Preferred Alternative EA Sections ImpactArea �ontaining Summary of Impact Proposed Mitigation More Detail Construction 4.7 Temporaryimpactscouldoccurtoairquality,water UtilizeBestManagement Impacts quality, and wildlife. Practices and standard NCDOT procedures during construction. i. impaas on transportanon mauae impaasto passengersanatreignt ny au moaes, mauamg nicyaes ana peaestnans in iocai, regionai, national, and i ntemational perspectives, and impacts on traffic mngestion. 2. Socioemnomic impacts indudes effects on number and kinds of available jobs, potential for mmmunity disruption and demographic shifts, the need for and availability of relocation housing, impacts on mmmerce, induding existing business districts, metropolitan areas, and the immediate area of the altemative, and impacts on local government services and revenues. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 E S-6 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEANONEED w.r.0 - 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION Introduction. The NCDOT Rail Division is working statewide with rail companies such as the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), Carolina Coastal Railway (CLNA) and CSX Transportation (CSXT) to upgrade existing rail corridors to improve safety, efficiency and capacity for freight and passenger train services. The Greenville, Pitt County, area in eastern North Carolina is one area of the state where improvements to freight rail service are being studied by NCDOT. The proposed project would implement improvements to the CSXT line in this area. Figure 1-1 shows the general project location. Backeround Information. In 2005, representatives from CSXT, City of Greenville Public Works Department, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division began meeting to discuss rail improvements in the vicinity of the CSXT/Norfolk Southern (now CLNA) junction and CSXT rail yard siding in downtown Greenville, North Carolina. A feasibility study of these potential improvements, Greenuille Rail Improuements Study, was completed in March 2008 (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates), and information from this study is referenced throughout this Environmental Assessment (EA). The feasibility study recommended improvements to the CSXT/CLNA junction by adding a connecting track in the northwest quadrant of the junction. This recommendation has been constructed and is now in operation. The study also recommended relocating the CSXT rail yard siding out of downtown Greenville to a location north of the City (the subject of this proposed action). The junction is a wye configuration located just south of 14th Street and west of Beatty Street. The CSXT rail yard siding is located between Arlington Street and Howell Street, just south of the junction. Figure 1-2 shows the locations of these existing facilities. The junction is where the north-south CSXT tracks cross the east-west CLNA tracks (formerly NS tracks) and the junction's wye configuration allows for trains to travel from one track to another (e.g. a westbound train on the CLNA line travels through the junction's switches and goes northbound on the CSXT line). Another major study of rail operations in the Greenville area is the Greenuille Traffic Separation Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, July 2008). This study evaluated 45 highway grade crossings of the CSXT and CLNA rail lines in Greenville. Recommendations were made for these crossings, which included the following: upgrading existing or adding new flashing lights and gates; relocating existing crossings; or closing crossings. The purpose of these improvements is to enhance safety for motorists, pedestrians, and train workers. The recommendations in the proposed project area are discussed in more detail in Section 1.7.2. 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project would relocate the CSXT rail yard siding out of downtown Greenville, North Carolina to a preferred location along the existing CSXT rail line north of the city between the at grade crossings of NC 903 (crossing # 641 847B) and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) (crossing # 641 � 1-1 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEAND NEED ��r.�. - 850�. The existing CSXT offices located at lOth Avenue and Dickinson Avenue would be co-located with the new yard siding. Figure 1-3 shows the project area and vicinity. The proposed action is included in the NCDOT 2009-2015 Transportation Improuement Program (STIP) as project number P-3309AB, which is part of overall STIP Project P-5000 to make rail improvements in the Greenville area. The project is proposed to be funded by the Rail Line Relocation program, administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In addition, the North Carolina General Assembly allocated $3.8 million for this project and for improvements to the CSXT/CLNA junction (STIP Project P- 3309AA). Other funding sources are also being sought. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT As required by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.9) and FRA's Procedure for Considering Enuironmental Impacts (Federal Register Vol. 64 No. 101, May 26, 1999, Section 10(d)), an explanation of the purpose and need for the project is provided below. The purpose of the project is to improve the movement of freight and the safety of vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville by relocating the existing rail yard siding. The project would improve safety for motorists and train crews by reducing prolonged waiting periods for vehicles at the at- grade crossings and eliminating difficult maneuvering conditions for trains at the rail yard between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. CSXT train operations at the existing rail yard siding often conflict cvith vehicular traffic at the numerous at-grade crossings, and the efficient operations of both trains and vehicles are affected. Most CSX'I' trains in the Greenville area operate southbound from Rocky Mount to eastbound along the CSXT line to Parmele, then southbound along the CSXT line to Greenville. From there, trains head eastbound along the CLNA line. The trains also then make the reverse movements. CSXT provides service to the PCS Phosphate facility east of Greenville in Aurora. They also provide local deliveries in the Greenville area. The rail siding between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street is used to break down and rebuild trains for efficient deliveries (Figure 1-2). Due to the number of rail cars, these operations often block the at-grade crossings at Fourteenth Street (SR 1703), Howell Street, and Arlington Boulevard, often at peak vehicular traffic hours. The efficiency of rail operations is compromised by the inadequate length of the existing rail yard siding to accommodate the numbers of train cars in use, and the conflicts with the at-grade crossings. Photo 1-1. Existing rail sidingjust north ofArlington Photo 1-2. CSXT rail line crossing at Arlington Boulevard Boulevard - looking south � 1-2 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSE AND NEED - Delays at the atgeade ocossings oan a££eot a substantiel numbec oFvehioles. Pitt County Memociel Hospitel and othec majoc employment ex�eas ex�e looated on the mrthwest side oF Gceenville, and most oF the cesidentiel ex�eas and new gmowth ex�e lmated on the southeast side oF the oity (2035Low Rawe TrwsportatiorvPLasy Gceenville Ucben Paea Metx�opolitan Planning Ocgenization [GUP1vIP0], August 2009). TheceFoce, aommutecs, shool buses, end emecgenay vehiales must pass through the rail crossings in the vicinity o£ the ezisting siding on a dailybasis. As growth continues, the likelihood Foc inaceased aongestion and delays will esaelate with the inaceasing avecage deily vehicular tra££ic volumes. 1.4 PROJECT SETTING The pcojeat viainity is in Gceenville, Pitt CounEy, in eastecn Nocth Cex�olina. Gceenville is the aounty eat and the most populous aityin Pitt County. Topogmaphyin the pcojeat cegion is genecelly flat, with meny stx�eems. Pitt County is notin a aoastel zone. Gceenville is biseated by the Tex� Rivec, with the mein downtown ex�eas loaated south oF the civec. The Pitt Gceenville Hirpoct is loaated mcth oF the civec and west oFUS 13/NC 11/NC 903. The CSXT nocth-south ceil line cuns to the east oFUS 13/NC 11/NC 903 (Figuce 1-3). The ceil siding that the pcoposed pcojeat would ceplaae is loaated in downtown Greenville, south oF the Tex� Riven Land uses neex� the ezisting ceil yex�d siding ex�e ucban, with a miz oFcesidentiel, aommecaiel, and industx�iel bulldings adjaaent to the ceil cight oF way (Figuce 1-2). The PceFecced Pltecnative is loaated elong the CSXT ceil line just mcth oF Gceenville, with the outhecn poction oF the PceFexmed Pltecnative within the eztx�a-texmitociel jucisdiation oF the G]ty. EzisHng lend uses within the viainity oF the PceFecced PltecnaHve genecelly ex�e cucel, with saatteced cesidenoes, industeiel uses, ageioultuce, and Focested vaoant land. 1.5 RAIL AND ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 1.5.1 EXISTING RAIL NEfWORK AND SIDING ExietineRailNetwock The zisting ceil netwock in the Gceenville cegion is shown in Exhibit 1-1. The mrth-south CSXT track runs from Pex�mele, North Cex�olina, thcough Gceenville, dead- ending neex� Elmec, North Cex�olina, appcoximately 20 miles oc so south oF Gceenville. In Pex�mele, the mcth-south CSXT tcaak intecseats en east- west CSXT tx�aak The east- west CSXT track runs from Plymouth westthcough Pex�mele to Roal.y Mount, whece it meets with amthec mazn mrth-south CSXT track. Exhibi[ 1�1. NC Rall Map (Excerp[) Sowce: www bv[ra n ore/ou cklTks/otlf/nc ralmao 1� otlf Qanuary 2�1�) 1-3 GreenvllleNOrthemftell5l�ing-P-3309A6 £nvlronmen�l Assessmen[ PURPOSEAND NEED ��r.�. - Because the track dead-ends south of Greenville, the primary CSXT operations are from the north, traveling south to Greenville (and vice versa). The PCS Phosphate facility is a major client of CSXT, and trains serving this facility switch to the CLNA track in Greenville to head east to the facility. The reverse moves also are made. CSXT also has other local customers. The existing rail yard siding is used to break down and reassemble trains for these various deliveries. Likewise, trains are assembled at the existing rail yard siding from a variety of local customers for destinations heading north on the CSXT track. Both the CSXT track and the CLNA track in this area are used for freight operations only. Existine Train Volumes. Approximately four to five freight trains per day use the CSX line through Greenville (FRA Web site: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafet /y�ublicsite/crossing/crossin .g aspx), with many of these trains using the existing CSX rail yard siding. Speeds vary from 5 to 20 miles per hour (mph) through downtown to 30 to 40 mph north of the City limits. Existine Greenville Sidine. As shown in Figure 1-2, the e�sting rail yard siding is located between Arlington Boulevard to the south and Howell Street to the north. The distance between the two roadways is approximately 2,700 feet. The CSX'I' and CLNA junction area begins just north of Howell Street and extends north across Fourteenth Street. The distance between Howell Street and Fourteenth Street is approximately 1,180 feet. Photographs 1-1 and 1-3 show the existing siding. The existing rail yard siding consists of two yard tracks approximately 2,100 feet long, cv�th one yard track situated on each side of the single main line track. These sidings together cannot hold more than approximately 75 rail cars. Therefore, trains greater than approximately 35 to 40 rail cars exceed the distance of a single yard track until the trains can be broken down, with some rail cars moved to the second yard track. Longer trains can interfere with the main track operations until rail cars can be maneuvered to the sidings. 1.5.2 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK Photo 1-3. Existing rail yard sidingjust south of Howell Street As mentioned in the previous section, Arlington Boulevard is located to the south of the existing rail yard siding, and Howell Street and Fourteenth Street are located to the north. These roadways are described below, along with existing traffic volumes on each road. Arlin ton Boulevard (SR 1323�. Arlington Boulevard is a major thoroughfare with an at-grade crossing (crossing # 642 7194� of the CSXT rail line (Photograph 1-1). This roadway connects west Greenville with southeast Greenville. Near the crossing, Arlington Boulevard is a four-lane roadway with a landscaped median. As shown in Table 1-1, average daily traffic counts near the crossing were 28,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2004, 31,000 vpd in 2006, and 30,000 vpd in 2008. � 1-4 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEANONEED w.r.0 - Table 1-1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes at Crossings Near Existinq Rail Yard Sidinq Roadway Arlington Boulevard Howell Street Fourteenth Street age Daily Traffic Volume near CSXT Rail Crossing 2004 2006 2008 28,000 31,000 30,000 4,200 5,800 5,700 13,000 n/a 13,000 Howell Street. This local two-lane east-west connector street connects Hooker Road to South Evans Street in a primarily residential area. There is an at-grade crossing (crossing # 641 615L) of the CSXT rail line. As shown in Table 1-1, average daily traffic counts near the crossing were 4,200 vpd in 2004, 5, 800 vpd in 2006, and 5, 700 vpd in 2008. Fourteenth Street (SR 1703). Fourteenth Street is a major thoroughfare with an at-grade crossing (crossing # 641 614E) of the CSXT rail line. This roadway connects central Greenville with east Greenville. Near the crossing, Fourteenth Street is a four-lane roadway. As shown in Table 1-1, average daily traffic counts near the crossing were 13,000 vpd in 2004 and 2008. 1.5.3 FUTURE TRAIN AND VEHICULAR VOLUMES Train Traffic. Train traffic may increase in the future due to potential expansion of the PCS Phosphate facility or demands of other local customers. Another minor contributing factor for increases in potential train traffic might be the improved ability of the proposed new rail yard to store and handle additional cars, possibly increasing the average number of cars per train. However, CSXT freight train volumes in the Greenville area would be influenced most by private customer demands since the CSXT rail lines running through Greenville are not interstate lines. Therefore, in this area, it is difficult to project train volumes into the future. Vehicular Traffic. Vehicular traffic is expected to increase as the population of the area increases, including expected increases in volumes crossing the CSXT rail line near the existing rail yard siding. Pitt County is projected to grow approximately 41 percent between 2010 and 2030; from 161,893 residents in 2010 to 228,243 residents in 2030 (NC State Data Center Web site: www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts and figures). 1.6 1.6.1 RAIL AND ROADWAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS OPERATIONS AT THE EXISTING SIDING The largest customer of train service in the region is PCS Phosphate. On average, PCS Phosphate sends approximately 50 to 60 railcars per day through Greenville, although the trains can be as small as 30 rail cars or up to 100 to 150 rail cars per train (Greenuille Rail Improuements Study, STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2008). When these longer trains are being switched within the sidings, vehicular traffic is blocked for greater periods of time at Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street. The main rail track also is blocked with longer trains until the rail cars can be maneuvered to both siding tracks. Due to required schedules at PCS Phosphate, switching operations often occur during peak roadway travel times. � 1-5 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEANONEED w.r.0 - For example, Train 727 runs through Greenville daily on its way to the PCS Phosphate facility. When Train 727 is longer than 60 railcars, traffic backs up at all three crossings near the existing siding: Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street. As part of the Greenuille Raillmprouements Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2008), a field study was conducted in the early morning on January 30, 2008, to observe train and vehicular operations near the existing rail yard siding. Below is a description from the study of the field observations, which demonstrate the vehicular delays that occur during off peak hours caused by operations of a 50-rail car train at the existing rail yard siding: "During a field study conducted on January 30, 2008, CSX Train 727 was heading from the PCS facility to Greenville, NC. At 5:49 am, the train crossed Pitt Street and did not clear the crossing until 6:01 am. During the 12 minutes that Pitt Street was blocked, the train conductor had to debark the train to align the NS wye switch [now CLNA] and open the train derail so that Train 727 could continue on to the CSX yard. In addition, Train 727 crossed Howell Street at 5:56 am and did not clear the crossing until 6:10 am. As Train 727 cleared Pitt Street, the conductor had to stop the train and debark to align the second wye switch which leads to the CSX main line andyard. During this time, the train blocked 11 vehicles. As Train 727 continued south, it crossed Arlington Road at 6:09 am, and for 6 minutes, blocked 32 vehicles. As the train entered the yard, the conductor uncoupled 40 cars and continued on with the remaining 10 rail cars. Once the train crossed Arlington Road the vehicles were allowed to cross until the train headed back north into theyard again. At 6:19 am the train headed back into the yard blocking Arlington Road for another 2 minutes. At 626 am the train again blocked Arlington Road for another 2 minutes in order to collect the rail cars. At 627 am, Train 727 departed the CSX yard, using the NS wye connection and headed north towards Rocky Mount. Overall, by the time Train 727 crossed Pitt Street along the NS line and reshuffled cars at the yard and crossed back over Arlington Road onto the CSX line, 47 minutes elapsed. 36 minutes consisted of blocking Pitt Street, Howell Street, and Arlington Road. Additional assumptions: • Total elapsed time for the downtown maneuver — 47 minutes • Time of impact to Pitt Street — 12 minutes • Total vehicles in queue on Pitt Street — 0 • Time of impact to Howell Street —14 minutes • Total vehicles in queue on Howell Street —11 • Time of impact to Arlington Road — 10 minutes • Total vehicles in queue on Arlington Road— 4B' Longer trains cause longer delays, and if operations occur during peak vehicular travel periods, more vehicles are impacted, particularly for the heavily traveled Arlington Boulevard (Table 1-1). � 1-6 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEANONEED w.r.0 - 1.6.2 CRASH DATA AND SAFETY Over the past ten years, Howell Street has had two train/vehicle collisions and Fourteenth Street has had one collision. In each case, the train was conducting switching operations at the crossings and the vehicle failed to yield right of way (FRA W eb site: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/crossing/crossin .asox . In addition, during site visits conducted as part of the Greenuille Traffac Separation Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, July 2008), vehicles were observed queued across the tracks at the at-grade crossings with Howell Street and Arlington Boulevard when trains were present due to nearby traffic signals, intersections, and parallel roadways. 1.7 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1.7.1 STATE PLANS The proposed project is consistent with both the 2009-2015 STIP and the NCDOT 2009 Rail Plan (March 2009). Overall STIP Project P-5000 (of which the proposed project is a part) includes track improvements at CLNA and CSXT to streamline the rail network to minimize blocking of highway-railroad at-grade crossings. Another related project (P-3309AA), already completed, is the addition of a connection track in the northeast quadrant of the CSXT/CLNA junction. In addition, the NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP includes two projects in the vicinity of the existing rail yard siding, both grade separation projects. These are STIP Project U-3839, the grade separation of the Fourteenth Street crossing of the CSXT line and STIP Project U-3315, the Tenth Street Connector, which is a realignment of Tenth Street that includes a grade separation of the CSXT rail line (Section 1.7.2). The North Carolina 2009 Rail Plan Executiue Summary (NCDOT, March 2009) includes a discussion of freight rail. The report states NCDOT's role in rail transportation planning and development includes "working with freight railroad companies and NCRR to design and build cost-effective rail capacity projects." The plan notes that rail capacity is a key issue and "Common and passing sidings and double tracking are needed systemwide to improve capacity, reduce congestion, improve system performance and reliability, and stimulate industrial development by expanding rail service." 1.7.2 LOCAL PLANS AND STUDIES The proposed project would be consistent with local plans and studies as discussed below. The Greenuille Raillmprouements Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2008), recommended relocating the existing rail yard siding to a location along the CSXT line north of NC 903. That study also recommended the addition of a track at the CSXT/CLNA junction in the northeast quadrant of the junction. That track addition was recently completed. The Greenuille Traffac Separation Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, July 2008) recommended no actions at this time regarding roadway improvements at the at-grade crossings of the CSXT line at Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. The construction of a median barrier was recommended for Fourteenth Street in the short term, with the study noting that a grade separation is planned as STIP Project U-3839. The stud�s recommendations were made considering existing crossing conditions, average daily train and vehicular traffic, the socioeconomic impact of potential � 1 7 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment PURPOSEANONEED w.r.0 - closings, and public and other stakeholder comments. For the Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street at-grade railroad crossings, an additional reason cited for recommending no action regarding the roadway improvements at the at-grade crossings was the fact that the planned track addition at the CSXT/CLNA junction (recently constructed) and the relocation of the existing rail siding (this Project P-3309AB) would minimize the instances of trains blocking these at-grade crossings. There are several local plans and studies that address the proposed project and other nearby projects in addition to the Greenuille Raillmprouements Study and the Greenuille Traffac Separation Study. Other local plans include the 2035Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (GUAMPO, August 2009) and Greenville's 2009-2010 draft update to their comprehensive plan, Draft Horizons: Greenuille's Community Plan 2009-2010 Reuiew: Preliminary Report. Both plans specifically mention and support the proposed project. Both plans can be found on the City of Greenville's Web site: www.greenvillenc.gov. In addition, the City of Greenville is currently studying improvements to Tenth Street as the Tenth Street Connector Project (City of Greenville project Web site: www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/public works dept/default.aspx?id=5732). Tenth Street is north of the existing rail yard siding and, as previously noted, the CSXT line currently has an at-grade crossing with this roadway. One goal of the improvements is to "Provide a grade-separated crossing with CSX Railroad from eastern North Carolina to the Hospital/Health Science campus to improve emergency response time." � 1 8 Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 Environmental Assessment _ : . _ Chapter 2 2.0 ALTERNATIVES This section discusses alternatives considered for the proposed project. These alternatives include the No-Build Alternative, the Preferred Alternative (relocate the rail yard siding to a location just north of NC 903), and other Build Alternatives considered but eliminated. Other Build Alternatives include alternative locations for relocating the rail yard siding and an alternative that would construct grade separations and extend the existing rail yard siding. As described below, each alternative was assessed with respect to its ability to meet the project's purpose and need and feasibility. 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The analysis of the No-Build Alternative is required under NEPA and serves as a benchmark against which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. The No-Build Alternative would make no improvements to the CSXT rail yard siding located between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street in downtown Greenville, with the exception of regular maintenance of the railroad tracks and ancillary equipment. Railroad maintenance could include safety inspections and maintenance of track ballast, railroad ties, timber, switching equipment, at-grade crossing gates, and other rail facilities and equipment. The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way acquisition nor construction costs. There would be no short-term disruptions that would occur along existing roadways and the railroad during construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there be any residential or business relocations. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need. It would not improve the movement of freight and the safety of vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville. As discussed previously, the existing CSXT at-grade intersections interfere with rail yard operations and create safety issues and substantial delays at the at-grade crossings at Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. In addition, the lengths of the existing rail yard sidings are not long enough in total to accommodate trains with more than 60 to 75 rail cars. 2.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CRITERIA In order to provide for improved efficiency and safe operation of the rail yard sidings, the NCDOT set minimum criteria for yard siding length, design speed, and separation of tracks. In addition, Build Alternatives that would relocate the yard siding set minimum needs for an office building, as personnel would need to have a facility near the yard siding to manage rail operations. The design criteria for the Build Alternative are described below. Sidin�' Track Len�'ths. The rail yard siding must provide two siding tracks with a total minimum length of 7,000 to 8,000 feet of track. One of the siding tracks must be a minimum of 4,000 feet in length between derails. The 4,000-foot siding length would allow this siding track to operate as a rail yard siding and as a passing siding for trains up to 60 to 70 railcars in size, which is the average size for trains to/from PCS Phosphate. In order to provide for efficient operation of the rail siding and to avoid vehicular traffic delays, the sidings should not be crossed by at-grade roadway crossings. Desi�'n Speed. The design speed for the siding tracks is 15 mph. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-1 Environmental Assessment _ : . _ Chapter 2 Tvnical Section. The yard track nearest the mainline must be at least 25 feet from the mainline (distance between centers of tracks) so as not to be considered an adjacent track for operational purposes and also to provide a safe distance between tracks for train crews walking adjacent to rail cars. The second yard track should be located a minimum of 15 feet from the first yard track. Office Buildin�'. If the siding is relocated to a new site, the site also needs to include an office building for personnel associated with the operation of the rail yard siding for efficiency purposes. The new office would relocate personnel from the existing office building at Tenth Street/Dickinson Street. The office building needs to be a minimum of 2,000 square feet, with adjacent parking. The office building would house approximately six CSXT staff, including engineering and signal personnel. 2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - RELOCATE YARD SIDING TO BETWEEN NC 903 AND STATON MILL ROAD (SR 1514) The Preferred Alternative would relocate the existing yard siding to a location along the CSXT main line north of Greenville between NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). Figure 2-1 shows the Preferred Alternative study area and proposed design. The proposed location would not have any at- grade roadway crossings. The Preferred Alternative would meet the project's purpose and need. By minimizing train operations through downtown, the project would improve the movement of freight traveling through downtown Greenville. Yard siding switching of rail cars would occur north of the city. Vehicular safety and vehicular delays would improve because the yard operations would not occur in downtown Greenville, where rail cars frequently block the at-grade crossings of Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street. Safety for train crews also would benefit from yard operations in a less developed area. Project Studv Area Boundaries. The Preferred Alternative study area begins at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and extends approximately 6,400 feet south to end approximately 980 feet north of NC 903. The study area is 300 feet wide centered on the existing mainline track. The study area also extends east and west along Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). The study area is greater in size than the area needed to construct the proposed project in order to collect data on existing conditions. Proposed Project Elements. The proposed project would include the following main elements as listed below and shown in Figure 2-1. All proposed improvements would be located within the existing CSXT right of way (approximately 125 feet wide). In total, the two yard tracks and pocket track would provide 7,850 feet of storage. The proposed project would: • Construct Yard Track 1 twenty-five feet west of the CSXT mainline track. This track would be 4,000 feet long between derails. The Yard Track 1 north derail would be located approximately 670 feet south of the centerline of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). It would serve as a yard siding and could also serve as a passing siding. • Construct Yard Track 2 fifteen feet west of Yard Track l. This track would provide 3, 500 feet of yard siding storage. Yard Track 2 would begin approximately 900 feet from the centerline of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and would connect to Yard Track 1 via a crossover track. Construct Yard Pocket Track as an extension to the north side of Yard Track 2, dead-ending near the proposed office building. This track would be approximately 500 feet long and would provide 350 feet of clear length to be used for repair activities and locomotive storage. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-2 Environmental Assessment : . � Chapter 2 • Construct CSXT yard office building, parking area and utilities. The building and parking area would be adjacent to the south side of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and would be accessed from Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). The building would be approximately 2,000 square feet in size and would house six CSXT staff. • Construct a 24-foot wide gravel maintenance access road west of Yard'I�ack 2. The maintenance road would begin near the office building and extend south to the end of Yard Track 1 where the maintenance road would be wider to allow for a turnaround area. • Construct a new drainage ditch on the west side of the improvements to replace the existing drainage ditch filled by the new yard tracks. The new drainage ditch would begin just south of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and would extend southward past the south end of Yard Track 1. The new drainage ditch would continue south from the end of Yard Track 1 approximately 1,420 feet to connect to an existing culvert that crosses under the main track. • Replace an existing culvert with a new 265-foot long, 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe culvert to carry water in the proposed new ditch under an existing industrial track siding that serves a grain company, Greenville Grain. This existing industrial track siding connects to the CSXT mainline track approximately 835 feet south of the proposed connection of Yard Track 1 to the existing mainline track. • Relocate the existing Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) crossing signal and gate mast to 15 feet from centerline of mainline track. Estimated Project Costs. Based on the design described above, the preliminary cost estimate to construct the Preferred Alternative is $6,804,000. Traffic Conditions at NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). CSXT train traffic in the Greenville area currently averages 3-4 trains per day. 'I�affic volumes are generally lower at the at- grade crossings of NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) near the proposed project than they are at Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street near the e�sting rail yard siding. Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) (Crossing # 641 850� is classified as a minor thoroughfare on the Greenuille Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (adopted December 2004). The at-grade crossing of the CSXT tracks has a signal and gate, and sight distance is good, as shown in Photograph 2-1. This two-lane road carried an average of 1,600 vpd in 2008 (NCDOT Web site: www. ncdot. gov/tr aveUstatema�pin g/tr afficvolumemau s). Photo 2-1. Looking north at Staton Mill Road at-grade rail crossing. Photo 2-2. Looking west over the CSXT rail line at the NC 903 intersection with U513/NC 11 � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-3 Environmental Assessment ALTERNATIVES w r� uar-� NC 903 is classified as a major thoroughfare on the Greenuille Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (adopted December 2004). The at-grade crossing of the CSXT t�acks has signals and gates, and sight distance is good. However, there is a nearby (approximately 210 feet away) signalized intersection of NC 903 with US 13/NC 1l, as shown in Photograph 2-2. NC 903 carried an average of 5, 700 vpd in 2008 (NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot.gov/travel/statema�pin¢/trafficvolumemaos). The proposed project as designed would not impact vehicular traffic operations at the at-grade crossings at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and at NC 903 any more than the impact that occurs now due to trains traveling along the main track. Because there would be adequate storage length, rail car switching operations in the yard tracks would not block the at-grade crossings at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and NC 903 for extended periods, as often happens at the existing rail yard siding in downtown Greenville. Vehicular traffic to/from the proposed office building would be minimal, as only about 6 employees are anticipated to be based at this facility. Bicyclists and pedestrians near the Preferred Alternative would not be impacted since the Preferred Alternative limits do not cross existing roadways. Bicyclists and pedestrians in downtown Greenville would experience less congestion and delays at the at-grade rail crossings of Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street with the relocation of the existing rail yard siding. r��:i��•�_��ra:�►r_vr�v�ya��uM1►/_��ly:z•��■1u:ir:ia:� :K�7►6�1�]�:L��(�7►1 A range of alternatives were considered by NCDOT for this project, with some withdrawn from consideration when it was determined that they would not meet the purpose and need for the project or were not feasible due to cost or community disruption (i.e., relocations, changes in traffic patterns, and visual/aesthetic impacts). These alternatives are described below, along with explanations regarding why they were eliminated from further consideration. 2.4.1 ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR RELOCATING THE RAIL YARD SIDING The CSXT mainline through the Greenville area was reviewed to identify potential sites for relocating the rail yard siding. As discussed below, there were no suitable sites in the Greenville area except for the Preferred Alternative site between NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). Sites to the South. Sites to the south of the CSXT/CLNA junction would not meet the project's purpose and need. As discussed in Section 1.61, the primary CSXT train movements are north and east of Greenville. The CSXT track dead-ends about 20 miles south of Greenville. Locating a rail yard siding south of the CSXT/CLNA junction would not reduce train traffic through downtown Greenville, and trains would have to travel farther than they already do to the existing rail yard siding in order to conduct switching operations, making a new siding location south of the CSXT/CLNA junction inefficient. Sites to the North. Sites to the north of the CSXT/CLNA junction were evaluated. All sites to the north would reduce train traffic through downtown Greenville by relocating the rail yard siding and its operations out of the downtown area. However, there must be a distance of at least 4,600 feet between at-grade roadway crossings of the main track in order to construct the 4,000-foot long siding track with 300 feet on either end to join the track to the mainline. The site also should be as close to Greenville as possible in order to efficiently serve local customers. Sites that would require constructing a grade separation in order to provide the required unobstructed siding length would � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-4 Environmental Assessment _ : . _ Chapter 2 increase the cost of the grade separation structure and would cause a greater level of community disruption. The potential for track segments north of the CSXT/CLNA junction to accommodate the proposed project are described below. Segment locations can be identified in Figure 1-3. CSXT/CLNA Junction to Third Street. From just north of the existing CSXT/CLNA junction to south of the Tar River at Third Street there is no opportunity to construct a rail siding. This is the central downtown area of Greenville and a siding in this location would offer no improvements over the existing siding location. Third Street to West Dudlev Street. From Third Street north, the next at-grade crossing is approximately 5,900 feet away at West Dudley Street, which would be sufficient spacing for a new rail yard siding. However, this area is across the Tar River and its floodplain and bridge structures would be needed. This area would not be a suitable location due to the environmental impacts and construction costs. West Dudley Street to Staton Road. From West Dudley Street to the Staton Road at-grade crossing, the distance is approximately 8,600 feet. However, between these two roadways there are at-grade crossings at Airport Road, Gum Road, Belvoir Highway and Greenfield Boulevard, creating a maximum distance between at-grade crossings of 3, 380 feet. Land uses adjacent to this section of track are industrial, and in addition to the public at-grade roadway crossings, there are a number of spur tracks serving the industrial uses. This segment would not be suitable for a new rail yard siding because it does not meet the design criteria for unobstructed siding track length. Removing the crossings would not be feasible due to costs and disruption to traffic patterns in this urban area. Staton Road to NC 903. From Staton Road to the NC 903 at-grade crossing the total distance is approximately 5,460 feet. However, in between there is a grade separated crossing of US 264 over the CSXT rail line and US 13/NC 11, an at-grade crossing at the US 264 westbound off ramp/DSM Pharmaceuticals driveway, and an at-grade crossing at Independence Boulevard/DSM Pharmaceuticals driveway, with no distances between crossings greater than approximately 2, 300 feet. DSM Pharmaceuticals manufacturing facility is located just east of the CSXT rail line. Their 322-acre parcel extends from US 264 almost to NC 903. In this location, the CSXT main track right of way is located directly adjacent to the east side of US 13/NC 11 right of way. Due to spacing constraints, the adjacent roadway, and the major operations at DSM Pharmaceuticals, this segment of track is not suitable for constructing a new rail yard siding. Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) to Alexander Brown Road. North of the Preferred Alternative site are two additional segments consideredby NCDOT; Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) to Pug Moore Road and Pug Moore Road to Alexander Brown Road. Beyond this point, potential sites would be over nine miles from the existing CSXT/CLNA junction and could not efficiently serve as a rail yard siding for local deliveries. The distance between Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and Pug Moore Road is approximately 7,960 feet. However, this segment is bisected by Grindle Creek and its floodplain. There would not be sufficient distance on either side of the floodplain to accommodate the proposed rail yard siding. The floodplain area would not be a suitable location for the rail yard siding due to the environmental impacts and costs to construct structures. The distance between Pug Moore Road and Alexander Brown Road is approximately 5, 590 feet. There are unnamed streams located at the southern and northern end of this segment, with the distance between the streams approximately 3,400 feet. Compared to the Preferred Alternative segment between NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), this segment is approximately 1.5 miles � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-5 Environmental Assessment _ : . _ Chapter 2 farther from the CSXT/CLNAjunction and would impact more water resources (there are no defined streams in the Preferred Alternative area). Therefore, the rail line segment between Pug Moore Road and Alexander Brown Road is not suitable for constructing a new rail yard siding. 2.4.2 IMPROVE THE EXISTING RAIL YARD SIDING Improving and extending the existing rail yard siding would not meet the project's purpose and need. Improving the existing rail yard siding would not reduce train traffic through downtown Greenville. Trains being broken down and rebuilt at the rail yard siding would have to pass through the CSXT/CLNA junction twice; once to get to the rail yard siding southbound and westbound and again to move back northbound or eastbound (the primary movements). The existing rail yard siding tracks are approximately 2,100 feet long. At least one siding track would need to be extended 1,900 feet to meet the project design criteria and be able to accommodate an average train length of 60 to 70 railcars on one siding. The extension would need to be constructed to the south so as not to interfere with the CSXT/CLNAjunction. Arlington Boulevard would need to be grade-separated over the rail line to accommodate the extended rail yard siding, incurring additional costs for the structure and also causing community impacts and disruption. The Greenuille Traffac Separation Study evaluated potential improvements at the Arlington Boulevard at-grade crossing and did not recommend a grade separation at Arlington Boulevard. The study calculated that the Arlington Boulevard crossing of the CSXT rail line has an exposure index of 123, 356, which is above the threshold for considering grade separations in urban areas. However, ultimately the study did not recommend a grade separation at this location due to other consideration factors, including low accident rate, cost, and the presence of existing warning devices at this crossing. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 2-6 Environmental Assessment . . : . . u . Chapter 3 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The existing conditions within the project area are described in this chapter of the EA. The inventory and evaluation of the existing affected environment provides the necessary baseline from which to determine the potential impacts of the project, which are discussed under Environmental Consequences, Chapter 4. 3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT This section provides information on the following existing aspects of the human environment in the proposed project area: land use, visual resources, demographics (population characteristics, housing, and economic characteristics), and community facilities and services. 3.1.1 LAND USE 3.1.1.1 Existing Land Use and Neighborhoods The proposed project Preferred Alternative is located along the CSXT main track north of the City of Greenville. Figure 3-1 is a photograph of the Preferred Alternative study area and surroundings that shows existing land uses. At the north end of the Preferred Alternative study area is Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). There are two rural residences northwest of the Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) at-grade crossing of the CSXT track, both with large separate garage structures. These are 130 feet and 180 feet from the CSXT right of way. To the northeast are three rural residences, with the nearest residence approximately 10 feet from the CSXT right of way. To the southwest there is an abandoned house located at the T-intersection of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) with Futrell-Robson Road approximately 200 feet from the CSXT right of way. Photo 3-1. Looking south from Staton Mill Road at CSXT track and adjacent sand and gravel supply operation. To the southeast is a sand/gravel/paving supply operation abutting the CXST right of way, as shown in Photograph 3-1. This 42-acre parcel is owned by Rose Brothers Paving Company. Operations at the facility were audible from the location where Photograph 3-1 was taken, approximately 550 feet from the dump truck loading equipment seen in the photograph. However, it was not loud enough to interfere with normal conversation, and could be characterized as slightly above ambient. East of the Rose Brothers Paving Company property is a 13.7 acre parcel with a large storage structure. East of this parcel are four rural residences. Other parcels south of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) that abut the CSXT right of way in the central part of the study area generally areforested and undeveloped. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-1 Environmental Assessment � � : � � u � Chapter 3 At the southern end of the Preferred Alternative study area, one large parcel to the east was recently logged. To the southeast, there is a parcel owned by Hercules Steel. This business had no sign at its driveway on NC 903, but it appeared to be active. To the west on the southern end of the Preferred Alternative study area is a small residential neighborhood on Moore Road, a dead-end street that connects with US 13/NC 11. This neighborhood includes fifteen residences and is known as Pinewood Estates. The residences were constructed in 1970 and 1971. The nearest residential parcel boundary is approximately 70 feet from the CSXT right of way. The nearest house is approximately 225 feet from the CSX'I' right of way boundary. South of the Pinewood Estates (Moore Road) residences is an 8.5-acre parcel containing a grain silo storage facility owned by Greenville Grain, LLC. This facility has a siding connecting to the CSXT main track (Figure 2-1). 3.1.1.2 Visual Quality The Preferred Alternative study area is located in a flat area that eventually drains to Grindle Creek to the north. The elevation within the project study area is approximately 12 feet above mean sea level. The viewshed in the Preferred Alternative study area is limited, since most of the study area and surroundings are forested, and vacant land is not visible from existing roads or residences. The exception is the rural residences and industrial development located at the northern end of the study area along Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). No prominent scenic vistas or visually sensitive resources have been identified in the study area. The longest views of the Preferred Alternative study area are found by looking south down the straight CSXT mainline tracks from Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) (Photograph 3-1). Views of this straight section of track also are found looking north from NC 903. The view from NC 903 is shown in Photograph 3-2. 3.1.1.3 Zoning Characteristics Photo3-2. LookingnorthalongCSXTtrackfrom Figure 3-2 shows the e�sting zoning in the NC 903. Preferred Alternative study area and surroundings. The south end of the Preferred Alternative is within the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ET� of the City of Greenville. The remainder is cvithin unincorporated Pitt County. Zoning information for the City of Greenville is from the Zoning Pattern Map (City of Greenville, Apri121, 2009). Zoning information for Pitt County is from the Pitt County Official Countywide Zoning Map (Pitt County, August 6, 2009). Zoning in the northern Pitt County portion of the Preferred Alternative study area is Rural Residential, with the Rose Brothers Paving Company parcel (southeast quadrant of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and CSXT at-grade crossing) zoned General Industrial. Zoning in the southern City of Greenville portion of the Preferred Alternative study area is primarily Residential/Agricultural. The Moore Road residential neighborhood is zoned Residential. There is one narrow parcel just north of Moore Road zoned Office/Institutional, although its current use is residential. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-2 Environmental Assessment AFFECTED EIVIlIROIVh�EIVT �__ _ �car�� 3.1.1.4 Future Land Use Both the City of Greenville and Pitt County have future land use maps. Because the Preferred Alternative study area is close to the Greenville ETJ, the two maps overlap in this area. Future land use is shown on the City of Greenville Future Land Use Plan Map (City of Greenville, February 12, 2004) and on the Pitt County 2002 Comprehensiue Land Use Plan, last Amended July 21, 2003 (Pitt County). On the Pitt County future land use map, the area outside the Greenville ETJ is shown as Suburban Residential. On the City of Greenville future land use map, there are a variety of future land uses with the Preferred Alternative study area and surroundings. Along the US 13/NC 11 corridor, future land uses are designated as Office/Institutional/Multi-Family. South of the Preferred Alternative study area, there is a small area designated Commercial at the NC 903 crossing of the CSXT track that covers the Hercules Steel Company and Greenville Grain parcels. In most of the Preferred Alternative study area, future land uses are designated primarily as Medium Density Residential, with an area east of the CSXT track designated Conservation/Open Space. The Conservation/Open Space area is in private ownership and is not associated with any existing or planned future park or recreation facility in the City of Greenville Comprehensiue Recreation and Parks Master Plan (City of Greenville, November 6, 2008). 3.1.2 DEMOGRAPHICS US Census 2000 data was used to characterize the demographics in the Preferred Alternative study area. The project study area crosses several Census Tract Blocks in Census Tract 20.02, Block Group 1, as shown in Figure 3-3. All Census Blocks with area inside the Preferred Alternative study area boundary were included in the analysis. This area is referred to as the Demographic Study Area. The Demographic Study Area consists of five Census Tract (CT) Blocks located in Pitt County; CT 20.02 BGl, Blocks 1048, 1050, 1051, 1052, and 1058. The existing rail yard siding is located in Census Tract 7.01 Block Group 1 and Census Tract 1 Block Group 4. 3.1.2.1 Population Characteristics Total Population. The population of Pitt County grew approximately 23.3 percent between 1990 and 2000 (from 108,480 people to 133,798 people), which is slightly higher than the statewide increase of 21.3 percent. From 2010 to 2030, Pitt County is projected to grow approximately 41 percent; from 161,893 residents in 2010 to 228,243 residents in 2030 (NC State Data Center Web site: www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts and figures). In 2000, the sparsely populated Demographic Study Area had 197 people. Since 2000, the population of the Demographic Study Area likely has not changed substantially. A field visit to the area showed there were no newer subdivisions or other developments. Racial Composition and A�'e Distribution. As shown in Table 3-1, the white population in 2000 was the largest racial group in Pitt County and in the Demographic Study Area. However, the Demographic Study Area had a higher percentage of African Americans (43 percent compared to 34 percent for the county). The block with the most African American population was Block 1051 (37 total residents). In this block, the residences primarily are located in Pinewood Estates on Moore Road. Seven of the fifteen residences have been sold since 2000, so the composition of this neighborhood may have changed (Pitt County Online Parcel Information System Web site: http: //gis2.pittcountync.gov/opis) . � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-3 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 The majority of the population of the Block Groups surrounding the existing rail yard siding is African American (92 percent). Table 3-1. Racial Composition — 2000 Census North Pitt Existing Rail Demographic �ensus Tract 20.02 Block Group 1 Blocks Race/Ethnicity Carolina County Yard Siding Stud Area Area* Y Block Block Block Block Block (�) (�) (�) (�) 1048 1050 1051 1052 1058 Total Population 8,049,313 133,798 2,286 197 44 28 37 79 9 White 5,804,656 83,061 136 113 34 19 4 52 4 (�Z) (6Z) (6) (5�) (��) (68) (11) (66) (44) Black or African 1,737,545 45,019 2,103 84 10 9 33 27 5 American (22) (34) (92) (43) (23) (32) (89) (34) (56) American Indian and 99,551 357 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska Native (1) (<1) (<1) Asian 113,689 1,443 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) (<1) NativeHawaiian/ 3,983 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific (<1) (<1) Other(otherrace Z89 889 3,861 20 alone or more than (4) (3) (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 one race) HispanicorLatino 378,963 4,216 79 1 0 1 0 0 0 (5) (3) (3) (<1) (4) �ource: u� �ensus tsureau �tuuu�, �ummary riie �ri, i anies rs ana ra. * The existing rail yard siding area indudes Census TracU.01 Block Group 1 and Census Tract 1 Block Group 4. Note: HispanicorLatinoisanethnicdesignation,notaracialdesignation,andthoseidentiTyingasHispanicorLatinowillalsobemuntedina racial category. As an update to the Census 2000 data, the racial and economic demographics of a student body at a public school often indicate the demographics of the surrounding area. The student body at Wellcome Middle School, located at 3101 North Memorial Drive (southwest quadrant of the NC 903 and US 13/NC 11 intersection) for 2006-2007 was 67 percent African American and 18 percent Hispanic, both above the district averages for Pitt County Schools, which are 52 percent and 5 percent, respectively (Greatschools Web site: www.greatschools.com). In addition, 91 percent of Wellcome Middle School students are designated economically disadvantaged, above the school district average of 50 percent (Greatschools Web site: www.greatschools.com). � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 3-4 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Table 3-2lists the age distribution of the Demographic Study Area compared to Pitt County and the state. Individual blocks were not reported due Table 3-2. Age Characteristics — 2000 Census to the small populations, where differences of Percent of Population by Age Group Area � ZO 20 to 45 to 65+ 44 64 North Carolina 27 38 23 12 Pitt County 29 42 19 10 Existing Rail Yard SidingArea� 39 34 17 10 Demographic StudyArea� ZS 27 32 15 1. CT7.01BG1andCT1BG4. one person can substantially change percentages. The Demographic Study Area has a lower percentage of persons 20 to 44 and a higher percentage of persons 45 to 64 compared to Pitt County and the state. The Demographic Study Area also has a slightly higher percentage of persons over age 65. The area surrounding the existing rail yard has moreyouth (age <20) than the County or the Demographic Study Area. 3.1.2.2 Housing 2. Blocks are part of Census Track20.02 Block Group 1 Source: USCensusBureau�2000). SummaryFilel,TableP12 The Demographic Study Area includes five blocks within Census Track 20.02, Block Group l. Approximately 80 percent of households in Census Track 20.02 Block Group 1 as a whole were owner-occupied in 2000. With the exception of the small neighborhood along Moore Road, most existing housing is rural residential on large lots adjacent to the main roads. 3.1.2.3 Economic Characteristics The North Carolina Department of Commerce annually ranks the State's 100 counties based on economic well-being and assigns each a Tier designation. The 40 most distressed counties are designated as Tier 1, the next 40 as Tier 2 and the 20 least distressed as Tier 3. Pitt County is ranked as a Tier 2 county in 2010 (NC Department of Commerce Web site: www.nccommerce.com). According to the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (Web site: www.ncesacom�, as of the third quarter of 2009 the employers with 1,000 or more employees in Pitt County were Pitt County Memorial Hospital, East Carolina University, Pitt County Board of Education, and Pitt County. DSM Pharmaceuticals, located southeast of the intersection of NC 903 and the CSXT rail line is listed as a major employer with 250-500 employees (NC Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information, Top 25 Employers by NC County, Web site: www.ncesc.com). Data on income is presented in Table 3-3. Median family income and median household incomes were compared to Pitt County and the State. The median household income for all blocks in Census Tract 20.02 was similar to the figure for the County as a whole, while the median family income was lower. As shown in Table 3-3 the percentage of persons below poverty in Table 3-3. Income Characteristics — 2000 Census Census Tract 20.02 (of which the Median Median Below Demographic Study Area is a part) was Area Family Household Poverty (/) lower than Pitt County as a whole. North Carolina 546,335 539,184 12 Pitt County $43,971 $32,868 20 In 2008, the median household income was �T zo.o2 537,719 531,809 ll estimated by the US Census Bureau to be so��e: us ce�s�s s��ea� �z000). s�mmary Fne a, rabies Psa, Pn, Pss $40,742 in Pitt County and $46,574 in North Carolina (US Census Web site: http:Nquickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.htm1). This represents a 19 percent increase for North � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-5 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Carolina and a 24 percent increase in Pitt County since the 2000 Census. Estimates by census tract are not available. In 2008, the USDA estimated the poverty level was higher than in 2000, with 14.6 percent in poverty in North Carolina and 22.0 percent in poverty in Pitt County (www.ers.usda. gov/D ata/povertyrates/Povl.istpct. asp?st=NC&longname=North+C arolina) . 3.1.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 3.1.3.1 Schools Wellcome Middle School is located to the southwest of the NC 903 intersection with US 13/NC 11 (Figure 3-1). This school serves grades six through eight, and in the 2008/2009 school year had 447 students (NC School Report Card Web site: www.ncschoolreportcard.org/src). School buses travel on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and NC 903 (Pitt County Schools Web site: http://pitt.schoolwires.net/1987105261778757/lib/1987105261778757/PCSBusNew�aper0910.txt). 3.1.3.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services The Staton House Fire and Rescue facility is located on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) at Sweet Gum Grove Church Road (Figure 3-1), approximately one mile north on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) from the Preferred Alternative study area. The Staton House Fire and Rescue service area is located on both sides of the CSXT rail line and also US 13/NC 11. Therefore, fire response vehicles would cross the at-grade crossings of the CSXT rail line at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and NC 903. 3.1.3.3 Churches There are several churches in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative study area, but none are adjacent. These churches are shown in Figure 3-1. The nearest is St. Mar�s Missionary Baptist Church on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), approximately 1, 500 feet to the east of the Preferred Alternative study area. 3.1.3.4 Parklands and Recreational Facilities No parks, public recreational facilities, or wildlife refuges are located within the Preferred Alternative study area. Review of the City of Greenville Comprehensiue Recreation and Parks Master Plan (City of Greenville, November 6, 2008) revealed that the Preferred Alternative study area is not targeted for a future park or recreation site. 3.1.4 SECTION 4(f� AND SECTION 6(f� RESOURCES Reetxlatorv Overview. Section 4(f) and Section 6(� resources are afforded special protections from federal actions. The names "Section 4(f) resources" and "Section 6(� resources�' are derived from the laws which establish these protections. Section 4(f) laws are in the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC Section 303). Section 6(� laws are in the Land and W ater Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 USC Section 460). Section 4(� resources include publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges as well as significant historic sites under public or private ownership. The Department of Transportation Act regulates the taking of these resources for federally-funded transportation projects. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-6 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 established funding to provide matching grant assistance to states and local governments for the planning, acquisition, and development of outdoor public recreation sites and facilities. Section 6(� of the Act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with these grants to a non-recreational purpose without the approval of the Department of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS). Section 6(� also requires that any applicable land converted to non-recreational uses be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location and usefulness (NPS Web site: www.nps.gov/ncrc/�rograms/lwcf/index.htm). Section 4(f1 and Section 6(f1 Resources. There are no Section 4(f) or Section 6(� resources within or in the immediate vicinity of the Preferred Alternative study area. 3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.2.1 NOISE AND VIBRATlON The noise and vibration study prepared for this project is documented in a memorandum titled, Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the Greenuille Northern Rail Siding, STIP Project P-3309AB (PBS&J, July 13, 2010). Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and can come from man-made sources or natural sources. Noise can interrupt human activities and can result in annoyance, especially in residential areas. Changes in noise levels occur in the context of the existing noise environment. This means that what may be noisy in a relatively quiet environment, may go unnoticed in a louder environment. The vibration of the transit structure caused by a train excites the adjacent ground, creating vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings and throughout the remainder of the building structures. The rumble noise that usually accompanies the building vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. Ground-borne vibration is rarely annoying to people who are outdoors (TransitNoise and VibrationlmpactAssessment Manual, FTA, 2006). 3.2.1.1 Regulatory Overview The FRA relies upon the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2006) for assessing improvements to conventional passenger rail lines and stationary rail facilities and horn noise assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson (HMMH) developed a supplemental freight rail analysis spreadsheet tool for the Chicago Rail Efficiency And Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program using the FTA procedures (FRA Web site: www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/167.shtml). The CREATEOO spreadsheet model allows for input from up to eight different noise sources and noise-sensitive receptor data to calculate hourly average (Lec� and day/night average (Ldn) noise levels. Determination of noise impacts for this project is based on the guidelines described in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006). � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3'7 Environmental Assessment • . : � . � . Cha ter 3 The FTA noise impact criteria shown in Exlubit 3-1 are for projects that involve changes to a transit or rail system (rather than a new system where one previously did not exist). Examples of changes include a new type of vehicle, modifications of track alignments within existing corridors, or changes in facilities that dominate existing noise levels (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006). It is important to note that the criteria specify a comparison of future project noise with existing noise and not with projections of future "no-build" noise exposure (i.e. without the project). The measure of impact relates to noise exposure increase, and not the absolute value of the noise. As indicated in E�ibit 3-1, the noise impact criteria and descriptors depend on land use, designated either Category 1 or Category 2. Categoxy 1 includes uses where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose, such as indoor concert halls or outdoor concert pavilions or National Historic Landmarks where outdoor interpretation routinely takes place. Category 2 includes residences and buildings where people sleep. For residential land use, the noise criteria are to be applied outside the building locations at noise-sensitive areas with frequent human use including outdoor patios, decks, pools, and play areas. If none, the criteria should be applied near building doors and windows. The criteria do not apply to most commercial or industrial uses because, in general, the activities within these buildings are compatible with higher noise levels. The noise criteria apply to business uses that depend on quiet as an important part of operations, such as sound and motion picture recording studios (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006). Because of the relatively rare occurrence of annoyance due to ground-borne vibration and noise, there has been only limited sponsored research of human response to building vibration and structure-borne noise. No specific unpact criteria exist for vibration from freight railroads. The impact thresholds for passenger rail systems are used due to lack of other standards (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006). The criteria for environmental unpact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum roobmean-square (rms) vibration levels for repeated events of the same source. The ground-born vibration impact criterion for Category 2 land uses for infrequent events (fewer than 30 vibration events of the same type per day) is 80 VdB (vibration velocity level re. 1 micro-inck�/second) (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, 2006). 3.2.1.2 Existing Noise Environment Noise-sensitive land uses in the study area are residences located at the north and south ends of the Preferred Alternative, including the residences on Moore Road. In order to identifp the noise study � Greenville Northem Rail Siding - P-3309AB 3"8 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 area and the receivers that should be evaluated, Table 4-1 - Screening Distances for Noise Assessments in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006) guidance was used. Based on this table, the screening distance within which noise should be considered is 1,000 feet for yards and shops. Since the yard siding tracks are the proposed new facility, the 1,000 screening distance was measured from these tracks. Receptors within 1,000 feet of the south end of the proposed yard siding tracks include seven at the end of Moore Road. Receptors within 1,000 feet of the north end of the yard siding tracks include the two residences northwest of the Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) at- grade rail crossing, three residences to the northeast, and one residence to the southeast. For each area (north end and south end), the receptor with the most existing noise exposure was selected and modeled to estimate existing noise levels using the CREATE spreadsheet. If there are no noise impacts determined to these two "worst-case" receivers, it can be assumed there would be no noise impacts to the other receivers since the other receivers would be farther away from the rail track and yard and would experience either the same or less change in noise exposure. For the receivers at the south end in Pinewood Estates on Moore Road, the northernmost residence closest to the existing rail line would experience the highest levels of existing noise. This residence is at 114 Moore Road and is approximately 285 feet from the existing CSXT main track (Figure 2-ld). For receivers at the north end along Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), two residences were selected for evaluation. The first is the residence closest to the main track northeast of the Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) crossing (1861 Staton Mill Road) and the second is the residence at the corner of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and Futrell-Robson Road (Figure 2-la) (1817 Staton Mill Road). The first residence is closest to the main line track, but the second residence is closer to the proposed new yard. The basic steps for using the CREATEOO model are as follows (CREATEOO Railroad User Guide, 2006): • Input Noise-Sensitive Receptor Data - Receptor name, FTA land use category, distance to sources, intervening building rows or barriers. • Input Noise Sources - Eight sources are available in the model, including freight rail cars, diesel locomotives, yards and shops, and automobiles. • Input Noise Source Activity - Vehicles per hour, cars/locomotives per train, duration of trains and speeds. • Input Noise Source Details - Percentage of wheel flats, jointed track, embedded track, and aerial structures. • Output Noise Levels - Day-night average noise level (Ldn) and hourly average noise level (Lec�. The CREATE spreadsheets for each of the modeled noise-sensitive receivers are included in Appendix A. The spreadsheets assumed that there were four trains per day traveling at 40 mph. Each train includes two diesel locomotives with an average of 75 rail cars (4,500 feet total length). It was assumed three trains would pass by during the daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) and one train would pass by during the nighttime hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Automobile noise also is an input to the spreadsheet model. There was no roadway noise at the Moore Road residence. At the � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-9 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 two residences modeled on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), traffic on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) was included (1,600 vpd). Results from the CREATE spreadsheet estimate that the Moore Road residence has an existing noise level of 55 Ldn (day-night noise level, in A-weighted decibels). The Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) residence northeast of the rail crossing (1861 Staton Mill Road) has an existing noise level of 64 Ldn and the residence to the northwest of the rail crossing at the intersection of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and Futrell-Robson Road (1817 Staton Mill Road) has an existing noise level of 58 Ldn. 3.2.2 AiR Qua�iTv 3.2.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 750(c)), was enacted for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), ozone (03), particulate matter, and lead. Table 3-4 on the following page lists the NAAQS. The primary standards are set at a limit intended to "protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety," and the secondary standards are set at a limit intended to "protect the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (effects to aesthetics, crops, architecture, etc.y' (Federal Clean Air Act 1990: Section 109). Pitt County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants (USEPA Web site: www.epa.gov/oar/oag�s/greenbk). � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-10 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Table 3-4. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Primary Standards Secondary Standards Pollutant Level AveragingTime Level AveragingTime 9 PPm lil Carbon (10 mg/m3) 8-hour None Monoxide 35 ppm 1-hour�� (40 mg/m3) 0.15 µg/m Rolling 3-month Average Same as Primary Lead 1.5 µg/m QuarterlyAverage Same as Primary Nitrogen 53 ppb Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary Dioxide 100 ppb 1-hou None Particulate 150 µg/m3 24-hour�s� Same as Primary Matter (PMio) Annual Particulate 15.0 µg/m3 Same as Primary (ArithmeticAverage) Matter (PMz.$) 35 µg/m 24-hou Same as Primary 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hou Same as Primary 0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hou Same as Primary Ozone 1-hou 0.12 ppm Same as Primary (Applies only in limited areas) 0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Mean) i� Sulfur 0.5 ppm 3-hour� 0.14 ppm 24-hou Dioxide 75 ppb 1-hour None SourceEPAWebsite:www.epa.�ov/air/criteria.html accessedlune30,2010. Notes: (1) Not to be exceeded morethan once peryear. (2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. (3) The offcial level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.052 ppm (parts per million), equal to 53 ppb (parts per billion), which is shown here for the purpose of dearer mmparison to the 1-hour standard. (4) Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageofthe98`�percentileofthedailymaximuml-houraverageateachmonitorwithinanarea must not exceed 100 ppb (effective lanuary 22, 2010). (5) Not to be exceeded morethan once per year on average over 3 years. (6) Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageoftheweightedannualmeanPM2.5mncentrationsfromsingleormultiplemmmunity- oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m'. (7) Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageofthe98`�percentileof24-hourmncentrationsateachpopulation-orientedmonitorwithinan area must not exceed 35 µg/m' (effective December 17, 2006) (8) Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageofthefourth-highestdailymaximum8-houraverageozonemncentrationsmeasuredateach monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) (9) (a)Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageofthefourth-highestdailymaximum8-houraverageozonemncentrationsmeasuredat each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (b) The 1997 standard —and the implementation rules for that standard —will remain in place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard tothe 2008 ozone standard. (c) EPA is in the process of remnsidering these standards (set in March 2008). (10) (a) EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although mme areas have mntinuing obligations under that standard ("anti- backsliding"). (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average mncentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. (11) Finalrulesignedlune2,2010.Toattainthisstandard,the3-yearaverageofthe99`�percentileofthedailymaximuml-houraverageat each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 3-11 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 3.2.2.2 Diesel Locomotive Emissions Standards Emissions from diesel locomotives are regulated by the USEPA. Below is an excerpt from their Web site: www.epa.¢ov/otaq/locomotives.htm#il describing anticipated reductions in emissions from diesel locomotives: Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems. In May 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA finalized new requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 99 percent. These fuel improvements will create immediate and significant environmental and public health benefits by reducing PM from existing engines. In March 2008, EPA finalized a three part program that will dramatically reduce emissions from diesel locomotives of all types -- line-haul, switch, and passenger rail. The rule will cut PM [particulate] emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and NOx [nitrogen oxide] emissions by as much as 80 percent when fully implemented. This final rule sets new emission standards for existing locomotives when they are remanufactured--to take effect as soon as certified systems are available, as early as 2008. The rule also sets Tier 3 emission standards for newly-built locomotives, provisions for clean switch locomotives, and idle reduction requirements for new and remanufactured locomotives. Finally, the rule establishes long-term, Tier 4, standards for newly-built engines based on the application of high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology, beginning in 2015. 3.2.3 FARMLAND 3.2.3.1 Farmland Soils The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 USC 4201 implemented at 7 CFR Part 658) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of their activities on prime, unique, statewide and locally important farmland soils, as defined by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Public Law 97-98, Subtitle 1, Section 1540). Prime Farmland is defined as soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out of every ten years. Land already in or committed to urban development or water storage is not included. Unique Farmland is defined for production and specific high-value food or fiber crops. It has the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed. State and Locally Important Farmland is defined by the appropriate State or local government agency as soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-12 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 definitions are based on measures of the soil's capacity to support productive farm activity, not of current cultivation. As discussed in Section 3.41, the project site contains the following soil series: Byars loam, Leaf silt loam, Bladen fine sandy loam, Lenoir loam. Coxville fine sandy loam, and Craven fine sandy loam. Of these, Byars loam, Leaf silt loam, and Lenoir loam (0-1 percent slope) are listed as Statewide Important Farmland soils and Craven fine sandy loam is prime farmland (Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Data Mart Web site: http://soildatamart.nres.usda.¢ov). Figure 3-4 shows the farmland soils in the project vicinity. Statewide Important farmland soils comprise the majority of the Preferred Alternative study area and the immediate surroundings. 3.2.3.2 Existing Agriculture Existing agricultural activity in the Preferred Alternative study area and immediate surroundings consists of pine plantation. Pine plantations cover about 29 percent of the Preferred Alternative study area. Pitt County does not have a voluntary agricultural district (VAD) ordinance. 3.2.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Hazardous materials sites are regulated under federal laws by the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was created to provide the authority and a source of funding for cleaning up hazardous substances released into the environment. The NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit conducted a limited assessment for the Preferred Alternative study area (Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report, October 27, 2008). The report is included in Appendix B. The purpose of the investigation was to identify properties within the study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if acquired by the NCDOT. Geoenvironmental impacts may include, but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills, and unregulated dumpsites. A records search was conducted, as well as a limited subsurface investigation. The findings are described below. 3.2.4.1 Records Search Results The NCDOT's geographical information system was consulted to identify known sites of concern in relation to the project corridor. A search of appropriate environmental agencies' databases was also performed. The Geotechnical Engineering Unit identified no known contaminated properties in the Preferred Alternative study area. 3.2.4.2 Site Reconnaissance Results A limited subsurface investigation was completed by the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit (Appendix B). Hand auger holes were dug at the proposed location for the future yard tracks. Subsurface conditions were evaluated to determine the most geotechnically favorable design. The project lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Undivided Coastal Plain sediments were encountered in the study area and consist of 4.5 to 6.0 feet of clay underlain by silty � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-13 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 sand and sandy silt. Ground elevation is about 12 feet above mean sea level and ground water elevations were found to lie between approximately 3 to 5 feet below natural ground elevation. 3.2.5 MINERAL RESOURCES North Carolina can be divided into three physiographic provinces: the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, and the Blue Ridge. Each province is characterized by particular types of landforms. As previously noted, the Preferred Alternative study area is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Preferred Alternative study area does not contain mineral resources or mines. 3.2.6 FLOODPLAINS A floodplain is a lowland area adjacent to lakes, streams, and rivers that is covered by water during a flood. The rapid rise in the water level inundates the flat, low-lying areas near the water body for extended periods of time. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. USDOT Order 5650.2 contains USDOT's policies and procedures for implementing the Executive Order. Agencies are required to make a finding that there is no practicable alternative before taking action that would encroach on a `Base" floodplain of a 100-year flood. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates 100-year (Zone A) and 500-year (Zone B) floodplains on Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) and on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP maps were consulted to determine potential encroachments of the 100-year floodplain. The 100-year or 500-year floodplain refers to the area along or adjacent to a stream or body of water that is capable of storing or conveying floodwaters during a 100-year or 500-year frequency storm respectively. Figure 3-6 shows floodplains and other water resources in the Preferred Alternative study area and immediate surroundings. There are no 100-year floodplains within the Preferred Alternative study area, so there is no potential for impacts to any floodplains. kik��lll � i1J:L1 � N �Y�lll:ty �'' Although archaeological and architectural resources are considered in a NEPA analysis, additional procedures for their identification, evaluation, and treatment are contained in a series of federal and State laws and regulations and agency guidelines. Archaeological and architectural resources are protected by a variety of laws and their implementing regulations: the most important of these are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 2001; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. Treatment of archaeological and architectural resources for federal projects is also guided by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800). Identification of archaeological and architectural resources was conducted according to the requirements of 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the NHPA. A Section 106 review has been carried out to ensure full consideration of all possible impacts associated with the project. The North � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-14 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation office (SHPO) was notified by NCDOT of the desire to initiate coordination with that office. SHPO's investigation confirmed that there were no historic resources or archaeological resources that would be affected by the project. SHPO verified this in a letter dated August 1, 2008, included in Appendix C. 3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The following sections describe the existing natural environment within the Preferred Alternative study area and immediate surroundings. Described are soils/geology, water resources, biotic resources including terrestrial and aquatic communities, and jurisdictional topics including waters of the United States and protected species. 3.4.1 Soi�s The Preferred Alternative study area contains the following soil series: Byars loam, Leaf silt loam, Bladen fine sandy loam, Lenoir loam (0-1 percent slope), Coxville fine sandy loam, and a small area of Craven fine sandy loam (NRCS Soils Data Mart Web site: http://soildatamart.nres.usda.¢ov). These soils are shown in Figure 3-6 and the first five are described below. Leaf, Byars, Bladen, and Coxville loams are considered to be hydric in Pitt County. Lenoir is considered to be a non-hydric soil that may contain hydric inclusions. Bvars Loam. Byars loam underlies approximately 24 percent (13.8 acres) of the Preferred Alternative study area and consists of very poorly drained, nearly level soils on smooth flats and slight depressions. They formed in Coastal Plain sediment. The Byars series occupies most of the southern portion of the Preferred Alternative study area, at the lowest elevations. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is medium, shrink-swell potential is high, and surface runoff is slow or ponded. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Leaf Silt Loam. Leaf silt loam underlies approximately 21 percent (12.4 acres) of the Preferred Alternative study area and consists of poorly drained, nearly level soils that tend to occur on smooth flats and slight depressions in the uplands. They formed in Coastal Plain sediment. The Leaf series underlies the central portion of the study area. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is high, shrink-swell potential is high, and surface runoff is slow or ponded. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Bladen Fine Sandv Loam. Bladen fine sandy loam underlies approximately 23 percent (14.3 acres) of the Preferred Alternative study area and consists of nearly level, poorly-drained soils that occur on broad flats and slight depressions in uplands. They formed in Coastal Plain sediment. The Bladen series underlies a small pedon at the northern end of the study area. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is medium, shrink-swell potential is moderate, and surface runoff is slow or ponded. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Lenoir Loam (0-1 percent slope). Lenoir loam (0 to 1 percent slope) underlies approximately 24 percent (14.3 acres) of the Preferred Alternative study area and consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils that occur on broad divides in uplands. The Lenoir series occupies the northern end of the study area, along with a small circular pedon in the northern half of the study area. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is high, shrink-swell potential is high, and surface runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of about 1.5 feet. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-15 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Coxville Fine Sandv Loam. Coxville fine sandy loam underlies approximately 7 percent (41 acres) of the southern end of the Preferred Alternative study area. This soil occupies flats, Carolina bays, and depressions. This soil is nearly level and poorly drained. Permeability is moderately slow. 3.4.2 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE 3.4.2.1 Terrestrial Communities Three distinct plant communities were identified within the Preferred Alternative study area during field surveys conducted March 13 and 14, 2008. These include: maintained/disturbed land, Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest, and pine plantation. Plant communities are shown in Figure 3-7 and described below. Plant community descriptions are based on the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) utilizedby the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). When appropriate, the community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in the Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas (Radford et al., 1968), with nomenclature updated where necessary in accordance with A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular FGora of the United States, Puerto Ricq and the Virgin Islands (Kartesz, 1998). Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife distribution and habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat types, and available supportive documentation (Hamel 1992, Martof et al. 1980, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Potter et al. 2006, Rohde et al. 1994, and Webster et al., 1985). Community names described in Schafale and Weakley (1990) are capitalized. Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc.) during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*). Maintained/disturbed land. This plant community comprises approximately 41 percent of the 58.6-acre Preferred Alternative study area (23.7 acres) and includes the railroad bed, ballast, and cleared right of way, as well as open fields associated with the sand and gravel operation in the northeast corner of the study area. A clearcut section of pine plantation on the southwest side of the study area also is included in this category. No large trees occur in this plant community, but shrubs and saplings in less maintained areas might include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifGua), red maple (Acer rubrum), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black willow (Salix nigra), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). A few vines are present and include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese wisteria (Wisteria fGoribunda). Grasses and herbs are dominant and include purpletop vervain (Verbena bonariensis), dead nettle (Lamium purpureum), fescue (Festuca sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon uirginicus), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), vetch (Vacia sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and chickweed (Stellaria media). Since this community consists of grasslands and other open areas, grassland birds may be expected to be a large component of the faunal diversity. These may include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), fish crow* (Coruus ossifragus), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura) eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis), northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), house � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-16 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Mammals present would likewise be adapted to open areas, including least shrew (Cryptotis parua), Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus), which forages over open areas, eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and red fox (Vulpes uulpes), which hunts small birds and mammals in grasslands. Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) is adapted to wet meadows, which are present in much ofthe maintained/disturbed area. Reptiles that may be present in open or disturbed habitats include slender grass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest. This plant community comprises the majority of the Preferred Alternative at approximately 44 percent (26.0 acres). It likely represents the original forested cover of this interstream flat area in Coastal Plain North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). This community occurs on poorly drained loamy or clayey mineral soils. These communities are seasonally flooded, and are unlikely to carry fire. However, some areas may have historically succeeded to canebrakes when fires were frequent. Dominant canopy trees in this community include oaks such as water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), and cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda). Other canopy species include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The presence of scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp blackgum (Nyssa bifGora) suggests that this community grades into Nonriverine Swamp Forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) in lower, wetter areas. However, the dominance of oaks indicates that hardwoods are the defining factor in the plant community. Subcanopy and shrub species include American holly (Ilex opaca), black willow, sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), red bay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay (Magnolia uirginiana), highbush Chinese privet, blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), titi (Cyrilla racemifGora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), eastern red cedar (Juniperus uirginiana), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and blackberry (Rubus argutus). Vines include common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), bamboo vine (Smilax laurifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium semperuirens). The herb layer is sparse but includes sedges (Carex spp.), broomsedge, and dog fennel along sunny edges. Wildlife associated with this plant community may be adapted to wet habitats as well as woodlands and woodland edges. Amphibians such as Brimle�s chorus frog* (Pseudacris brimleya), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) are well-suited to forage in the moist forest and to breed in ephemeral, fish-free pools. The red-shouldered hawk* (Buteo lineatus), barred owl (Strix uaria), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax uirescens), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) are species that are often found in wet forests. More generalist forest species include pileated woodpecker* (Dryocopus pileatus), white-breasted nuthatch* (Sitta carolinensis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), and Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludouicianus). � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-17 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Mammals adapted to aquatic environments include mink (Mustela uison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata). The silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and red bat (Lasiurus borealis) often forage over permanent bodies of water and roost in adjacent woods. Moist wooded areas may harbor cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), and southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), while woodland generalists include southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys uolans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Felis rufus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). Pine plantation. Pine plantation occupies approximately 15 percent of the Preferred Alternative study area (8.9 acres). This plant community represents an altered Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest ecosystem. In such areas, the soil surface is usually ditched and bedded to accommodate silvicultural practices and to allow entry of maintenance and harvesting equipment. Plant diversity is lower than in the original forest, but opportunistic species typically invade from surrounding areas or persist in the soil seed bank. Since this community is significantly disturbed, it is not represented in Schafale and Weakley (1990). The dominant canopy tree is the planted loblolly pine. Other tree species include red maple, tulip poplar, sweetgum, and water oak. Shrubs are frequently encountered in the open understory and include cane, sweetleaf, blackberry, wax myrtle, eastern red cedar, and Chinese privet. Various grasses and herbs such as dog fennel, cranesbill, chickweed, and sedges make up the herb layer. Bird species such as brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), and pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) are often found in coniferous forests, including pine plantations. Other birds of more open or shrubby woodlands might include blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). The mammal component might include forest species such as long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), as well as those adapted to a degree of human disturbance and/or edge habitats, including raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Syluilagus fGoridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum). Reptile species are likely to include those often found in more upland habitats such as Atlantic coast slimy salamander (Plethodon chlorobryonis), eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooka), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). 3.4.2.2 Aquatic Communities Aquatic communities within the Preferred Alternative study area consist of ephemeral pools within bottomland hardwoods, ditches, and drainages that are partly impounded by the railroad bed. Aquatic species that may be found throughout the study area include amphibians such as lesser siren (Siren intermedia), eastern newt (Notophthalmus uiridescens), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), and frogs. Frog species include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Turtle species in the Preferred Alternative � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-18 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 study area may include spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrudrum), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Few fish likely occur in the study area because of the intermittent nature of the open water, but eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooka) may intermittently migrate into local drainages. No sampling was undertaken to determine fishery potential. At the time of field surveys, shallow open water was abundant in depressions along the railroad tracks, but no fish or aquatic species were observed. 3.4.3 WATER RESOURCES 3.4.3.1 Surface Waters Surface waters are shown in Figure 3-6. The Preferred Alternative study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-05 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. This area is part of the USGS Hydrologic Unit 030201033 within the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The Tar-Pamlico River Basin encompasses a 5,440 square mile watershed rainedby 2,355 miles of streams, and with 634,400 acres classified as salt waters. It is the fourth largest river basin in the state and is contained entirely within the state (Tar-Pamlico Riuer Basinwide Assessment Report, NC Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ], 2003). The Preferred Alternative study area is located approximately four miles north of the Tar River, with the closest named stream being Grindle Creek, approximately 0.8 miles north. No named or unnamed streams extend within the Preferred Alternative study area. However surface water and groundwater from the study area eventually drain into Grindle Creek, which has a NCDWQ Index Number of 28-100 (NCDWQ Basinwide Information Management System [BIMS] Web site: http: //h2o.enr. state. nc. us/bims/reportsMeportsWB.html). 3.4.3.2 Water Supply Resources As shown in Figure 3-6, the critical and protected watersheds of the Greenville Utilities Water Treatment Plant are located west of US 13/NC 11, well outside the Preferred Alternative study area. 3.4.3.3 Point Source Discharges Sub-basin 03-03-05 of the Tar-Pamlico River basin contains one major and two minor active National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted dischargers. In total, the three permitted dischargers release over 18.7 million gallons per day (MGD). (NCDWQ Web site: http: //h2o.enr. state. nc. us/NPDE S/PublicNotices.html). None of the dischargers are within the Preferred Alternative study area or drain directly to the study area. The major discharger in the project region is the Greenville Utilities Commission Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit NC0023931), which discharges up to 17.5 MGD to the Tar River approximately six miles southeast of the Preferred Alternative study area. Greenville Utilities Commission also has a permit for its Water Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit NC0082139) for discharges up to 1.2 MGD to the Tar River. The plant is located on the Tar River, approximately three miles from the Preferred Alternative. The other minor discharger is DSM Pharmaceuticals (NPDES Permit NC 0001058). This facility is located just south of NC 903 and east of the CSXT rail line, south of the Preferred Alternative study area. This facility discharges to Parker Creek to the south of the facility. The discharge is not limited. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-19 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 3.4.3.4 Water Quality The NCDWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the seventeen river basins within the State. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the Tar-Pamlico Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDW Q, 2004). According to the Basinwide Water Quality Plan, recurring nutrient-related problems have been documented in the Pamlico River estuary through the latter half of the 20nc �entury. Nitrogen and phosphorous loading from non-point sources have been targeted for reduction throughout the Tar- Pamlico River Basin. Non-point source pollution refers to pollution that enters surface waters through stormwater or snowmelt runoff. Unlike point source pollution, non-point source pollution is diffuse and occurs at random intervals depending on rainfall events. Habitat degradation, including loss of riparian vegetation and channelization and erosion, is a major water quality issue in the basin. Major non-point sources of pollution within the Tar-Pamlico basin include stormwater runoff, forestry, agricultural activities, rural residential development, and septic systems. In the Basinwide Water Quality Plan, classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated Best Usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage Classification of C-Nutrient Sensitive W aters (NSW) has been assigned to all waters within the Preferred Alternative study area vicinity. Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, other uses not involving human body contact with water, and activities involving human body contact with water where such activities take place on an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental basis. The designation NSW refers to waters needing additional management due to their excessive growth of vegetation resulting from nutrient enrichment. Grindle Creek is Not Rated as to support of its Best Usage Classification. The Tar River is rated as Impaired. No Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, Water Supply I, or Water Supply II waters occur within one mile of the Preferred Alternative study area. No water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 or under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 are located in the Preferred Alternative study area and vicinity. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has assembled a list of impaired water bodies according to the Clean W ater Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired water bodies. An impaired water body is one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. No water bodies occurring within the Preferred Alternative study area are listed on the Final 2008 303(d) list (NCDWQ Web site: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wc�/ps/mtu/assessment). In the region, the Tar River from the Greenville Utilities Commission Water Treatment Plant to 11 miles downstream of the mouth of the Broad Run is classified as impaired since 2006. The use support category of Fish Consumption is impaired due to mercury. 3.4.4 .7URISDICTIONAL ISSUES 3.4.4.1 Wetlands Backeround Information. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into "W aters of the United States", except in accordance with a permit. The term W aters of the United States has broad meaning and incorporates both wetlands and surface waters. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for issuing permits and enforcing permitting � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-20 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 requirements under Section 404 of the CWA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issues the regulations, known as Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, that the USACE must follow when issuing Section 404 permits. USEPA also participates in the permitting process. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 321-330. In addition, Executive Order 11990 requires that new construction in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measure be taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands. Water bodies such as rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 Program. By regulation, wetlands also are considered Waters of the United States Wetlands are described as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by 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 conditions Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas�' (33 CFR 328.3(b)). The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology) in support of jurisdictional determinations. Jurisdictional Survevs. Jurisdictional areas within the Preferred Alternative study area were delineated and located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology on March 13 and 14, 2008. Jurisdictional area boundaries were delineated with sequentially numbered flagging tape and mapped using Trimble Geo XT and Geo XH Differential GPS technology with reported sub-meter accuracy. The data were corrected using GPS Pathfinder Office software exported to MicroStation format. Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the three-parameter approach set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands DelineationManual (Environmental Laboratory 198l7. Jurisdictional "waters of the United States" other than wetlands were identified in accordance with the NCDWQ Identification Methods for the Origin of Intermittent and Perennial Streams (NCDWQ 200�. Prior to submittal of permit applications, a final jurisdictional determination for waters of the United States will be required using the "significant nexus" test set forth in the USEPA s and USACE's "Memorandum for the Field: Coordination on JDs under CWA Section 404 in light of SWANCC and Rapanos Supreme Court Decisions" (USEPA and USACE 2007). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms were utilized to document evidence ofjurisdictional status and jurisdictional area characteristics of wetlands. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) wetland rating sheets and the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) (Wetland Functional Assessment Team [WFAT] 2007) were used to conduct wetland functional assessments. Completed forms are included in Appendix D. Verification of the delineation was completed by a USACE representative on June 24, 2008 and December 18, 2008. Wetlands in the Studv Area. Jurisdictional wetlands are shown in Figure 3-8, and overlay most of the Preferred Alternative study area. The Preferred Alternative study area is situated on an interstream divide and contains no streams, but 1.0 acre of persistent open waters are present. Flat topography prevents active flow of these waters, but they eventually drain to the southeast, where they enter a ditch along NC 903 and then drain north to Grindle Creek. The larger component of open water occurs on the western side of the � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-21 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 railroad track, where it is partially impounded by the railroad bed. Open waters in the Preferred Alternative can be characterized as palustrine, with an unconsolidated bottom of sand and mud, that is partially impounded (PUB2/3h) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Extensive vegetated wetland areas extend from the base of the railroad fill slope. These wetland areas continue through the entire Preferred Alternative study area on both sides of the railroad, except for an upland area in the northeast corner, where the Rose Brothers Paving Company operation is situated, and another area to the south of this parcel. Wetlands underlie every plant community type identified within the Preferred Alternative study area (Figure 3-7). Those wetlands with Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest vegetation can be characterized as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands that are seasonally flooded (PFO1C). Wetlands in pine plantations can be characterized as palustrine forested needle-leaved evergreen wetlands that are seasonally flooded (PF04C). Wetlands in maintained/disturbed areas contain either scrub-shrub communities or meadow vegetation, and are characterized as palustrine scrub-shrub broad-leaved deciduous and saturated (PSS1B), or palustrine emergent communities with persistent vegetation that are temporarily flooded (PEM1A). 3.4.4.2 Riparian Buffer Rules The Nutrient Sensitiue Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers for the Tar-Pamlico Riuer Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Tar-Pamlico Basin. The Tar-Pamlico Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured parallel to the stream) directly adjacent to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The City of Greenville also enforces the 50-foot buffer rule for the Tar-Pamlico River (Greenville City Code of General Ordinances, 1999). Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes within the riparian buffer are defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or Prohibited. The Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the NCDW Q is obtained prior to project development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given there are no practical alternatives and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing. 3.4.4.3 Protected Species Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance, or officially proposed for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The term "Endangered Species�' is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered' or "Threatened', but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species." There are three federally protected species listed for Pitt County. These are red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), West Indian manatee (Trichecheus manatus), and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). All three are listed as Endangered, and they are described � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-22 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 below. No suitable habitat for any of the species was identified in the Preferred Alternative study area. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. This species was listed October 13, 1970. Primary nest sites for red- cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry, 1989). This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches, and a black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al., 2006). West Indian Manatee. This species was listed March 1l, 1967. The manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that averages 10 to 13 feet in length and weighs up to 1000 pounds. This species occurs from Brazil to the West Indies to the east coast of the United States. During summer months manatees migrate from their Florida wintering areas as far north as coastal Virginia. Reported occurrences in North Carolina are greatest from June to October. These mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where their diet consists mostly of aquatic vegetation (Linzey 1998, Clark 1987, Webster et al., 1985). Tar River Spinvmussel. This species was listed June 27, 1985. The Tar River spinymussel is a small, subrhomboidal mussel that grows to approximately 2.5 inches in length. The external shell of the adult is smooth, orange-brown to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of short spines (to 0.2 inches long). Preferred habitat of the Tar River spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-o�ygenated, circumneutral water over a silt-free, uncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (USFWS, 1992). 3.4.4.4 Federal Species of Concern Ten Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed by the USFW S for Pitt County (USFWS 2008). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the ESA of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. FSC that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species (Franklin and Finnegan 2006, LeGrand et al. 2006) are afforded state protection under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 3-6 on the following page summarizes FSC listed for Pitt County, and indicates whether suitable habitat existsfor each species within the Preferred Alternative study area. No occurrences of FSC species are recorded within two miles of the study area. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 3-23 Environmental Assessment _ � . : � . u . Chapter 3 Table 3-5. Federal Species of Concern for Pitt County Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Present State Status* American eel Anguillo rostroto No Wl Carolinamadtom Noturusfuriosus No SC(PT) EasternHenslow'ssparrow Ammodromushenslowiisusurrons Yes SR Pinewoodsshiner** Lythrurusmatutinus No W2 Roanoke bass Ambloplites covifrons No SR Southernhognosesnake** Heterodonsimus No SC Atlantic pigtoe Fusconoio mosoni No E Greenfloater Losmigonosubviridis No E Yellowlampmussel Lompsiliscorioso No E Grassleafarrowhead*** Sogittorioweotherbiono Yes SR-T *State Status ( Fra nkl i n and Fi n nega n 2006, LeG ra nd et a I. 2006) : W1 = Watchlist, indudes species that are known to be dedining in North Carolina; species is rare but relatively secure W2 = Watchlist, indudes species that are rare to unmmmon in North Caroli na, but are not necessari ly mnsidered to be dedining or otherwise in trouble SC= Special mncem SC�PT) = Special Concem proposed Threatened SR = Significantly Rare T= native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to bemme an endangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Enda ngered Species Act E= Endangered, any native or once-native species of wild animal whose mntinued existence as a viable mmponent ofthe State'sfauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an'endangered species' pursuant to the Endangered SpeciesAct. **Obscure Remrd - the date the element was last observed in the munty is uncertain ***Historic Remrd —the element is either extirpated from the munty, or there have not been any recent surveys to veriTy its mntinued existence As of August 8, 2007, the USFWS removed the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the lower 48 States of the US from the federal list of Endangered and Threatened wildlife. The bald eagle is protectedby Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), as amended. This law provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such birds. The Tar River provides a large, open body of water that provides feeding habitat for bald eagles near the Preferred Alternative study area; however this resource is at least 3.5 miles south of the study area. Areas within one-half mile are made up of forest and agriculture with only a few scattered large trees and no good habitat for bald eagles. NCNHP records document no occurrences of bald eagle within two miles of the Preferred Alternative study area. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding — P-3309A8 3-24 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 4.1.1 COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS Effects on communities and neighborhoods can include the physical taking of land, homes, and businesses that serve community resources; the construction of physical or psychological barriers that would result from new transportation facilities that divide or isolate a section of the community; changes in access or travel patterns within a community; or physical intrusions such as noise, dust, or visual impacts that can negatively affect a community. As discussed in Chapter 2, many alternatives were eliminated from consideration in part due to unacceptable community impacts and disruption. No-Build Alternative. Impacts to the community and existing neighborhoods would continue to occur under the No-Build Alternative. The existing rail yard would continue to operate and create delays at the at-grade rail crossings at Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street, as described in Section 1.6. Preferred Alternative. There are two residential areas near the Preferred Alternative. These are Pinewood Estates on Moore Road at the southern end of the project, and the rural residences along Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) at the northern end of the project. The Preferred Alternative would not impact these residential areas, as described below. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to divide or isolate either neighborhood, nor would the Preferred Alternative establish barriers to the mobility of the elderly or handicapped. The Preferred Alternative would not bisect or encroach on Pinewood Estates. The project also would not divide or isolate the rural residences along Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). The existing at-grade crossing of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) would remain open, and residences on either side of the existing railroad tracks would remain connected. The Preferred Alternative would not change access or travel patterns for any of the residences or any traffic traveling through the area. The at-grade crossings at NC 903 and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) would remain open. The Preferred Alternative as designed would not impact vehicular traffic operations at the at-grade crossings at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and at NC 903 any more than the impact that occurs now due to trains traveling along the main track. Because adequate storage length would be provided, the at-grade crossings at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and NC 903 would not be blocked for extended periods as a result of rail car switching operations in the yard tracks, such as what often occurs at the existing rail yard siding in downtown Greenville. Vehicular traffic to/from the proposed office building would be minimal, as only about six employees are anticipated to be based at this facility. The Preferred Alternative would not create visual impacts to residences in Pinewood Estates. There is a forested area between the Pinewood Estates subdivision and the CSXT right of way and the tracks are not visible. The proposed new rail yard southern end would be approximately 650 feet north of the closest Pinewood Estates residences, and also would not be visible due to distance and intervening forest. At the northern end of the Preferred Alternative, the visual environment would change with the construction of the proposed office building. However, its size (2,000 square feet) would be in scale and character with the surrounding residences and associated detached garages, and would not � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-1 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - disrupt the visual environment. The yard siding northern end would be approximately 300 feet south of Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), and would not be visually prominent. As discussed in Section 4.31, the project would not create noise or vibration impacts at the surrounding residences. 4.1.2 RELOCATIONS No-Build Alternative. Since there would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no relocation or displacement impacts. Preferred Alternative. The improvements proposed under the Preferred Alternative would be located entirely within the CSXT right of way. There would be no relocations or property acquisitions required for the proposed project. 4.1.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing rail yard would continue to operate and create delays at the two at-grade rail crossings at Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and Fourteenth Street as described in Section 1.6. According to the Greenville City Manager (letter dated August 13, 2008, included in Appendix C), Arlington Boulevard and Fourteenth Street are "critical to emergency responders as these two roads are direct route to Pitt County Memorial Hospital from the eastern areas of the City." Preferred Alternative. As shown in Figure 3-1, there are no community facilities or services within the Preferred Alternative study area or immediate surroundings. However, there are three churches, the Staton House Fire and Rescue facility, and Wellcome Middle School in the general vicinity. The Preferred Alternative would not impact the at-grade crossings at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) and NC 903, and access to these facilities would not change as a result of the proposed project. Relocating the rail yard siding will improve safety for motorists, including emergency response vehicles, and train crews by reducing prolonged waiting periods for vehicles at the existing at-grade crossings and eliminating difficult maneuvering conditions for trains at the rail yard siding between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. The proposed project would not generate substantial hazardous waste nor would operations pose a public health concern. Solid waste generated at the office building would be typical of office operations and would be disposed of through municipal services. 4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL.7USTICE Reetxlatorv Back�'round. Issued in February 1994, Executive Order 12898 requires federal programs or programs receiving federal funding to address issues of environmental justice. "Environmental Justice" refers to a range of issues related to human health and the environment relevant to minority and low-income populations. In April 1997, the USDOT issued the USDOT Order on Enuironmental Justice to Address Enuironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2) to summarize and expand upon the requirements of Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/dot ord.htm). According to USDOT Order 5680.1, a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income population is an adverse effect that "(1) is predominantly borne by a minority and/or a � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-2 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - low-income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or low-income population." Minority and low-income groups are often located in areas already experiencing the effects of multiple development projects resulting in social and/or environmental degradation. These areas are likely to be adversely affected by existing industrial, commercial, or transportation facilities. Populations in these areas are often not politically organized sufficiently to prevent further adverse development. 'I�pically project impacts could affect areas that are vulnerable due to these factors. Impacts that occur in these areas are likely to be considered more severe than the same impacts that would occur in areas not already subject to these conditions. No Build Alternative. According to the US Census 2000, the area of downtown Greenville surrounding the existing rail yard siding (Census Tract 7.01 Block Group 1 and Census Tract 1 Block Group 4) is 92 percent African American. No construction activities would occur under the No-Build Alternative. However, the existing rail yard siding would continue to operate and cause delays at the nearby at-grade crossings in downtown Greenville, as described in Section 1.6, impacting travel in the surrounding minority neighborhoods. Preferred Alternative. Based on the Census 2000 data, there likely are residential areas surrounding the Preferred Alternative project study area with higher concentrations of minorities than Pitt County as a whole, including the Pinewood Estates neighborhood. However, as discussed in Section 411, no direct or indirect impacts to any neighborhoods, residences, or churches, including potential minority communities, are anticipated as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a disproportionate adverse effect on environmental justice populations. 4.1.5 ECONOMIC EFFECTS AND ENERGY USE No Build Alternative. Continuing to operate the existing rail yard in downtown Greenville would result in continued vehicular delays at the at-grade crossings and continued inefficient yard operations for CSXT trains. The Greenuille Raillmprouements Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2008) calculated the extra fuel consumption for drivers delayed at the at-grade crossings as a result of off- peak operations of Train 727. Section 1.61 describes the observed operation of Train 727 during off-peak morning hours on a day in January 2008 conducted for the Greenuille Raillmprouements Study. Gasoline consumed by vehicles queued at the closed rail crossings in downtown Greenville was estimated to be 37 gallons of gasoline consumed by vehicles for each train crossing/switching operation. Assuming Train 727 makes two trips per day, this translates to a yearly excess gasoline consumption of 26,936 gallons. Preferred Alternative. In letters from the Greenville City Manager (August 13, 2008) and Greenville City Planner (July 21, 2008), including in Appendix C, both the City Manager and City Planner note that the proposed project would have a positive impact on area properties due to improved automobile traffic flow on Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard, Greenville Boulevard, Tenth Street, and other crossings. They also stated the project would have a positive effect on the local community and the broader Greenville community. The project would neither create nor eliminate jobs. The CSXT staff located at the office building in downtown Greenville would be relocated to the proposed office building to be constructed as part of the Preferred Alternative in CSXT right of way south of Staton Mill Road. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-3 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - The Preferred Alternative would result in an annual fuel savings of nearly 27,000 gallons due to the decreases in vehicular delays at the downtown Greenville railroad crossings. More efficient operations of the trains also would result in energy savings. 4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 4.2.1 LAND USE No Build Alternative. There would be no impact to land use or zoning under the No-Build Alternative. Existing land use would not change, and current patterns of development that are consistent with zoning regulations would continue under this alternative. Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with local land use plans and zoning, as described in Sections 1.7.2, 311.3, and 311.4. In letters from the Greenville City Manager (August 13, 2008) and Greenville City Planner (July 21, 2008), including in Appendix C, both the City Manager and City Planner note that the proposed project would not have a negative impact on the West Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area, and are not in conflict with the adopted plans for these areas. The project also would not be in conflict with the Cit�s Comprehensive Plan (Horizons: Greenuille's Community Plan) and the Pitt County Comprehensiue Plan. Direct land use impacts are not anticipated under the Preferred Alternative, other than the clearing and short-term construction activities that would occur within the CSXT right of way to build the project. 4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION PLANS No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with the NCDOT 2009- 2013 STIP nor would it fulfill any of the objectives of the NCDOT 2009 Rail Plan (Section 1.71). The No-Build Alternative also would not be consistent with the GUAMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, which specifically mentions and supports the proposed project. Preferred Alternative. The proposed project is included in the NCDOT 2009-2013 STIP and the GUAMPO 2035Long Range Transportation Plan, and would be consistent with the objectives stated in the NCDOT 2009 Rail Plan. 4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 4.3.1 NOISE AND VIBRATlON The noise and vibration study prepared for this project is documented in a memorandum titled, Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the Greenuille Northern Rail Siding, STIP Project P- 3309AB (PBS&J, July 13, 2010). The evaluation of impacts is summarized below. No-Build Alternative. There would be no change to the noise environment at the existing rail yard or in the Preferred Alternative study area resulting from the No-Build Alternative. The No- Build Alternative would create no new noise impacts. Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Section 32.1, FRA's CREATE spreadsheet was used to estimate noise from the future freight rail traffic, rail yard siding, and vehicular traffic. This future noise was compared to the estimated existing noise levels (Section 3.2.1) and to the FTA Noise Impact Criteria (Exhibit 3-1). � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-4 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - CREATE Model Assumptions. For future conditions, assumptions used in the CREATE spreadsheets were that there were five trains per day traveling at 40 mph, which is an increase of one train per day over existing conditions. The additional train per day was assumed as a result of general market conditions, not as a result of the proposed project. Each train includes two diesel locomotives with an average of 75 rail cars (4,500 feet total length), the same as assumed for existing conditions. It was assumed four trains would pass by during the daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) and one train would pass by during the nighttime hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The rail yard siding was assumed to handle four trains per day, with three during the daytime hours and one during the nighttime hours. Automobile noise also is an input to the spreadsheet model. There was no future roadway noise at the Moore Road residence due to distance from the main roadways. At the two residences modeled on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514), traffic on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) was included. No traffic forecasts were available, so it was assumed that traffic would be doubled on Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) in thefuture (3,200 vpd). CREATE Model Results. Table 4-1 presents the results of the CREATE spreadsheet model for existing and future conditions. As shown in the table, future conditions that were assumed to include the rail yard siding and increases in train traffic and vehicular traffic result in a change in noise levels from existing to future conditions that range from 0-2 dBA (A-weighted decibels). Future noise levels and changes in noise exposure from existing to future conditions would be similar for the other surrounding residences on Moore Road and Staton Mill Road (SR 1514). The contribution of the rail yard siding to the noise environment at these receivers is 39-45 Ldn. Table 4-1. Estimated Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Receivers Distance Distancefrom Estimated Estimated Changein Receiver from CSXT Proposed Rail Existing Noise Future Noise Noise Main Track Yard Siding Levels Levels Exposure (ft) (ft) (Ldn) (Ldn) (dBA) 114 Moore Road 285 650 55 55 0 1861 Staton Mill Road 75 600 64 65 1 1817 Staton Mill Road 250 375 58 60 2 Source: NoiseStudyfortheGreenvilleNorthernRailSiding,STIPProjectP-3309AB�PBS&1,lu1y13,2010) Noise Impacts. The FTA Noise Impact Criteria shown in Exhibit 3-1 were used to determine whether the Preferred Alternative for the proposed project would result in noise impacts to nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Plotting the existing noise exposure and the noise exposure increase shows that all receivers would fall into the "No Impact" range. Train Horn Noise. Train horns produce an average of about 104 dBA at 100 feet. Because the at- grade crossings in the Preferred Alternative study area would remain open, trains will continue to use horns. Although it was assumed that one additional train per day would pass through the Preferred Alternative study area, this is a result of assumed general growth and not as a result of the proposed rail yard siding. Since the proposed rail yard siding is not expected to generate additional trains, horn noise would be the same with and without the project. Vibration. The proposed rail yard siding would operate at low speeds with infrequent operations (less than trains per day), and the proposed rail yard siding would not generate additional freight train traffic on the main line. Therefore, due to low speeds and infrequent operations, vibration impacts were determined to not be of concern for this type of project. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-5 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - 4.3.2 AiR Qua�iTv No-Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, traffic would be delayed at the downtown Greenville at-grade crossings, as discussed in Section 1.6. Therefore, idling vehicles would continue to add emissions to the downtown Greenville area. However, it should be noted that Pitt County is in attainment for all criteria air pollutants. Preferred Alternative. The project is located in Pitt County, which is an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. The proposed rail yard siding and proposed office building are not a significant air pollutant emissions source and air quality impacts would not occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. No detailed air quality analysis is required. As discussed in Section 3.2.2.2, the USEPA adopted in March 2008 a three part program to dramatically reduce emissions from diesel locomotives of all types. The rule will cut particulate matter (PIV� emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by as much as 80 percent when fully implemented. 4.3.3 FARMLAND No-Build Alternative. There would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative and impacts to farmland would not occur. Preferred Alternative. All proposed improvements would occur within the existing CSXT right of way, and surrounding agricultural uses (pine plantations) would not be impacted. The project would disturb statewide important farmland soils, but these soils are within the existing CSXT right of way and dedicated to this transportation use. 4.3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES No-Build Alternative. There would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative therefore hazardous material impacts would not occur. Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Section 32.4, there are no known contaminated properties in the Preferred Alternative study area. The geotechnical evaluation conducted for the Preferred Alternative is described in Section 3.2.4.2. Based on a limited subsurface investigation and experience with nearby projects, the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit recommends a 3:1 or flatter roadway side slope to establish vegetation and assist in erosion control. This recommendation will be considered in the final design of the project. 4.3.5 FLOODPLAINS No-Build Alternative. There are no floodplains in the area of the existing rail siding and there would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts to floodplains would not occur under the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Section 3.2.6, there are no floodplains in the Preferred Alternative study area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to floodplains from the proposed project. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-6 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - C!Cl�111 � i1J:L1 � N �Y�lll:ty �'' No-Build Alternative. There would be no construction activities under the No-Build Alternative; therefore, there would be no impacts to archaeological or historic resources under this alternative. Preferred Alternative. There are no archaeological or historic architecturalresources within the Preferred Alternative study area. SHPO conducted a review of the project, and in a letter dated August 1, 2008, confirmed the project would have no effect on historic or archaeological resources (Appendix C). 4.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.5.1 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact terrestrial or aquatic natural communities or wildlife. Preferred Alternative. Project activities are expected to result in permanent impacts to natural communities within the CSXT right of way. Impacts to the plant communities from the Preferred Alternative are listed in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Impacts to Plant Communities Preferred Alternative Plant Community Impact (acres in right of wayj Maintained/Disturbed 3.6 Non Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 2.0 Pine Plantation 2.6 Short-term displacement of local wildlife populations would occur during initial construction. Some local species are habituated to anthropogenic disturbances and are expected to move back into the vicinity once construction is complete. The project would be constructed along an existing transportation corridor, thus, no further bisection of habitats or wildlife corridors would occur. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential improvements would be restricted to adjoining railroad margins within the CSXT existing right of way. Construction noise and associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic communities and habitat are anticipated to be avoided by maintaining hydrology to sustain regular hydroperiod, flow, and wetland integrity. Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from railway improvements may affect populations of aquatic organisms and would be minimized through stringent erosion control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs). 4.5.2 WATER RESOURCES No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact water resources. Preferred Alternative. Impacts to water resources in the Preferred Alternative study area may result from activities associated with project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on water conveyances, riparian canopy removal, in-water construction, fertilizer and pesticide use for revegetation, obstruction and redirection of surficial groundwater � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4.7 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - flows, and track/pavement/culvert installation. In the absence of appropriate BMPs, the following impacts to surface water resources could result from construction activities. • Increased sedimentation and siltation in the adjacent ditches and increased erosion. • Alteration of surface water discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface water and groundwater drainage patterns. • Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal. • Changes in and destabilization of water temperatures due to vegetation removal. • Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface water and groundwater flow from construction. • Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. • Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in runoff. • Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles. To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the Preferred Alternative study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Design Standards for Sensitiue Watersheds will be strictly enforced. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (GS Chapter 113A, Art. 4), as amended, and NC Administrative Code Title 15A, Chapter 4(Sedimentation Control), an erosion and sedimentation control plan must be prepared for land-disturbing activities that cover one or more acres to protect against runoff from a ten-year storm. Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with the NCDENR Division of Land Resources publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design (June 2006) (NC Division of Land Resources Web site: www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/oa¢es/oublications.html) and the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures, January 2002). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, turbidity curtains, and other containment measures to control runoffj elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation. The NCDOT also has Standard Specifications forRoads and Structures (January 2002) (NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/ps/specifications/dual� that require proper handling and use of construction materials. The contractor will be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of any body of water. The contractor also shall be responsible for preventing soil erosion and stream siltation. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4.8 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - 4.5.3 .7URISDICTIONAL TOPICS 4.5.3.1 Wetlands and Streams No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact jurisdictional resources (wetlands, streams, and protected species). Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative study area does not contain jurisdictional streams, but there are jurisdictional wetlands and open waters (Exhibit 3-8). Impacts are listed in Table 4-3. Based on the amount of impacts, an Individual Section 404 Permit from the USACE would be required. Permits and mitigation are discussed below. Table 43. Impacts to Wetlands and Open Waters ImpactType PreferredAlternativelmpact (acres) Open Water 0.77 Permanent Wetland Impacts 3.75 TemporaryWetlandlmpacts 0.75 Miti�'ation and Permits. 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 United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA 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. Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths. These efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface waters during the permit process. Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands�' functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 1501inear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of the project impact and the function and value of the impacted � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-9 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to, or contiguous with, the discharge site. Onsite mitigation potential will be investigated by NCDOT as part of the permit process, prior to offsite mitigation efforts. A final determination regarding mitigation will be made by the USACE and NCDWQ. An off-site mitigation program based on in-lieu fee payments made to the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was established by the Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of Enuironment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the USArmy Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (January 22, 2003). Coordination with the USACE and NCDWQ will determine if payment of an in-lieu fee would be an available option for off-site mitigation. Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffers. Since there are no jurisdictional streams in the Preferred Alternative study area, there would be no impacts to Tar-Pamlico riparian buffers. 4.5.3.2 Protected Species No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact protected species. Preferred Alternative. As summarized in Table 4-4, and discussed below, the Preferred Alternative would have no effect on protected species listed for Pitt County. Table 4-4. Common Name West Indian manatee Tar River of Impacts to Federally Protected Species Scientific Name Protected Preferred Alternative Status Bioloeical Conclusion Trichechus manatus Elliptio steinstansana Endangered No Effect Endangered No Effect EndanRered No Effect Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. No suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers was identified within 0.5 mile of the Preferred Alternative study area through limited ground surveys and with the use of recent aerial photography. No pines of sufficient age exist within the Preferred Alternative study area. Areas within 0.5 mile are comprised of bottomland hardwood forests, pine plantations, and scattered residential, commercial, and industrial development with only a few scattered large pines, and no pine stands that provide foraging habitat. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records document no occurrence of this species within two miles of the Preferred Alternative study area. In addition, records of red-cockaded woodpecker in Pitt County are designated by the NCNHP and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as historical, signifying that the species is either extirpated from the county, or there have not been any recent surveys to verify its continued existence. West Indian Manatee. The manatee rarely occurs in North Carolina inland waters; although there have been recent sightings in the Tar River. The Preferred Alternative study area provides no deep water habitat suitable for the manatee. NCNHP records document an occurrence of this species approximately 41 miles southeast of the Preferred Alternative study area on the Tar River. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-10 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - Tar Riuer Spinymussel. The Preferred Alternative study area provides no perennial waterways. No suitable habitat for this species exists within the study area. A review of NCNHP records indicates that no known population of this species occurs within two miles of the Preferred Alternative study area. In addition, records of Tar River spinymussel in Pitt County are designated by the NCNHP and the USFW S as historical, signifying that the species is either extirpated from the county, or there have not been any recent surveys to verify its continued existence. 4.6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 4.6.1 BACKGROUND The Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA divide environmental impacts into three categories: direct impacts, indirect (or secondary) impacts, and cumulative effects. CEQ regulations require all three types of impacts be addressed in NEPA documents. Indirect and cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative have been considered along with the direct effects as required under the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.25). Indirect effects are effects that are caused by the proposed action but are later in time or farther removed by distance. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing changes in the pattern of land use population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, natural systems, or the human environment. Cumulative effects are the incremental effects of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Assessment of potential effects consisted of a review of other actions that have affected, or that could affect, the same environmental resources that may be affected by the project. For example, wetlands can often experience multiple individual impacts from many projects over time, that when summed, result in cumulative effects. 4.6.2 ANALYSIS The general approach to evaluating indirect and cumulative effects is defined by the NCDOT (Assessinglndirect and Cumulatiue Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, November 2001), the CEQ (Considering Cumulatiue Effects Under NEPA, 199l7, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Reports 403 and 466 (2001 and 2002, respectively), State/federal regulations, and past case law. As discussed in Section 1.3, the purpose of the project is to improve the movement of freight and the safety of vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville by relocating the existing rail yard siding. The project would improve safety for motorists and train crews by reducing prolonged waiting periods for vehicles at the at-grade crossings and eliminating difficult maneuvering conditions for trains at the rail yard between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. Indirect Effects. The proposed improvements would not cause indirect impacts to the following resources within the study area: farmland, housing, community resources, parklands, archaeological or historic resources, air quality, noise, visual and aesthetic resources, or hazardous materials. As discussed in Chapter 4, no direct impacts associated with these resources are projected to occur with the Preferred Alternative. Based on a review of this information and the existing conditions, impacts later in time or farther removed in distance also are not predicted to occur. The potential for indirect and effects to land use, economics and water quality are discussed below. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-11 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - Land Use. The proposed project is in a rural area of Pitt County, within and just north of the extra-territorial jurisdiction (ET� of Greenville. The improvements would be within the existing CSXT rail right of way and would be a relocation of an existing rail yard siding facility from downtown Greenville. The proposed project would not accelerate or change the type or amount of development that would occur either within downtown Greenville or within the Preferred Alternative study area. Economics. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to have positive secondary economic impacts locally and for the region, as discussed in Section 41.5. Although the project is not projected to encourage growth or land use changes, relocation of the CSXT rail yard siding outside of downtown Greenville would improve delays and safety for vehicles traveling through downtown Greenville and would improve operational efficiencies for CSXT. Water Quality. Indirect effects to water quality that may occur from the project due to stormwater runoff would be minimized through implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, as discussed in Section 4.6.2. Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects occur when there is an additive relationship between the various projects in relation to the resources being analyzed. The proposed project is one of two rail improvements proposed for the Greenville area in the Greenuille Raillmprouements Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2008). The other is the recently constructed track addition at the CSXT/NCLA wye junction (STIP Project P-3309AA). RoadwayMailway crossing improvement projects in the Greenville area are recommended in the Greenuille Traffic Separation Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, July 2008). This study recommends removing a rail spur in downtown Greenville, closing six at-grade crossings, making roadway improvements (adding concrete medians or median barriers) at eight at-grade crossings, and adding gates at eight crossings. In addition, the NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP includes two projects in the vicinity of the existing rail yard siding, both grade separation projects. These are STIP Project U-3839, the grade separation of the Fourteenth Street crossing of the CSXT line, and STIP Project U-3315, the Tenth Street Connector, which is a realignment of Tenth Street that includes a grade separation of the CSXT rail line. The Tenth Street Connector project (STIP Project U-3315) is currently under study by the City of Greenville. Together, the improvements recommended by these plans and projects would have a cumulative beneficial effect on rail and vehicular traffic operations in the Greenville area. 4J CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS No-Build Alternative. No construction activities or associated impacts would occur under the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative. The construction activities associated with the new yard siding and office building may cause temporary adverse impacts to the local environment surrounding the Preferred Alternative. These impacts, generally short-term in nature, can be controlled, minimized, or mitigated through conformance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard NCDOT procedures. Short-term impacts to adjacent land uses, including nearby residences andbusinesses, during construction would occur due to the movement of workers and material through the area, construction noise and dust, and temporary disruption of traffic flow on local roads. Coordination between NCDOT and area landowners and local businesses regarding construction scheduling and access to the construction site would minimize disruptions. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-12 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - Potential construction-related impacts are briefly summarized below. Air Quality. Temporary degradation of air quality in the project vicinity would result from the construction of the project. Initial clearing and grubbing would produce dust and exhaust emissions. The contractor would be responsible for controlling dust at the project site and at areas affected by the construction, including haul access roads, disposal site, borrowed material sources, and production sites. Dust control measures may include the following activities: • Minimizing exposed earth surface. • Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching. • W atering working and haul areas during dry periods. • Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles. • Using covered haul trucks. Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by federal standards. Any burning of cleared materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and local laws, regulations and ordinances and the regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care would be taken to ensure burning occurs under constant supervision, at the greatest practical distance from homes, and not when weather conditions could create hazards. Construction Noise. The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, and track construction. Heavy construction equipment would generate noise and vibration. Neighboring communities and businesses would be temporarily impacted. The duration and level of noise differs with each phase of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach noise levels of 67 dBA to 95 dBA (Lmax) at a distance of 50 feet. (US DOT, 2009; http: Nwww.fhwa. dot. gov/environment/noise/handbook/09.htm). General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected. Overall, construction noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since the construction noise is relatively short in duration and is generally restricted to daytime hours. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of surrounding wooded areas are considered sufficient to attenuate the effects of intrusive construction noise. The NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in noise sensitive areas adjacent to the project. NCDOT may also monitor construction noise and require abatement where limits are exceeded. NCDOT also can limit work that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours. Water Quality. Impacts to water resources in the Preferred Alternative study area may result from activities associated with project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing within and near ditches, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above. • Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the railroad bed and increased erosion in the Preferred Alternative study area. • Alteration of water discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater drainage patterns. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-13 Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES w.r.�. - • Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal. • Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from construction. • Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. • Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff. • Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of BMPs. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runofF, elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation. With implementation of required BMPs, long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. Wildli e. Construction, staging, and stockpiling operations may result in the temporary disruption of the resident wildlife population. The clearing of habitats, human activity, and noise from construction operations may result in the displacement of mobile wildlife. Non-mobile species would be lost as habitat is converted to construction areas. Impacts to biotic communities have been minimized as much as possible by restricting land clearing and construction operations within the existing right of way. NCDOT would encourage the contractor to locate off-site staging and stockpiling to disrupt the least amount of natural habitat area. These areas would be revegetated once construction activities are complete, thus replacing habitat for some species. Construction Waste. All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other construction phases would be removed by the contractor from the project site and burned or disposed of by the contractor in accordance with State and local regulations. Litter and other general trash would be collected by the contractor and disposed of at local landfill locations. NCDOT would monitor the contractor for compliance. Utilities. The project may require some adjustments, relocations, or modifications to existing utilities. Any disruption to utility service during construction would be minimized by phased adjustment to the utility line. All modifications, adjustments, or relocations would be coordinated with the affected utility company. Maintenance ofTraffic. Because most of the project is away from existing roadways, maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction is not a substantial concern. However, activities would be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays within the project area. Maintenance and protection of traffic in conjunction with construction activities associated with the project would be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Deuices and roadway standards of NCDOT. Signs would be used as appropriate to provide notice to the traveling public. If determined necessary, advance notice through the local news media would be made to alert the public of traffic restrictions and construction-related activities. � Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 4-14 Environmental Assessment AGENCY COORDINATION �ur.n - AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement and input has been encouraged throughout the development of the project. Government agencies and officials and interested citizens were informed of the progress of the project through two public workshops and a local officials meeting. 5.1 EARLY PROJECT COORDINATION Rail Improvement Study. Several meetings took place between 2005 and 2007 in support of the Greenville Rail Improvement Study (STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, March 2009). These meetings are summarized below. Early project coordination included a meeting on May 9, 2005, where representatives from CSXT, the City of Greenville Public Works Department, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division met to discuss the Raillmprouements Study for the CSXT/NS Interlocking in downtown Greenville. The meeting defined the purpose and need for the project and established locations for the new wye and yard track. A second stakeholders meeting was held on June 13, 2005 to review conceptual plans and discuss railroad and agency coordination needs. On April 2, 2007 a meeting was conducted with representatives of the PCS Phosphate facility. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the project team with an overview of the facility operations. A meeting with CLNA representative took place on May 24, 2007, to provide insight on issues regarding property purchases, negotiations relating to access, installation of new crossing locations, and yard and service relocations. On December 4, 2007 representatives from NCDOT Rail Division, NCDOT Board of Transportation, the City of Greenville, CSXT, CLNA, and the project consulting team met to discuss the project. The meeting focused on the phasing of the improvements, creating specific design criteria, developing cost estimates, identifying funding sources, and a project schedule. On February 12, 2008, NCDOT Rail Division and the project team consultants met with the Greenville City Council to inform them of the progress of the study. Feedback received indicated that the Council members were pleased with the recommendations. Greenville Traffic Separation Studv. Public meetings were held February 12 and 13, 2008 at the Sheppard Memorial I.ibrary in Greenville. Preliminary outlines of the project were displayed for the publids information. Recommended improvements for the new wye connection and relocation of the rail yard were made available for the public to review and comment. A presentation was made on February 18, 2008 to the Pitt County Board of Commissioners. NCDOT Rail Division and the project consultant team informed the Board of the progress of the Study and received a few comments. One Commissioner was concerned with the location of the new yard. Once staff explained that the new yard provided a larger area for building and stacking of rail cars in order to eliminate the need for this at a smaller facility near Howell Street, the Board of Commissioners had no further comments on the recommendations. �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 5-1 Environmental Assessment AGENCY COORDINATION �ur.n - AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6�Y�_[H � ► [N'LK�Z�I :7 �] 1► /_� � (�l ► In the process of preparing this Environmental Assessment, federal, state, and local agencies were contacted to provide information about the proposed project, to identify issues of concern, and obtain information about environmental resources within the project study area. Coordination with the following agencies was initiated in April 2008. Each agency received a scoping letter introducing the project, a brief description of the proposed project, and requesting that they identify any concerns. A map of the study area was enclosed with each letter. Agency correspondence is included in Appendix C. Agencies and organizations listed will also be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment. FEDERAL AGENCIES STATE AGENCIES Federal Highway Administration NC Department of Environmental and Natural US Arm� Corps of Engineers Resources US FYsh and Wildlife Service NC Department of Environmental Resoumes Division US Environmental Protection Agency of Water Quality NC Wildlife Resources Comnussion REGIONAL AGENCIES NC Historic Preservation Office Pitt County Commissioners Pitt County Emergenc� Management Pitt County Schools LOCAL AGENCIES OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES City of Greenville, Planning Dept. Carolina Coastal Railway City of Greenville, Mayor CSX Transportation, Inc. City of Greenville, City Manager City of Greenville, City Engineer City of Greenville, EMS Services Dept. City of Greenville, Fire Prevention and Life Safety Services 5.3 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING AND CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP One Citizens Informational Workshops (CIW) took place on August 26, 2008 (from 4:OOpm to 7:OOpm) at Thomas Foreman Park — Eppes Recreation Center in Greenville. Before the CIW began, a briefing on the project was held for the local public officials who were invited to stay for the CIW, where NCDOT staff and consultants presented the proposed improvements, answered questions, and received comments about the project. The format of the workshop was informal, with handouts provided and aerial maps on display. Approximately 27 people attended the CIW. Workshop comments focused on traffic congestion, increased rail and roadway efficiency, and preservation of downtown Greenville neighborhoods. Participants were generally supportive of the project because of improvements in traffic flow in the downtown area. One comment raised concern with the condition of the tracks and pavement at three downtown crossings (at Evans Street, Tenth Street, and Fourteenth Street). The State Railroad Agent was notified to investigate the issue. �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 5-2 Environmental Assessment REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING w.r.�. - DOCUMENTATION 6.0 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 6.1 REFERENCES Council on Environmental Quality Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA, 1997. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, 1979. CSX Corporation www.csx.com Environmental Laboratory Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1987. Federal Railroad Administration Guidance on Assessing Noise and Vibration Web page: www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/167 Office of Safety Analysis Web page: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafet /y�ublicsite%rossing/crossing.as� Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. FRA's Chicago Rail EfFciency and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Noise Spreadsheet Railroad User Guide, 2006. Franklin, M.A, and J. T. Finnegan Natural Heritage Program I.ist of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 2006. Greatschools www. gre atschools.c om Greenville, City of Draft Horizons: Greenville's Community Plan 2009-2010 Review: Preliminary Report Tenth Street Connector Project Web site, www.greenvillenc.gov/departments/public works dept/default.aspx?id=5732 Zoning Pattern Map, Apri121, 2009. Future Land Use Plan Map, February 12, 2004. Comprehensive Recreation and Parks Master Plan, November 6, 2008. �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 6-1 Environmental Assessment REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING w.r.�. - DOCUMENTATION Greenville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, August 2009. Greenville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, December 2004. Hamel, Paul B. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1992. Henry, V.G. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA, 1989. Kartesz A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 1998. LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S. P. Hall, S. E. McRae, and J. T. Finnegan Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. 2006. Linzey D.W. The Mammals of Virginia. 1998. Menhinick, E.F. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 1991. National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Web page: www.nps.¢ov/ncrc/pro¢rams/lwcf/index.htm Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Data Mart Web page: http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov North Carolina State Data Center Facts and Figures Web page: www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts and figures North Carolina Department of Commerce Main Web page: www.nccommerce.com/ North Carolina Quick Facts Web page: www.nccommerce.com/en/AboutNorthCarolina/Location/ NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2008 303d list NCDWQ Web page: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wc�/ps/mtu/assessment Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS) Web page: http: //h2o.enr. state. nc. us/bims/reportsMeportsWB.html Identification Methods for the Origin of Intermittent and Perennial Streams. 2005. �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 6-2 Environmental Assessment REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING w.r.�. - DOCUMENTATION NPDES Web page: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/PublicNotices.html). Tar-Pamlico River Basin Water Quality Plan. 2004. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Guidelines for Eualuating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities, September 2007 North Carolina Department of Transportation 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program 2009 Rail Plan Executive Summary, March 2009 Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, November 2001. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface W aters Traffic Counts - www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/trafficvolumemaps). Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, January 2002. NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot. org/doh/preconstruct/ps/specific ations/dual/ North Carolina Department of Transportation - Rail Division Main Web page: www.bytr'ain.org/track North Carolina Employment Security Commission Main Web page: www.ncesc.com North Carolina School Report Card Main Web page: www.ncschoolreportcard.org/src Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell Reptiles of North Carolina. 1995. Pitt County, North Carolina Pitt County Official Countywide Zoning Map, August 6, 2009 2002 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, July 21, 2003 Pitt County Online Parcel Information System Web site: http://¢is2.pittcoun nc.gov/o�is Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings, and R. Davis. Birds of the Carolinas. 2006. President of the United States Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 2004 Radford, et. al Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinaa, 1968 �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 6-3 Environmental Assessment REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING w.r.�. - DOCUMENTATION Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. 1994. Schafale and Weakley Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina, 1990 US Census American Factfinder Web page: www.factfinder.census.¢ov US Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice to Address Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order 5610.2) US Environmental Protection Agency Greenbook Web page: www.epa.¢ov/oar/oagps/�reenbk Locomotives Web page: www.epa.¢ov/otaq/locomotives.htm#il US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision. 1992. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. 2003. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Web page: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/PITT.html Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. 1985. 6.2 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PBS&J Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Memorandum, July 2010 STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Greenville Traffic Separation Study, July 2008 Greenville Rail Improvements Study, March 2008 �� Greenville Northern Rail Siding - P-3309A8 6-4 Environmental Assessment !/ RAIL O/Y1S/ON Pitt County� North Caro.. ._ """ EDGECOMBE WILSON PITT GREENE AYNE LENOIR� Preferred Alternative Study Area CSXT/CLNA Junction Existing CSXT Rail Siding o s,000 iz,000 TIP P-3309AB �Feet Pitt County, NC Source �. NCDOT GIS, ESRI, NC ONEMAP � � MARTIN WASH BEAUFORT Legend Preferred Alternative � Study Area � Existing Railroad — US Highway — NC Highway — State Route GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING PROJECT LOCATION MAP Figure 1-1 ` }.t �� fi " �Py+�� t C . � \\ � �b�' ,,Q ��` ? ��/f"` � �a � ��' � , d � ,ry� '; ,* `�.< / . � 91 � � ^6 �'. ' � Cf � 6 �� i � \_ � � . k �v '� � � �,� � �� \�, ��, t �� , �� ^ fG ��{ �� u�h w •. +� E��'9��t�� < �t f� '� �'�,r,'+� � .G`�� lPs � � a,�✓ . 1 r t 7 R� � � � °'"� ��` �.w� .G� r �;�� 4�j�>� ��'�� , i 1�. � k V ,� � !a t� s + <.. C r _ i. 5' � �� o t � y, > , . �, d= , + . , � � r � ��;'�a+ '� .� ` <' � �.� �� k��'�� ' < �� _� �.� �� r� � � ;,� f �' � � - � � .a�� °Ge�'��`r��{��•; ��°,� `�^ .�` �.�� , C1�4 ' t � ,.�r p - o �f� ti'' f� - ,� ,' % � { �� y �„� �.., � �,� ,�-i, �; rpth s � `�� x i y ` r �° � � o. , �. .� �' � �: j,� Fc > � 54� ��' � � � � , i !y� �< �-� ,�� , � �° '� L; �,� : ` s� �, r. � �� , - � � .� <, � .-. � � � i ��i ��e�a � _ , C '�� l �'r � r u, �: �d�£�`� � t t'��f�; � �t �� e�R-r � `t. ` �� .�0��' �' t l . � ` � `'� 3�� -� ' � � ,� � �` I ,�;� � � �r � � r � t , �� .r y �� {,� � �9� v � '�'� � � �. ��` � i ,. � �, tp,' � th �t• e �, � H .�Y��``, ,�� -1.��` � ��r �`� �d�� \�` ,� a t` 'S�� . � i '� � � � t a � ,�'� :! � ,��ij%� �• �'� O r 1- � �2��/ � �� y ��J �r, � � , t O' �� \ 2th �. � � � � � P : � �k� ,� °'�� ,�`' `. �': �� .��05 � � �'�� pC � � � 1 1 �� `�� r � .�: : °`�'� � � A� � � � °'`r'�,� �,� � O�c � � �� (! /� � L� �� ; � '� ° � � , � ; ;� , �� ., �� y; ` ✓ ;,� t �"r '�� 1' �' ..., � 4 �I _ f:� ' 4F� �F 4� f .e F iyj7[a/ y�t I[�., ,''� � �.�'f. ��. ��Y�x �{.(e ��j�� i �.' ��\�� ,�� l r zITT'� �''�F � �.' !�'�C i�l l f P �V� � `i ��`� � � �� Y" �� `� ' " E < < � e � fC� �X l � �: �` ; � e " Zi�1..5'�d �� ` r r` �r �� ' N '�+t � C � s' �� ` � ��1�r . �,.� � �� ; . . 6 "''^r' � ; O '�. � � �. � f� ,�� ` � f, a �{ r ,�' ' � ��(�C�� . i�� f � �LG� + °Cj7 � � � I � P4/ u � Q �� 4 Ll:i �� , . � � ��" , � .> . `, � � � ,� r F4 � � ��- � rn � � (. � � ' q{ . � : „��; d,�� CSXT/CLNA Junction , �� < < _ �� E��' r� � '� �� .. k . c Zb � rr�' ��y ��y�� -:. � `S� �' e c, .:�. ��\� � ,B7 � r..v �d(�.A�� n�., � ,��-Y�, � j��'��7 �' ��. � ' ' � ! �j � � � � �`N i p � . � - t � ,� � � s '' � 14th_$' � ° � � �� ' �ae ` „ ' ` `(� LNA RR � ; < � , +�, r: � _ ( � � 14rn S�� t �'�rr � ��,w.�/ ' � 1� �a�`°-rrr 1�,— —�„�cY�rr��ker �t��,,� � �`v� �� i�� . � � - ' `kn . �on C ,�� `�. �, � , � �+ (� r: '�?.;. �. ' ] 1'l��: �q f, g : 1'.; t�r-�""r t �` 4 �`�„�` � � � G'f f�` �., f ��r ; A'a +';a'k '?� d � �� . i � .o ��5. � �'�'i r -- � F _'�"� 0] '�� •a � , � °, ti � . ��" �i �,r � � `+4(n: ,�, '� � t F �! �� ' �} 6 ) . � � r h � ' � - rt '' : .3 - . � ' r r � f Lt �":'. � r �-_: � 1�� , � . _ � '�;�,� - d St rv", Wyatt S# s�'', �'�' ,� j I � "�� - iw � � � 02 r.� � � m �r; + c �� 1� e� �lorrisS�, �.�z t >, t +�, �.� f�, � �`� �z�: ,�� , 1� � � � ��,�T' �L �� x �„ r ,.� _ � � St i � $r � � ` � _ N. . s , i '#t :C�ir +C � � u � � tr ? i €� � e � �yy,� '_- r G .4 �� ' � i ,z Ig � r��'"< s � � � I � � � �f�� ' � 7t��t� � �. ,� '�' � � \�`, � y :'r � � 1�.; � r ' � i �� .t � � � ' Y HO e� LC o i . . f� r .,'t F � �,�� [` .... ,.,� §� �-' . � , �' � .��x '3�_ `�' j � ,gR� W �� i :: V - �. �Ou ,.. �.r �� i - . qqa ..� ;?o °t�:� `r r� ;, � � �, � f i� r-, /� F y"� ��-� �,�� r y � ' � ��.A`f L � I `:�� ,��5' �� (n r � � kEi' � I � � � � *1�y. �-_i �` a .. cn t�� - �"�� •�� : ;- � i ��'� � � � c=Bro ` � � �,�n �`-. � i'�� `�rS�t��_ ?4� 7 r �; Ames-S S OA�C�21�1 P� .�i� �' f WIl $t �t �� .f � j { "{ �..;• a ,. ��H'arris � i } i �� E �t ' t� � � � , � ,;- � � � � � � w - i � � �, °�',"_°` ( .� '�": r � i �f i` �. ��.�. � � CU (q" r � � I " . 1 `Y ��yt � +$'" f. , . T �k"`(��, `� ��'"r` � r �• p �1 ;,I� r. .L i _��'r" �°�at.�� y '� ,s. �'� ��•. ;� �,� �� :f �� t � � F r � � �, �� Ken�n�dy Cir ,,� 6�� f �� f ;�� F��; � �� ,, �` , �� _ .. ry '. ,��' � :� � � ,��,,, r=��,��r �d�-< �: r t r-.r �rr��G :� r! i� ElkSt� � i�t" a� `; r '�4 ; r �'�� ..I , z r , � s ,� , r � c f ;,1 � � .,; � i' �.. � � 4'�� :: ,. - � C� �. `_ C rx:� f �, � 4�'�, Jer �`�� 4� �S_t, i/i• , �C 1 I+fi +S �~ � . � i �.`�N rcott Cir < < ` i ,:; ( "£-� �' r� i �c � � %� r - 4� . ��, `'� '�w � R -_ �' < ��'� "� � � � � �` � ! � � °' r' � ,�� -� � «"' '� � � 'Y .I.. � �. -'� g I � � tx � � = X s r� `,. \� h� � � � �` : l y � �� r � [_' � � �� ,"" F��`wr'i � �r �ij � ''^*�"� R ��. � r' '- A' �¢� � `; � t � S c a/Q� ti I- r; r+� d-� _ �� : ��r` 1 e� �, ��E"1` t i �,.-, �� #�` r' f s i� t�F "f"'' �`-. �U ` t � . _ . : , -, =._ < � i Arthu� � ` t � , � �:: �� . , 1 �`r��. � � ..�� Existing CSXT Rail Siding � �' � � � ,,�. ` r��rz� �, �s.t �` � t � �� ,, �,,,y�.,: rr- �rk � �t� v 1 x �� ( � � � � � � 3'� � � _ , ,Blo��intSt��€ �`,'�"; �x � a � �� , "r c � q � ' f I'i ; s �' ��"� j �M � � ;. ` ` � , c � i at o � �� `' � C� � i �ii : I I I: �De�k-St ' "" � � � < , � , ' � .., xr !1 �r�l � . � 5� , ,� 1 , - - ' � _ -. _ � ��, �rk� e x� '� � . . �. � .' i �� x� � _ �� n:� k t' �,f�'�r;+''� r � ��$t s� ° �� 4 4j�'s�'"��c � . �� ° � .. � « a',� � �� i �"� � � �-,- � �� ' � � :�A , �r �. �� ` ,`l � � �� , .(� � f /' / , r ' � 1'��; � �- � � �.4 �� x,,�� Legend � o � � '° �� r< <, � { � —"- � � Y u�� ', `44 % y �.. ,� .��' �� Existing At-Grade �� ' �� 5 �> �, _ ° ...; � --= � ,: �., ��• ,` �� 1�� Y , , �Q�.`"��"'��`�s ;:€ � , Rail Crossings u � � a:`r ��. '� �� ;c � �,��, �� ' � Existing Railroad � �. ._ � .. . - . + r �, � ��y p. t �� §� �. t x k �_��' �°' � �' — US Highway � \ ,� F �� :f t �r i F. x -.: . / -• i C.��ft�: , �` � ` E Arlingtor}Blv � .� �` ,�i� � , . _ , ` — NC Highway i �$� * f >r�t�� g I � r � �C �n �. �k i 't- d� �n �' C ,. 'a,,,�i� � ` ? -� . � � +Y� . . � . .' �j Ka: ��'i . r . �;� t � � '�� s ' �,1 :9 �' ,, �yq —StateRoute � :_( .� LI r 1 $�'��i" .':nL ' a'.. �"��'�.�� f :,.4 '�+'�° � •1{r,�db d t4��''�. �_ C � _ < &: � s�.;� � ° ;�� , — Local Roads c. u �_. �. ` � s� ,. , �` ?� r,. .� .t� 1..' Z .4 �' ti, ,r . . " - , , . .. .. �..L,�.,�. . . . GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING 0 350 �� t EXISTING RAIL YARD SIDING � � TIP P-3309AB Feet Pitt County, NC 0 R/IILDIYISION Sour20 9NAIPAeralNm geryMAP Figure 1'2 }} `py�' y [�� . �ry��.� � � 'Y'�`i �? ��`�� s 1 *g / Y !?/,q � £ {"� �A i �B�C . 4 ..4 .. �� 4 �.�� .. ��t � �� I - �.€ ,,. r . . '° � � �.�a +<r; �, �., . � � . h�. � � .. . �'� j � . : 4t ��, �r Y ` �' . �I ;e ,,, : �}, .. � � �z �{ � u : �iy`" � � �„ F4� � � � ,��.: �� ' �.��, �..� .. 13 � � '� 30 � �,v � t� � a� �, �� ' � �. � � ` � �n �� ; �,�' .., , P ° �„ _, ` > a P� , . � f � . . �� 9�3 .. � � �� ' , �� a�� ^� i �.� � r.� - ��y "t� t _ . ,.�<;, � � �,t�� r : � r � � � � �� ` �� s� � � � r�<,v � r � , �� t�` � � , ,,. , �s ,. z 5, �� Y , .. _ 264 � � � �� - � �� f �� <�. �''�:' �.,'� z `�� _` "�� k j ' � r�fi� ��„ €x 264 � � �� ` � �� , `�� '�.t,' ��F �` �'' � � �+ �` �; � `°' � �I _i � ' k ±, �. ��t �L � �Rt '� �d � � } Y>, f � , � � 1 1i�.,... � '-�.i' ��?`��3�� , � f 1 � �. i �� , I��I�� t . �,� � ' � � v �`a� � i '� �s' r �� N '� �. .. � �� . r.. > �`�b _. . � i , - �; � � ; �` 1 � �� '�" 1 j j .�� "'� �� ti �m� ;�: . �„ '��,��x�:> "�*�i � ,. �, �.�. . � � .r � � e�� y .m � � � ,, 1 � � x '1' �E� t a ;� � �� r ,� � � �� 'y� � t � ��" i,, ��' � . �� ` `�� , n = � w� , . � � '" � a �� j' �' �a` �+e � n "'� ` �:�k � • d°� � FTi<�«�. : �1��1 �� 33 . . . _�a�:: , ,� j �._- .� �"' t w t r `�V � 1� �,�� _ �� k. � � �;� � � , � � < � ; '� 13 �" .�� ,� � � '�' ,��, �;� � � , � - k � �r n`: r�' a� .. �.� "Y�u�, ' �,, .� � �� ::t rM . k q Y^ 4 � 3 — � ' � � � � j�" `h :.°y�` k `e �Q� �� t ,� M .�� : � � ��FF'� � r�'�� 43 � �� < � ;�� '� 264 �� , . '� _ � ,� � � �� x �� r �; �. � " ' 4 k �1� ,��r�� M� Legend � ��"�� ... ;: 1 t ' �� '�r�h � �. Preferred Alternative � � � � ., : �'� CSXT�.,��.. ,.��Ction � �`�� `` � S udy Area t � �,� � � Existing At-Grade � � ,R� � a �' F � � fi � � ,,; �,�, �,1_.�_ . � ; � , � : � `° �� '�,�s�t°��'� 33 Rail Crossings � � � r . k � �r �`' S,�`��` - � � .�. . � � ` � ��;� . �� , �: �� .. � Parcels ' Existing CSXT Rail Siding , ��'�� ;x 43 � Railroad � ° '�, � ��' `� �� Removed Spurs :r � � ° t � J Y ' �� — US Hi hwa ! — l. z � � � Ml � r. i �fi+ — � 13 NC Hi hwa v �_� a � ;� �� t = �„ ' J Y �i�� Xs �� + � �� n � �s m " � �{ r F z ��r � t — State Route �' � � �` �.. ��: GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING 0 2,500 5,000 � pROJECT VICINITY � � TIP P-3309AB Feet Pitt County, NC 0 Source: NCDOTGIS, NC ONEMAP _ R/IILDIYISION 2009NAIPAeriallmagery _ Figure 1'3 . . _� � � 4, � • ., , Y � h . . � . ''- � �;�,, + ' ■ ' y ! �i:. , . . .'. ��, + � _ � _ � h, .� _ . . . . , � . ' - • . ' � . r�' ��i�, . , . � . , ' ' • � + • r . � ' - � . ' � \.f 1 ��.� _.` � . �� ' � . . � * � ' . ' o'. • c � • N t' � . - �. . 29 + ` , . ' . . / . . . . �� . oe . � �, , � , � � � � � Stiati ' ��'� ; r. ' I+� ' E+�'" " �: r`:� I ' �'�� ' � � ,'t'�+ r� r .. #r'r�'rta�Jf f�1�� . . .�'##,� . � � ;� ;.�.;� �:°t . _ . S � l:`�•,_- � ' _ a: � 7 �J."� �M1 � "•3 _ .;,k � : . • � � f ' , . * � < *�' ' ��r� �' �' , '�•c ,� , �� r :, f ��":- • t"�a �..� .� � -�. � w, �-._ . 4r..�.f�.� r\ � ', L • �"yN�,��.ay� f' r l. a• �+ . F'} .' . �:•'P U ' �.e ,. �'�� • �h ,-`' :.i' � � � � i �k!-,.�•. . . .�. . y A' . � �5 r•��, yy . �i � � • � t� � � � �'.!�` �, ' { . _ { _..!��n �. r�� '� (� 1�' ; �r ��jj . 1 F � r � � I�r '� ' ��l��;. •ti;j"�FiT }1'!� . { e �'� ��{+ r' ?'�'�� y".'y .�?�;� ' L : +;� •y.��',��# „•..� . ,,,ti'�� y : �' Legend � i�� k� ` k . �� • �_ } u+ . �'� ��' ,�,, , ; � ! �, Preferred Alternative � , � ' � '� •.w..,_+�"�.�•` �•x� ?.'i`.3r,�r �. # • ;,^ '��r� 1 , ��i','� �StudyArea +'=',� ,1,• •�i;x J,t',��'r'�' '��•1 �� t i��-v��'-��'- � Pro osed Track ` �x{' '��; � ��'��.��,'�j +:��. it. . ' �r+ �ExistingGreenvilleGrainSiding ,',t;Y �'�f .ti'} } y,.i'=:t �.. . . � �,,._ �._... r� 1�. ' �C.��`'',�} }*$k�-:�„ ,�iar,� � —Proposed Ditch r F`�� T i� 1 ��{fyr��f `�. �{' �e�� , Proposed24-inRCPCulvert �:� �". �M �,�s= �� f. �' c' � �-�li+' .r : ' _. , ,�� } f� ..,�� ;}j � j, _+ j Fy '.,. � i Proposed Access Road �-� #4r r'� � ''� �`?;+::+; ,'��' f'"' ' `•- � . . � Proposed Office Building r + �"' {�". ; . ' ' `w!- 1C '' ' ,�'�,�F `+' '= F��'�" � - Pro osed Parkin Lot } � _' .i. • : �. : r -. id'!G. , :',r;,, p 9 *�� '�Y�' f^� ' �.��•'"` " . � � � Existing Main Track .' R� ��y4•�� F��t `•I•��f� � ' Old Spur To Be Removed ��''? ��,"��•� �45��1 Yr�`�G'r � � Parcels . ��.k ' � �'">'M � � g ., . ., ; � � �y+.++� :_i-+T ; .?� � .y: � { : .' - � — US Highway � ' m�: •;.'•'�'l�i'�' �.`� �' �`�� ` L „� . . — NC Highway :.P� fi' y �� `1��f -�'r; {,� � t. {: . • � . . � — State Route �y��t�:�kti�i:_ bx^�;''n".'� }ei+�,�+,`�`'r��,� . — Local Roads GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING o ioo zoo � � / TIP P-3309AB �Fee' pREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Pitt County, NC RAILO/YIS/ON so��e NcooTCis,NCONeMaa 0 zoo9Naiaaad�im�ary _ FICjUI'@ 2-18 � � r �.� ,k ; -:::* � .F?- � { I�f�_;.., � �: �.$ � � .. #rr �r' ... .,,� �. �:�'� :.�..��}. � +tr'zr, �' �� µ'y �,'��iii i# S�-r�l � . w rM� . ,��F.o:.�� +� ,{�� .'t's s#�'_�J�.��+��}y� t; � {�• • l'�� 1. �i�' i 3 ��1�i-Y��L4�,. ~`��."} •. 45t',r ..y'�� F. � .�y }r l+ �'Lr.� •''r..qp' :'f4, r` Y i�i �'� � �,� _��;.'� ' ��,� �� r Fr'}..-_I.T�±; �J 'A� i�� .� 'Ar • C' w} Yi ri � �+; f-,�� _ n� i �' s .!'fi-� Y,' .i Y: i,� � � � r�� 4 . r�. +~,'r'.b� ,k, ,�.j+, y, �r,� ;�f� � Y � ��'��r A �; : � � =t�Li1,".'•T��i.-,r.r�sry:`�c,��; - l.. ' , f��.,{,a�-,'�,� y,�� ' ,... ,r.�y:_ 4.,� � :-� , 'y� '.� _'' :€ . k ,;-�,,; �,, �,•" `'�r �.+:�' � ��•�'��f.;''�#'t'�'.��. ��, � �a r * f � ' ' ;�,.'�. . � s . ��. , ��, '�r � y , ' '�. � ,i+��, $_ ��s ti;.� Iy`Y', +' -r .�*:� "Ij �, k� �' i'!+� k.:4'. r� r� -' �.� • ,; �'� . „� � 'i:I�fe�f� �1�. t-�_ f� � f ".#`,:+ '4 ��i.:, ,t 3 „ �, f., M1 . � � , , .S� .�'�_1�� "�iif�' yC :r �A'.f:� �� }�if � ,!e.'.= r � f :? +4 �'. '1• M' � f �jj�i.. �}��y i,7 `yf~�y� ��rti:l { �T � !'•' 4 + 1' .' � ��t' 4'y� .,l��i 4't � �.. t. �t'r ��'..;.��,��,_ ;.'t� 4'�, r'� �,�,.--i ,_,�i ,�, '�'} i � � ;fs•� • .'ti�� 1 � .r' '.��Ll� �,a� ' i .��..+:,:; ,�F,i 7 f ' ��.y� �i, k �:'r. .�.. ��;:rtitJ • � r . �- {' f�' � • 4 k � �f c r� * r 1 j �'TF F t S�' c 2` S � ' f r�., � fr' r r.� I �i r:.F��.{ 4{r.�� .4. �.'.� � If '� t>.','�..r.'.�.: �.'.`.: r �'� `:. =.:: , � 5 t �' ��'l,-: ',Y}..-.,.'_�}�..1 ,�`1'.%�i�%I'�•'i�'x ,�,'.� 1 �.. � +� .rr. ��•.r'-''��(�; 1�, . �F �h•r_4 1fYJ .. � � . r�'� _I Y i � 'F� ' ' ...'iA' .?�.1 i.�. �.�}�. � .�7 � `s� �l�'�r,: .i.r {' ' l�. . 4ti . ' �7� 7 . � i��f ,.'1 4r•, . . ' � � �?_�y rr. ' '... � � ti. . 'l� �':�rr. f��, �. > '.; 5 * + : ;:. f.': . ' ±.f{ .: ,r; 1 i. ' } .F' 75 ,,. c.:.'J:' }�.�','_'.'I:�'. -"i�ti ��:r !/ RA110/YIS/ON TIP P-3309AB Pitt County, NC �,44,. kt 2 *� _k� • -S a' i .,,d.,,� a�f i t Nf.` 4 .+. ; I ; _ � �{ .�. . . . : I:�. . i.J� .� :��4 �� ..�.. r `,�yri �� 'r. �,f r' r,� r `: r�r� f� _. !�'��'�` �'� e y J.`� � i � �� , .a�� I. � ?�l`�,�,�,{� ; . � ; �� / � . �.�' L �_ . � � . � r* �++'' , �: •, , , • r�' ' �f: ' +Z`f .�,..•x..r� r,;'��F-`•, � , '�I� ' . 2+4fC±• '". fi. `w �'t�",�"_�� ' _ . ,� � . if f� �,. �' 'dr Y, t: ;.l 1�� " . i� I].• �A��.�tt'' . 5F• •�•• ri . i'ai�,�,� .•� . r�a ��f� ++�'� �� , .• f' 'j . "r �v � j .�., Yr ' ! ,{k 'ar f : :� { {f:' �1'j'"y'1 - . '�;' �rF'-'y: , . .''!.ti J�':.�'?.. '�'_�. 7 � '.�_�� .,. Y.f'.t..,�I� i�-:,i't � '�� r'...1 .=. �i .- .4 �'��{f:. �_+:5�.�,rrr...;�a;�,- _- �.0 � �• :� y' .1.':r �� ` , _ -,'�', "� 9 ! �. '.r . . , � �� ' _ . . , ,� ' r':� 'r� 5� + b`�,� _ . <�'. • ' . . '� �. . 1 •', ' �.{'- ' r M1' �i � � �� `:7 ' :� .� �+ , r � 5 . . t,r' . � �.y ��t�,'1.�� r _ v' ;{ �,.,, .��i * �V ! � 4a � } �� Y." �! • �.` � .'F^ R k +� . �+ �' .�� e� �r, �a r' Jti,X Fi1rk {'�`��.j��if� ��s .5' .r �.fJ. , �*rt"� , �- , - � r ; �y.,St- �- ��,��I� �r1a� �i ��h,�_� y : � y . . ��{ �:' a�,�..'T��,��' y �y `' '� „*�, '�t .. �i�r�.."4� .'4"+r: . � . =. ". ' .� 'k' . . ' ' � ��+ L'}'*�`�1 r;r ' . '.{ r'�,�- Y5 �I. j •r' ' � �.i'..FT . , '� i' �' . �.. .:; �J,i�� '.; � � r . ,_,, r,1,. �ti {�.��: '�' . r7 `'�f,,,,. �" �.�• .. '.1i�_ } : ,1�, � . ' xl . Y� ._ � J 4 N. '!• . ; � r = � .. �' ". r t . � ��' ''.'j �' ' TF-.1.• � 'F`'.t� . . ¢� ��; �� t�. `�• . ,� '�r�.. .,-:ti , '. '._. , ,� '�'• �� _ f��l,' : .' S t .. o ioo zoo � � Feet Source�. NCDOTGIS, NC ONEMAP � 2009 NAIPAeriallm�qery � Legend Preferred Alternative � Study Area Proposed Track � Existing Greenville Grain Siding — Proposed Ditch Proposed 24-in RCP Culvert Proposed Access Road � Proposed Office Building Proposed Parking Lot � Existing Main Track Old Spur To Be Removed Parcels — US Highway — NC Highway — State Route — LocalRoads GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Figure 2-ib „i p+ � ' , . ''` , '4 ' l'�� „ri • . . . � � � , '. . . .. t F ; � , �. , '. � � � � ' . � � . ' ' F.'. y�� i �' � �' � r' . � .+ J-} ` ! '.�' - +�' `i . �� 1 i.� 'f, ' #..' .\7. ., j� + ��.^R ti� � . • , . . ' . . � r;,: i-.'. . �' ,,.��:� : • . . . . _ . . • {".;� .' •' `• . . ��., �.� �. , . , . ,. . . .','' - � : �',��+` _ ' . ; � : , . . r. , . . :::�,�,'!',�� ' , . . � � `:•+. ,}� 7 ' • . . . • ' a"� j/ ' r r y' r� �� I r' �I �� +'. .�l �r�:, :f �_, i� _:+,�, ,� -,i ' � ' � �: :'�' J� � '. ' ,r.4i+•��}� , . • + ,- . i 7'.' ��+��,J.: , , 4�y..�.��. } �}';� �� . ' . . �'%f�� 1 f C` ��vy ��,�'¢; '-' '5 �J� � �V �.. . - y'�� - F_r �+ ��'I 'J +'. � � -�a : ' fa ' i ' Y' . � �� .�4�, '+��h4� ' �� •' _ . . ' �.� �J 'I _ _ � _ '_ Y¢.l;r��- , 1 ��. ti.r y � . - . . . � � . ` ' .. 1-�. , �. . ' • , . � .. : ' . '.. } ; f ' . _ . . ' . ... � _ � . � ,�. i } r .. . Ni' � , �. �•' �-� . , ' ; ''i'.57 ; �� s • j • i �., ' Y.:+ . 7�i� 4-'l� * `��":i•. f. � . -C. _ ' ' l , t�-,...��,�:��: ' il'��.+ . � . . � .. ' � ,} �� {i �r' r r• ' .,' �� o-' � • , . •��R*i�� '•1�''� ti•�a �� L ,7 : �L�:� .�cYj ��,�'-y# 4wy!� 51 :l' .. . . . • ��►'. � `"-�•:J��Sj��y�C/�� j"If'f14.1 �' -� - ' � � .� r Jf � 9� 3#' y FS {.. P y. y . . _ �+- �f .�: .j f• � ., � ` '`• . ' F • F y.� �* �li I � I. �; • j:+. . .� � 1 .' ' �. 4_ -. n. J�r✓'{�[, '�f.:' ;� �...s .' .: '�+s,. �* ^” T- �, �{ f,f � �.' �� \. ' }:4Y�.��i I� i� .�' . .. LPi end ��+� 1+" 't j.f}f,4F � j�.tf' � r a�:l �� t Fr� �� /y�+; I�'� g �:�••/-. I..��•F11 �l+F .hFi�C�I i��xL�� ii�4PY'1. : +y�T 5, 'Y, •.• • y#. , • .: , •, � � , . � r . � � Preferred Alternative � F� ' �"��:i[: . r•.�', f�.'� '. " � . �• ;;r� i�'�Mr;; �. �StudyArea � �`�..,� � . ; I a.r� �j`i., F��t•,- �� _ •�.. •�.e• �; �'� „yr , , f. k � _ '� .4':._ ' , ► .�,drt� � �l.�. . Proposed Track ' � •F�` ��k ~��Y��S�` ��• � : -+ c�,� � � � Existing Greenville Grain Siding •�•'. � .'fi . ��' �,.r:. tf� :. �r, .r.� �_ -�:t;: . ,r'� 'i�,• �aF'',ta.;::� �� r;_•{�,f �. r .'�k' j'. cY�� —Proposed Ditch � '��,,- "�'�. • 7 +�.j� " � .-� �.� � Proposed 24-in RCP Culvert i.��"�,�'',�'s'. 'a� '•��t �tp�;+' _��•'; i: �� ' •�.r�'4 1 - r{' �,; �;'�.'y . �.t.', � . - �� Proposed Access Road .}�.4��. �_�'r� � " r�arZ�� •.' ' � „: ,,�: �r��' � ,: ! •� - '�.� �. � � Proposed Office Building �F� � .� 4 ,� ��.- -'{ � � . � Y } - � '..� Proposed Parking Lot ` � � Existing Main Track F Old Spur To Be Removed : F , , i. ! ,. .. .. .. �••, Parcels '- 4 � t ..-;�J , . • , ..r''.�' � :4::. �_,. . ;',��`� , ;}.;:�;i'�.. �r: , .... �_.,': �, ��w i,4c��s�1+�%`l;` ' y:..', �r'�'��;,��.s;'.�.�•,. :',. —USHighway �,� ..'4'�.�' b �~•�€'i� :�, �. �+4 �;.a'J ��',r?�dW °`'. —NCHighway 11.�t.2'}��•}';F-a��.r�76+? r f . .� ` +C, ;� �':: t? �.+� � '��r�a + t � �r '�S� ^'� , ��r S �� — Loctal Roads �,,�; � - GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING o ioo zoo � � / TIP P-3309AB �Fee' pREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Pitt County, NC RAILO/YIS/ON so��e NcooTCis,NCONeMaa 0 zoo9Naiaaad�im�ary _ FICjUI'@ 2-iC ,.+� �.�..�t�' fil �i..�{ ^7� �'i��-.:a' 5...1•1-�.4_._+f� Lr �: S. i ,{f3�+ '' . �[ �r/. ��' .��' -• y..� , €x ; � f . . I � :'� } iw� � �f`�� .:� � �,{s�.l • "�S F' ir �J'�}� �'. 4.��f��" i,j+`�}J~� �• ��xr��if J'��.,}�'}.` L,S�. { 7,�:"�f .l r.f.: . r ti� 1Z k•�r�. �� i' �•'':t _��. ''�. �� '�f.'�' �F - ' �1 r , ��. •} }a l,e�' �L • �� ;,Y. . i • �_ h�l��' "'•l� h+� 4 �r+lhr' ' 14 ' 'Yr ��._} .� � .}� e.� �'�k�Y1 ;��•r .��'..�.�}'f.�".�,•.�� '{'�� . i- �.. f �.�L a.'�, 'f.:�� ,� i il��U�w'�.r' - , . t•}- }.�'� ,•��,�, �"�j� . •�'�+ � �' ,}.i r}} t. � � f r � , � �` � � ' +�K . . 5{+• �{' ��r'i 7.' �f _.J.�: ,',�} i. {_�F S� � . � .`f'4r f rt.�t�'•.?T�.�. . � � •'�.�4� k t + '+. , ;,,}s �,.' � .' � • �Y f�r; . . � , � +., =t ` �� r�� • .. '0'. .. � �L � � �,y� � �� '' + ..' ' L' i� /1 r ' �� -.y;. � I�, .�-�r�' f�j +.'��±'�.•.��._ R.:�.� .�'�s+�. r _ �� . . * �: ,. �a. .. � , : .� r; . , ' +. �_ . V � .}� i �5 .'7 ' r'..'� : '' ;r5 y 4 + M1. . . � . .. . . . . .�� j: -I'�µ�� 4' f. J 'I 1 • 7 �i. �I�y,�r � .}.. . � a�;. �t r, „ . . . . . ��r ': '�� '.} � 1 ��7�..1� i. ip�. / .pyy ��:i.j+? ' �' ��(�:I : �� ,� � `� �� 4e 4'l r .�tFr'� L �} � Y, �` " '�`+,�'�i ��'•'r�� F . �T� � �. } ��.� :�F i �"� . p� � ! L. r Y � � rF�t�•i� , .�a �.a�+ . � ..� i ' . . f " . � r r ; �F,' . 1 _ . ; : 4� r "Y y }''#� 1 � y . . . ti r . .�.�-. �� y :�;, �ErX•. �;^..:'_.' �� ' .+ '�{�s�.��,r , - ia } f' � � `x' i ��' ' T�.; A£, . •5 J , .' �r�* �� y.'`}r:f�t;�_ �. '�. : •� ,€i? r.•i a �,.�, .¢-{:�,s JT C0�o4�� , �4 � � •�� ,�I , � +. . :'�,� �y' �� - +Y<�" y , . . , �i � , � ��' ./� . F , . . . �1 � � 4 51}4' �''r��y. ' I '')` ." � . , .� x t � ' ,' `11�� . .'.,:'t��_ �i �F�,�_ �f' � ,.j �I ' � �r f ' � �. �. ,. �� x �• � � '�. -.� �. =,•�'��,€+'�i�. y�- ' .�.:. �. Legend �L ' f • S e Y'� Y? �'' i i� i,' Lr f�+ ti., .: ' A: ',�: ��`+ 1�,� '' f� • �_ •�.i . preferred Alternative s: �� ° �f' � }��t � i, `;:a .�. -'•�.� �` �StudyArea �F .' l `-� �'� � �� r�' ''� �' I � .F-. ' '� : e �' �. ' � �''_ „ �if. � x' ' -, l ,_.�:' , ' Proposed Track � �` �}4f�i':f��y y�.:, i V e,�' ;;.':: ' _p •� Existing Greenville Grain Siding � i �r ' . r��. �`�w � � f . — Proposed Ditch '`� r s '�f� �' ��. �� y�. �r . � , � '�� . '�'• Proposed 24-in RCP Culvert *.R.' �.r.'F,��i.'� . . r:�sM1�`,��}y�y�y4�s'�,;}i�ri •, i�k ''�/ � �-�• ProposedAccessRoad � J�Vy� �y;' ~�`I '.r�1�'`� � �' + �'�:, � �� Proposed Office Building r�l:f}• � �l. �� Y � � . . � L t 1 1 � ai�'�.i� '7��y'+ `��y . .� ��` � ' ,+ . �. +{:� •"'1'r� Proposed Parking Lot F ,' {"�' . �: ��^�'{ ��. ��" i ;y,`'' r..-�r1 :,,i�_�x � Existing Main Track ; y�s'� ,; , � �' +�!• ? Old Spur To Be Removed .r r' '4�•, . 5' � � f '�i . � Parcels .��' + ' ' r-'_ ' . �'4' �. � �,4 ,,y.y.. � '`� — US Highway �e � ;.. * F � �.1''1��'�' r•� { — NC Highway f � � � } — State Route , �l' �� `�Y. � K� ��' �� "_ti ��. ��1 ,t, . # r�-.•�, ;�'•.�:.rFy.�;a�'h —LocalRoads ,_ ; t v�,,�:� r .,r r .; GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING o ioo zoo � � / TIP P-3309AB �Fee' pREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Pitt County, NC RAILO/YIS/ON so��e NcooTCis,NCONeMaa 0 zoo9Naiaaa��im�ary _ FICjUI'@ 2-1d � r ? 6�� ` � a ��' � �'�£ '�� ` ", p � t : � " �r � � a; • ��'��v� ' r °,� ��ke =; �., �� x j ,„•Pr'. � �y b�`�r^ � x � " �� `4 "` _,,q� � s�€ � i ;Yrr✓ayy��Fa'�u * t�'S'� '�' s�� s. +t�� €^' �+`".� � , � � r � � � Ss �, r �t r � r �� i �^ �'a�� ' ,: � f Jq 4 �� r r � ��> �z� <�^<' �� SW� �� Z �.1, j �; i y $. �T �� << � �� r x�� x� � ��M � ; �.� � � z � � ��'�� j�� . w�.� F ;.. ,�� . � np a t�` i d^� er n� �� C/� R p F t � . � _ �r . � ,:� � � y.� .0 � '� f�� .�.�;� �� j d �'� /.*'�+"`� Y' ,i^ �' � [ � / � �r � « � C� *�� t � �� hi�,» 'f t .;'� 1 t i �� '`'� �, ar` i�� 2�yx��d�� . V� � � fir -: � � � ....� �� V - . � � � Q �� ,� ,,� �`��sStaton Ho t, ' ' d .;{� +a v d.Y � h� '�' � �4 1 ��'. r+ . r$Y�,'��..�� '�' -0 i� ��' 4 �� ^ `� . � � � ��S�t .. �*�� • . . 4 �; �f �y ,� �'e Y �i �Rltt,�it T I r� � � 1 �: � � �h�`x rt�� G�1 � �"�'°� t�� x �� ' k°a� :w.� i .v�m�,,��4t �� . � �� s�� . � s rr z �.. �. � � .'' . t . �� e � � '' z \ �� ?�t� � � �� `;7 ; ; �, ci �; �� a ' Q � � �� , � �,�,�,��'�� Breail�of Life Ministry � O� � �� r ��'� ;�`� � �., � r ��(, �:P..� k , q �� • � �`� 4�� . � . /r' : � � � � Q �� !��,�� +�� r � �� a; �. �+t% fl ��,�'+�'�,l � ,� .. � �'C � � �`'f, ro .� t�� §:. •� � . . k f F {�� t �� . �L�`�i . � . ,. ! f [. ,�' r � � . ,, . �, ,� � �:,f� _ �n�'�. f��,.:: � . . � � ��j�4� � ��=��. .� � ��H.�. .�.t � � 1,�=r�..�� . .. > . . i; 'f" , �� °� � ��' � � � � Rose Broth rs Paving Company � � � � I A k°X' '� y s. '�i'�' § a� �3 Y F ! � . i#�� '� - � �� z'�/�" '"�'z�s�,r �' E" s l�c '""` �'`°'a s� ; G ,�'E� �y5, :� ��"m . �� I_ k�n�F� ° ; . . .. � �� t: y ��' = Sf Marys`-Missionary Baptist Chu ch �y % %�.J � � �� , t�r�'`��'r ��r /' � 9�p f� `�.`i ``�;;�: p' j�s i� c i +` y�c�'w. � `, � �� ez ,; � s�� <s-, O t;r; ��s��.��t�� ' � � f � 7 `e � � �.3 � � i�� ` s � ," Itf�'^�+�, .. -^'�'�'� . , ' .-. i � t �'"' . l ". f r'Sr p c . '�° . „�� : a� t � � `� i .� . ,.. . . . � �.. � �� a �, � p � e z (�� u p f b� ➢''3 f �. , $ � 7i . � £ 3 fj i h�. �t'�j' � � l. � �� {� f�� Z %..� v � . �};ju'Sf�� • � n � � � � f .. Sn' �J�" } }� �* � xl.s . k � ' ��^'f�i�' n • � k � ' �' � � > � t � � � � z� � 903 , � ��<r � �� <� �°' �� . � �, �� ` u� , � y�� ' � � s. �" �_ � � Burrnng B, sh Holmess,Churc�, ��EYrRD Canaan BChurch EmpireRecyclin Services �a � ` • �� 'o �"�� ` , ��y,� .�,. ; ��, t � Carolm� sons Nursery �� o° : �`� �'� �� " � ��Way of�Truth'Temple Church � Best Chapel B Church � t ., � � � � � �� Q'� � - Greenv`ille�G�ain LLC �� S�P� g;�+He �Uies si�eel.Company L@ j@IICI �o�� ' `-�` Preferred Alternative Study Area Wellcome Middle chool �Fire Station Churches ��`�� °� � �� °'='" ` �� Notable Properties � � ;. ; ��,�� & a ` � Schools � � � " � � �''` �� {�� t �� asM Pnarma�eut�oais ino � Hazardous Materials Site z < ` �� ,� , �� - ' Parcels � � � � �� Railroad , � � ��,.., 264 ,� . , , ; ,. < v , — US Highway �'� t � � ` fs:., 4. _� �.. � �-� ` ��"° � . r�,�� m� � —NC Highway �. �� ,��.�` !' � '��, �� "�� —State Route , . u. � � , ; �,,.» � , � r;s -�� , �;. � �� .�..�, r.� , . _ , , � GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING ° ,,0°° 2,0°° � COMMUNITY RESOURCES � � TIP P-3309AB Feet Pitt County, NC 0 AND NOTABLE LAND USE Source: NCDOTGIS, NC ONEMAP _ R/IILDIYISION 2009NAIPAeriallmagery _ Figure 3'1 < E < r� RAIL O/Y1S/ON TIP P-3309AB Pitt County, NC o �so ,�soo � Feet Source �. NCDOT GIS, ESRI, NC ONEMAP, Piu Counryand Greemille Zoning Maps � � � Legend � Rural Agriculture � Commercial � Industrial Office / Institutional Residential Residential / Agricultural O Project Study Area 0 parcels � Railroad — US Highway — NC Highway State Route Local Roads GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING EXISTING ZONING IN PROJECT VICINITY Figure 3-2 � tf r ' \ � .' .. ;..;,.; F.-g � 3 "� � G } S . � , s�e� } � � � $��P OD�p ' - �� h :ki, ''� T�y..� ?i'i p<'} ~\ Qg j 36 } N ` 8 ` `�� ; �. j � �.tl � � � ri / �� S�'._ . � X ��re"` �;.��y.� � p � fu:: �� ., f a f , #' .. � , . �! k : r, ,� �* k *'R. � �.� � �� ' (frr � � S � q � '� � �� F�rv � jf` a �fi 'd " . � s.F�t`Y' <�� A��4�, , 3 �1' f:�� a�� . ,._ O '�� 1.�"�+.�: � � : Z ,�, � � ri `� �� ,� t�s a�f A�0 � �� ;'� � �'� � � :� � � ; '�� "` � � .�.,,�" ��Q „ �� 4 _% . � �. j� ,n r �¢�� %'dw �kF',.�4 2y*•4 F ^��' '°v f . . 3' ` h t r" g.. Q1 Pfi^ � Allp�ne.. £t�, r,;' �� r x�� r r� } �s ��?. � , %a � �. . t�e o- ,�: �a' . . m°' „� a� f� r �' � � � � .i��p�R� :- x �: : '� ` *t �ke '� � ti �'�� ` r�4 3''�s �, � t +' � h N� ��.a �„ �, , G� � �,�,''�' � � ,� �'� G r-o.�e +' � v � � � � . � ��'� .�,�,, Cj,USP G/) q ' , `,^' � " � �. k q Sr�. z�� ?�'" . i�' �," a� �t �� 4� � s �� ,� t s `i '.' � � ,�, �� k� � 5NJ x r�a � � �,"'". € 9,y k .- P a x"•`�' p � �f ��.�3 "t r � .�t.�. � , .. ,� . � , , t"' � ��'� r�,. �,s v . a, .r�"" . �aF�L " \\fi\\�� ' �. � �r i� � `�. �y„ ` .?i' Jq . ,�` �y�� ' � j l � � � �` � , � {i' ��s. Y� °yui �r,' '�t} .�.^ k R M 1 . � ��i � 'E � i��,�� . . ,� "�o,' S„.'*, x � ��1 i�kr �£-�"",N� A 1 tmk `+� . �� c., � �:� � � � „ - � �. � est arcC� a.�s . §, w�: k k'�� y 7 = '� {� y� ,:� � . . � �#f�� ,> �k � � � . .. F5"� A`s"�, 14. ��' ry`�� .. t � F� t r"' j ' !� h Y�i�"" r'. �„� � �, p.� ki, r�, ;� : 1 t � � f „ �� +�g�,"d . t.�o,..t � �.' : : :��j F „ f� ��.. � ; � � ;` ` '�� `� . 1 � ^ � w� � � �� , D�, � , �� =�° � ` �� s ,� �d��`�> �� sP� �� ,�� . o a F ek-;��" ,ri � �� !n� od `� � �� 033 �� e � �� `��r `„ „ � �� .�F ;�; �v�t e .�� ' . '"f% r;' � .��„ � . t s ' / �`.� ��F ��. ,� . s `: , r p � 1 �� . +�yj ','v � r � ��¢ � . { ., t 3 ; �� f{ �_ �"':�.��,r,z.�z �k ` ` �� f'/ f1 � '� r F�"52 �.+i � `� r.' � � �r�i�� ;a .� � �;�� f� �+�1 � r h" n�, �.;��2: fi��;.�J i ,�.av t' r, ` � a� �dF 1�.�t; 4�", . P� ' �, /a � � ls p a�� :s ,� � � �, { � �� 2�� t:4 � �r��i�1�. r� . �r > �� ' . , . `�,'��r . .�-.� r.�.. . � .� ,IT," ,�, �, � c'�. _ �� . �`. �{l,'��t� � �z,\ �`:� r�' � :, r�c,' I .-s �;�,t; pf`�`C r � p�. ,�t.. _'� r�,.'�`'��t1��s�� "�"c � ��a ♦ � � � �r; � � �� w , � r� `i �� f� $� � � �`�lr.�� D�x,�r�,` �a s �. ,� ..:.��'�'.�� 'v� l'z: ��'�� J�. r t� I � ' s �i"� � �� `�� 7i� �e ��,�z�€�� _ y , ��„�� '�.� �`'s - � s a,' 't ^ � r; ��f� �,�e ��",��c'°�-`t� ! ' f : _ O' � � t� � f� €�'�, a ��a% , �;e � �,. e✓ �,� �� p, r.. . � � � *¢ � �,. � f � r � �� xt t�, r �, aP �� 4a�P ` �,; ��tz�" �"�< �k x � �� ` ;i � � � �` ,. � , � ��- �. ��*� ��h t n � y 0 � �x�.' � � '� ��„� �: �,�1 , "� �� ' ,� � '� � � �va � �. � � ' �� 9, �,y` A`��'z'� �+UFr. y'�i'''� � � � .�� ' ., 'a i�`'��,� �,. `r iC� � }€ � , �r "�` � � ,�/ - . '�"., ¢ �, : �4 y � � , / v; � b� �5 . � W' 7 � f C , +`�i� , - ,ltk .�"� � �s j �ts'�.,'� 5 nM - �� p `� �y� � �. ':f �$ � '� � •� � .� �� . � . S .. . . � � . . p. ��"� "` . � . . , �, � � � � „ , ' L i}�� '�� ' -�X ;, � � ��c � . . @' { �` , r; >� ° ��" ,��` �i903 Legend $' � � ,� �F � - �' �� i� � � �` 2000 Census Blocks � 2� �r� � �iy� � . r ° o� �`4.k,�; ,�`�* �� Preferred Alternative f � "'a� � " ��.,�"`i' ��a'' d �� Y��. �.�. � � Study Area ; � �- �t "�°'p � s +r+� �o�.e� - i � �"�tI"� � Existing Track / � � � . �� — US Highway �:. _ � * ��, � ` � °��` — NC Highway � t � ` �, � � � � �< �'�`�� ,� - � � � � � — State Route '�'� � � �` � � � � — Local Road •� . ��-� � , � A� GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING � ,,�� 2,�� * DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY AREA � � TIP P-3309AB Feet Pitt County, NC Source: NCDOTGIS, ESRI, NC ONEMAP, 0 R/IILDIYISION USCensus � Figure 3-3 < E E < yy ys r� RAIL O/Y1S/ON TIP P-3309AB Pitt County, NC 40o aoo � Feet Source �. NCDOT GIS, ESRI, NC ONEMAP, Soil Data Mart � � Legend Preferred Alternative � Study Area Prime Farmland Statewide Farmland Unique Farmland Prime if Drained Non-Farmland � Existing Railroad — US Highway — NC Highway State Route Local Roads Parcels GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING FARMLAND SOILS IN PROJECT VICINITY Figure 3-4 � a� • � �}m� � / _� � _ e yy °P ys � �°� � \A . ��/ J �6 � , N a O �� 1 �—D �O 1 • N QKW • , es-Rd � � , ��" � e . Q � � � /\ _m 'c� � �� s�au� j ,� 5 �Sracl �"`" �m� Legend �� '��— �a �� Preferred Alternative � �aR1�rR ind eeriai•�,u1— �,o o � StudyArea q� G�� @e� o�M1 N� FEMA 100 Year Floodplain tl ae� Ry o�r �0s �n Critical Watershed Area Ip 0 ��sga ��' �9� Protected Watershed Area y3 — Major Hydrology ��0 y o — Minor Hydrology � °' �_ � 6cisting Track u" � � umtorqqd 33 m — US Highway ��Tts�` � � � ^�—Q — NC Highway � , '� Ma State Route , v Local Road GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING o z,wo s,000 � I TIP P-ssosAe �Fee1 '�' FLOODPLAINS AND Pitt County, NC 0 WATER RESOURCES Source �. NCDOT GIS, ESRI, NC ONEMAP, RAILO/d1SlON "��i0aro1oaF1oodp1aioMa"°�°9P��9�a"' � Figure3-5 < E < �� yy 13 � � ►� Legend Preferred Alternative � Study Area AgB - Alaga loamy sand, 0-6% slope Bd - Bladen fine sandy loam By - Byars loam Co - Coxville fine sandy loam CrA - Craven fine sandy loam, 0-1 % slope ExA- Exum fine sandy loam, 0-1%slope Le - Leaf silt loam i LoA - Lenoir loam, 0-1 % slope Ly - Lynchburg fine sandy loam OcB - Ocilla loamy fine sand, 0-4% slope W - Water WaB - Wagram loamy sand, 0-6% slope - Existing Railroad — US Highway — NC Highway State Route Local Roads Parcels r � 0 40o aoo � TIP P-3309AB �Feet PittCounty,NC so��a�.NCOOT�is,esRi,NCONeMaa, 0 R�� Soll Data Mart � GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING SOILS IN PROJECT VICINITY Figure 3-6 S " � � �, k'�5, �� Fa"��' �,�, ��k'" �� i' � � ° r �i ,, v ��; � rt w ' ��✓ tr" z � "!� � rb � � �s". �z ' �; � � �"� �'�^._ F.e � "r` _ <, �� " � .v:, . . . . � . . , , d: � � � �� T�� 4m � .. . . � � � . . . io! ��iehara .%: ing Rd °a ;�„� � s�, �0' � � �� ,� � e`� � ��,g.�� . � . � � � �`` � ��A�- . �i � � * . f . � � . } � � 1 Sr.�' N� . . � i.�� t ..:� .s� a �SZ r`` �x y,� �'. w.,4 ,. ,� <. 5�,a : � �� t ,� � � ` � � �. '� '�`"�x�r "�s � � � � ,� ` ' � �� v �, � r rt£ , " 1 �( �� c �`�', °�•i{"��?�k,�q �' � `$ 1 �, �� a � ��,r�� :S; S4 �, ° , t t% r r'' � � �k.^�� a' l rn �s "' � 3•�t3�'� �'� �T •� ,�'T�" S60 tt C� '��+' � «� 1� � � � .._ ��5 Rx {�d�§ `� a n�r �'y ��' �r'�ast ��•�it"" � �.� � �"x. � r d*7' �, �" � b a �' ''� �.�f ,aa � ��.��"f, n tw� ,, ��^+ ' � �`, � ��.`��fir` ��'�`✓'��",��h�`! �� {�°� �Y'�` ti'"ti��u�3�-��l�'�P��¢�" A'� �...� X . � c .a?; ! � ��y'��'��d��+i.4��c��°s.�3�x c ��../}��y�r �F� L. #${-M �" y�� fd'':S b"��)^ i {2 4,y� Y � }. >, . , �}l '� h �5 •j�,�i��. � ,y��'h,P �{II hti��i �� y �f �� IF :F,�' i ��° f=`«��^F'�yU��' ^'t� �r�r��'� ,� � � � � �'��'�+'$ �� "��a�� `��A �� : �� F,' � . �� .� £��,� . .,��. � �.; (. � � f �� i ,' �� h . �q� �? � � ,y..��4��'i`�� r #( ,�t 'E u f�f � k . ��'. . ��"� : '�R `5k :L 4 11�Ch �� _ � }o � ,� z�x ,� �,� �� fr �k ,, kj�� { �' _ �`.'�. ' E`� � � fi£ f�k 7 �f;�j T 13 � � � � �'�"� k '� ��f` �,p��`.�"�� `: ,�i; � "s �� e��i�� f'a��x��r�,;�1€1.�: . r �' ��" ` ��tf. ;.�� ... r t<R �� '� � ��" � e � �;.� Z :: � � .� �P.,� �'`��'�� ;�� i��n��#a}�``#�y��'�� .� `' { � :�. 2 " �' �,.*� �� t�° ; � '�3 � '� # � F �� x'� � ,�+ - �. ,s P : � t,t' g� A. r �' ,U '1 [[ 2 �� G`� R �'� �}�. ! � � � �f.:� ��i� ��. � � � �� ,F� � �`��. � ��' �k4� irl � i,� .i� y, ) �,+� k�;y � 4 � � � � �� `Sg �'"F� f �4 �h} �' Z ��. . � . �"' �i � W�� 3�{,�piv2��`i � 1K,,, ��}��T`''�€��'i.�`�`'� �i^'f "'!,� }��',�y,y�� r,:��°�. "�; , f �" ' -� �� '��G'-f' 3 ./��3 ��.f! k f�ej"� p, y ,'t { A�e"�+'A �' 4 5 £ � N" , ° f ,7 ��'��.{ra1��1��'i .�,,'`�xFCv � q �. �ei' i -xk �� r�$ ��}z �� s �'y��SB� s . { x r,�F � .. � . " i ':: "' ;": `�ysYs''�'�zf `s�Y � �� ,�'�� i4r�`�yxi�3 �' nek:,,�' r fi � � fi .� (iy�'Src�`� � A � •� § � '�4FpU a'y�u� ��'�b. ��, � � �' �' � t .. q �,��} ��1'?.� t"� t ,�1 �,^yki"fi�' � �4 y td�i �' � �d 1 z *� s"4� � t ^r�4 � ',� fi €. , .�'G � � J x 4 �s :�j��„"�4�5� �,�� s + ; E t �'�'�%'t� �t�v� �tf s �r ��y?�n, Fi, tap ds ��',�'t t L��43 xt��,� , -� �� :- $ b t` �� y �. 3x 6 x { � � k `^k h : �� 1 c �` . � � .: 7 �"� q � �, F . (. �p y �b� �+, . 1y ,g � . .i'�T'� `+y F �. j§Fxr �)i: tv � � '3 Y & � 4? � ay 'S t� I , h n` H�y ��f-.�•L �id / t p . . ' � an��vu� �'.(� �A� �� 2' � v � .%k � & { x'l�i� fi55'`fi �` y�k� ��f� J.�S+�i�� ,�f�t�''�,'Y FF .} �r�fwy, �" c �k•: § X ,�rr f � e, � � y rh U � ��t . � . � , � �� -. �" t�*��, ��, . � 9� � � � fii r, ��°��" y� rz R `� e .,,� ,`, ,` z-�k4�-� r�o��c,rtt i�`" � �`'i,' . `��S t� ti '�# } �' � �' �' � �' w�s�` cs .. � �k' ��r�.,i� �, e�i � � � � ;� �(`�'�Y # ',`.. ��y .� '�y 4r�� r�� pY✓ �,:� � ' ��5� �� 5 � ', /p�'' y7,� }� � ! �� ; s ��"�v +.,x^`I�. � �� 15'� �of�{ ;'q tY �', �' �a� �� . .. �� . +� i, � k. 3 � . ��'t �� t �� 3�� - � � i` � � �;�£��,�� . � �� `"' , ""� �;�� `�h��"� �� F�v.,,, � �, '= 903 '��/ � 4��-e . � , r �� 3 ��.` g �l R^"A' � ! �� ::� ��.\ Yf k I <' Ql : ,l � . . �+ i'�`?rk�71-�{'i(''. 'f �� ,,� , C. ' fi,., . ('J� �..�� akn��'�� s. , .�. z ¢,_: � � � a � � � �� -s„ � � , , �.. � � �� y� : � '° ��x ,� ,. Legend Y ,�s� , � '�' , T , �.' i� ; � F � �a �� .�S _ a � ° ,�� ' - Preferred Alternative � � ��, �' x� � � - ��., ° �� ..,-�� ;�� ` m � � � �� Study Area , � `� `�� ` � �� Maintained/Disturbed .. , � � . .0 , ;r ` r� ee � � �� ' a��r`�:��'` °," Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest = eriie �,r`D `; � � � Pine Plantation k�9 0° � � �`� � a �t � � 1 �. � : — US Highway �� `� — NC Highway ' �' � �� >�� — State Route v , ; , �� ,� ,, � � „ „�`` �,,„;� — Local Roads �' „�� GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING �� TIP P-3309AB � 500 ''�Feet * PLANT COMMUNITIES Pitt County, NC 0 IN PROJECT STUDY AREA R/IILDIYISION Source:NCDOTGIS,NCONEMAP � Figure 3-7 2009NAIPAeriallmagery � �� - / � \ � � � �, � , � � . . � T.V�. 1 (� � .,+z !�. �'„_e_ . . � .. ' a . . i �� r � �.� ��^�i. � �, l�� . Q . � �., S k+��yk.�,F �' � � �; •'p �4 � � , � • � - � � a- C � y, ' €�' �!i � �1, � ,��e� Y f; P 3! $ �{ �� ,Y° 2 ' .{_ � � ' r ,� . 2` "�g '4^ � t9" �� , t � �.%FYz�f�f r'�� t"r{ � f � t �` ��5�� .. I��t ��n. �<Y� �' , �qk . , . f �}� ��' t'� 3N;'��} �''.�f:i� �,�.•a�t£ 4 .�. �i+c� �. . e _ �' �' . s r :;,g, . / .: . . t� ti >, r_� 1'��. y i .;c !u h �. Y i .. r !y` a,✓�'+ �, � f � et �_ y c + � � �,f.ti.fr�,l �� ,3-�'� �#t r f� ° E v`: R+ r rxf . � d ? s � � ;� . . . . . r ��t�`�+r�i�'��'t'�e� '��.�Z�m�� ;,i� "� � �� F -� � « �raY�� a�F : � i��;� �� r �: c "y�z ��" �a � �.. � r �� '_ `��+� f � r�'�k��'��p t�k ��"��' � ` �' . �' ra �`� {,� y�f rf :,�, '.. . .. � ,a � < .r4 '� y. r ��i � ��..' 1� ri i �� .i*" � 'f d -� t � ,�"� � .`k br�"F�,'��'�` '4 � f !� s 3 ..y r §", °.'�i,� � Ji' .f r tr�! s ¢+v y k S ,�, b.. j r y � ��'a � "� s� � � .��,'� � 1-` � �r i c�� i ��.� r �� „�. ,�� _ ��i� € ,..�e� k�.�`.�f,�# �'�j��a�S�f� � �', Gr'�m,�� . f � � �� ; C�ry� 1 k� �t'� �,v� l.i� d{� k k `iza r,��.� I" ; l y i . � �5�,� i=�f�'E'��F'',h °`- y2-� �.fi,• y9,`Y�' .� fF w ��; .. � . �' k - e a y �' i� ), �r� 3� �x � 4,aFP�� - 2 � 3._ '�t+< � -: _ � ; ' l j ' t o '.;f ; §��` � t ,1l � � rs°t *�' �' d �4T� �7 x �. , y .t ss��'x+. yrf £ �` �:;� $ 1� °E c C �. � t' � a .�, f ,�+ �tfi i - a � � 7 �� Yr ��, rt'� � � �.�'��'�� °�3 � ��': r ' ��5 e.7* �' �i��..+� �� a�'.�'` �q �'�r�`�`�� r�` t � � � i� r��+�- �L��',� ��',.� ,��'gd�J1� `�'�-h9 •;� +�;� ¢�+�,�"F � f't��` y��;y�+y � e� a�� p � ` i � '°�� ,,, � k J�'�r � �k �`' _;�` E ��y�s'��'S�^'tt�'�1��ku3 x: ,;! �ryl�� ' f '7.. �� , � e -� .� � � � �'� -t�« f � y'1�'7f+� ,� _ _,.. - cE rt r'�� , - _ -i F < �' � � � - 4 ., ,. ' � t �t .,:,� r F - � �`� F� � t� }�, s. �a� �t�d�.d`r�. . � � :: o- �� '.. r 4 �� ,� �� `� � t t . - . x�4' y-'t`� � '�� s` �� ,"k � r�� e'��,�€`� ��s?'�` �. � ` �,.� �, � �,,. ,�-x. . � � � t_�f°�� y' �� ': t �° � ^ , `w � ; �r �: i << .� � � �� Z r � � � ,� � r �' �a�� r�i�k",�a4 .P � t'`� ��ck"� � � ` �{"�'��'�"� � ` �;,, C7 - oF�' � ..i� � %� �.� ��re�?� �si5��, h'�'�. s .� � � 1� �� rt� � '� �^ � � A f, < ,S: e �c �: F��tl��`.�yt� ��ygj Z � �'.y�l yR r x �'^�i� aY�Ai^ 5�. � C ��,„yu�* �"'a� u� � ��j' t r't �i� � " i w'= " sr '.,�� i., -: � K;C i�.� ,�/��5��' �' f�. x� �` � f lr+�� y �irh�+" t'�� :�;�� '�' .�' � �,wt � �h +c a: � �`�g.� : � . �r�S K' rrFkY�a�;� %'r �u�,� f � � � �...��r` +-Z ¢�f. .�^ � rr�=��*��`�r" .� s , +� ti � �� 1�+�:r �,�-4 � s�� ` .'��¢s��,i�� , x �nk �-k � ��T�Y� � ��" . �y � F� ? 2'�} -t . W �' j� � y. g�' ,` i � "« ,� f n x� 1 «+Fi��'4 �� ,11'Y�� 1 " �l � fr .1' T� y .. .. ` � ?- �"k 4` N,4.�.kK�,� 9°Y �� r�� P, 9 5" S�.w� ; :, � � � � : r �,! j .Ir � t � �r. � �t � � ��'� �i i� a � .1 �� `'r��'�,�a �" � ,� �� <'�.u+ �� r`�;� i�� e�n�'� � v �-�. r� � `, � ., �' ,` ,; �S � ��, �� y � �ti. � 4 ��! �. � . f � ,� � �` � �, �, , fi � - z . �� ` �� -i, t e r bl� S;ui n.. �� i t �;� ��`� �� -, '� , n � �� t ��. , �` � � �, y� ,: . �e�^ '� � '� � ' e�+,� � �A r"� . i ;' � � fi i y�' �''rS',�v � �� '� �� a� C� , , �'�� ` r;��;e+� �' i 5;.�,. '�`,�y ^ `° v �' i��i � +a!�§y�. � f � k � �" �`, � �� sy �� vv'� �4� . � � ��. �"`4.�,, �y' � ;� �*r � r ;�'t { , s� ` � r� , �� '� �� rc� �� k�+r, �, � � � �� `', ,Z'i��x r f �,: � - � . . �, �''; � . �- '�1&� . . _ . {�" , � � ��,,.� ti �r �^y� -�',�� r,�, ,� �, ; � ,� � ,a' � F � �� kF ?r: � � Y.� s.� , vro`r`�" �� g,, ti.,¢r�,�. �. � 7� � F � . f�j A +�p t ,,�$ �, \ / 3 `` � � `a �, r`'. Y+4t�� r h�" �� ,�„ �� . _ � .��'�<.'.. _ .� . •"� '�+��r } �a � ',f�� a �"'. i ,' F ° � � �e �t ; f�^ �� x � � 1 . , �� , � � � � fi �� "', �. �� .�� Legend g$; � � f s � � � ,.f' � � � �. 13 � �� '��'�� `$, . �� Preferred Alternative � . a� ��r� � �� , � � , >� � �` ° $. 0 Study Area �`�' �� .' � ` - ��" r � � �� ;,��' ��" ,.. � ��y� o` ��'-�'��, ' �: �� Open Water o r � zj�,� . �� ,� -�, � , ` � - ''� �' �'�`�� '��'�"� ;,� � � 903 Wetlands ,�, �'s" ° � �" � "',�a��r" a�'� ��, . � - � , ' 1� t � � ��} 2�� .g�ry�.r°. �'�a: � � � � �.�' �. n �, f � U.S HIgi1W�1�/ 25 �F - r��,�� , � � �. � �� ; � � — NC Highway � �� ` � � �� — State Route , <, � ,��t�;� �� ^ � ,�.� � � ��,� � �x — Local Roads s � .��, ct:.��' °� �s.t z � � ��; 4 `�`"-��. GREENVILLE NORTHERN RAIL SIDING ° 400 80° � JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS � � TIP P-3309AB Feet Pitt County, NC 0 AND STREAMS Source: NCDOTGIS, NC ONEMAP, _ R/IILDIYISION 2009NAIPAeriallmagery _ Figure 3'� APPENDICES APPENDIX A CREATE NOISE MODEL SPREADSHEETS � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment APPENDICES � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment Es-MOOreRtl Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed for CM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 114 M oore Rtl- Restlence- Eb4ing Nolse Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 mureroiesei�ocomoove 2 murerRaii cas a ivar a , srzei v�meei s ,R�eee�nre e � 8 3M1t Locomo0ve 8 3M1t Cars 10 er Cars (empryJ 11 �erCars(ful1J 12 13 moblles 14 Buses 15 mutzrBUSes 18 YaN orSM1Op P erTadcs 18 SY�ageYaN 18 Op.Faoliry 20 Tanst Centzr 21 ino Gaaoe 22 Assume exi4ing train volume of 4 trains per tlay, 3 tlunng tlay0me antl 1 at nigM1[ Page1 FuEMOOreRtl Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed for CM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 114 M oore Rtl- Resitlence- FuW re Noise Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 ,ureroiesei �ocomoove ,�re�Rao cas Rr srzei v�meei R�eeernre Locomo0ve Qrs Cars [empryJ Cars Qvl1J Buses mutzrBUSes YaN orSM1Op erTads SY�ageYaN Op Faoliry Tanst Centzr 2 a a s s � 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ifi P 18 19 20 21 22 Assume fuW re traln volume of 5 tains per tlay, 4 tlunng tlaylime antl 1 at nigM1t. Assume mwre au yam wowa nave a�ains per aay aunng me aayome ana i o-ain a� nign� Page 2 Es-SbmnResl Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed forCM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 1881 S[at�n MIII Rtl NEResitlence-ESNOise Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 mureroiesei�ocomoove 2 murerRaii cas a ivar a , srzei v�meei s ,R�eee�nre e � 8 3M1t Locomo0ve 8 3M1t Cars 10 er Cars (empryJ 11 �erCars(ful1J 12 13 moblles 14 Buses 15 mutzrBUSes 18 YaN orSM1Op P erTadcs 18 SY�ageYaN 18 Op.Faoliry 20 Tanst Centzr 21 ino Gaaoe 22 Assume exi4ing train volume of 4 trains per tlay, 3 tlunng tlay0me antl 1 at nigM1[ 2008 Eb4ing Taffic Volume on S[at�n MIII Rtl Is 1,800 vpd Assume 80 pement tlunng tlay0me M1ours antl 10 percent nigM1ttime M1ours Page 3 FutS[at�nRes1 Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed forCM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 1881 S[at�n MIII Rtl NEResitlence-FUtNOise Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 ,ureroiesei �ocomoove ,�re�Rao cas Rr srzei v�meei R�eeernre Locomo0ve Qrs Cars [empryJ Cars Qvl1J Buses mutzrBUSes YaN orSM1Op erTads SY�ageYaN Op Faoliry Tanst Centzr 2 a a s s � 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ifi P 18 19 20 21 22 2008Eb4ingTafficVOlumeonS[at�nMIIIRtlIS1,800vpd AssumetraffictloubleslnfuWre. As�.,me eo pe2en� aunng aayome nous ana i o pe�n� nignmme nous As�.,me mwre o-a�� owme or s�ams per aay, a a�n�e aavome a�a i a� men�. Assume mwre au yam wowa nave a�ains per aay aunne me aayome ana i o-ain a� nien� Page4 Es-Sbt�nRe52 Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed for CM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 181 ] Sbt�n MIII Rtl NW Resitlence- Es Noise Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 mureroiesei�ocomoove 2 murerRaii cas a ivar a , srzei v�meei s ,R�eee�nre e � 8 3M1t Locomo0ve 8 3M1t Cars 10 er Cars (empryJ 11 �erCars(ful1J 12 13 moblles 14 Buses 15 mutzrBUSes 18 YaN orSM1Op P erTadcs 18 SY�ageYaN 18 Op.Faoliry 20 Tanst Centzr 21 ino Gaaoe 22 Assume exi4ing train volume of 4 trains per tlay, 3 tlunng tlay0me antl 1 at nigM1[ 2008 Eb4ing Taffic Volume on S[at�n MIII Rtl Is 1,800 vpd Assume 80 pement tlunng tlay0me M1ours antl 10 percent nigM1ttime M1ours Page 5 Fu�bmnR�2 Noize Model Bazed on Federal Tranzi[ Hdminz[ra[ion General Tranzi[ Noize Hzzezzmenl Developed forCM1icago Crea[e Project CopyrigM1[2006, HMMH Inc. Caze: 181 ] Sbt�n MIII Rtl NW Resitlence-FUtNOise Enfer noise receiver lantl use cafegory 6elow. LHND USE CHTEGORY Noise receiverlantl use �tzgory (1, 2 or3) 2 ,ureroiesei �ocomoove ,�re�Rao cas Rr srzei v�meei R�eeernre Locomo0ve Qrs Cars [empryJ Cars Qvl1J Buses mutzrBUSes YaN orSM1Op erTads SY�ageYaN Op Faoliry Tanst Centzr 2 a a s s � 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ifi P 18 19 20 21 22 2008Eb4ingTafficVOlumeonS[at�nMIIIRtlIS1,800vpd AssumetraffictloubleslnfuWre. As�.,me eo pe2en� aunng aayome nous ana i o pe�n� nignmme nous As�.,me mwre o-a�� owme or s�ams per aay, a a�n�e aavome a�a i a� men�. Assume mwre au yam wowa nave a�ains per aay aunne me aayome ana i o-ain a� nien� Page 8 APPENDICES APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL REPORT � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment APPENDICES � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment yd�M $��E �� N b,� � - � �� s��" �� •� puM vd� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'I�NT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GovERNOR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: TIP NO: WBS: COITNT'Y: DESCRIPTION SUBJECT: October 27, 2008 Elizabeth Scherrer Senior Scientist EcoScience: a Division of PBS&J 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 �r�,�� s ?�f ,�—�«��1��.�+ d�' � Njoroge W. Wainaina, P.E. State Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineering Unit P-3309AB 41911 Pitt Greenville Rail Yard Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY The Geotechnical Engineering Unit has performed a limited assessment of the above referenced project to assist in developing the scope of work necessary to provide early identification of geoenvironmental and geotechnical issues that could impact the project's planning, design, or con struction. GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION Purpose This section presents the results of a geoenvironmental impact evaluation conducted along the above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify properties within the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if acquired by the Department. Geoenvironmental impacts may include, but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites. MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOiECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT � �JHJ MAIL SERVICE CENTER Ra�Ei�H NC 27699-1589 TELEPHONE: 919-Z5O-4OHH FAX: 919-250-4237 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US LOCATION: CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX ENTRANCE B-2 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE RALEIGH NC WBS 41911 T.I.P#: P-3309AB Page 2 of 3 Techniques/Methodolo�ies The Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted to identify known sites of concern in relation to the project corridor. A search of appropriate environmental agencies' databases was performed to assist in evaluating sites identified during this survey. Findin�s Under�round Storage Tank (UST) Facilities Based on our study, no sites presently, or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified within the project limits. Hazardous Waste Sites No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits. Landfills No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. Other GeoEnvironmental Concerns No other geoenvironmental concerns were identified within the project limits. Anticipated Impacts The Geotechnical Engineering Unit observed no contaminated properties during regulatory agencies' records search. The Geotechnical Engineering Unit should be notified immediately if any sites are discovered so that their potential impact(s) may be assessed. If there are questions regarding the geoenvironmental issues, please contact Terry W. Fox, LG, at 919-250-4088. GEOTECHNICAL IMPACT EVALUATION Techniques/Methodolo�ies A limited subsurface investigation was completed for this PDEA study. Hand auger holes were done at the proposed location for the future yard tracks. The site is located about 2000 feet east of NC 11 and runs parallel with it. The project study is approximately 500 feet south of the Station Mill Road Railroad crossing and 2000 feet north of the NC 903 Railroad crossing. Subsurface conditions have been evaluated to determine the most geotechnically favorable desi gn. I-.. . - � - � - . _ .. .-..�-�„r��-rt�-��- -- - ' ' , �_��i"�C�j�� - . . _ .. � WBS 41911 T.I.P#: P-3309AB Page 3 of 3 Findin�s This project lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Undivided Coastal Plain sediments were encountered in the study area and consist of 4.5 to 6.0 feet of clay underlain by silty sand and sandy silt. Topography in the study area is relatively flat. Ground elevation is 12+/- feet above mean sea level. Ground water elevations were found to lie between 3+/- to 5+/- feet below natural ground elevation. Anticipated Impacts/Recommendations Based on previous experience with the adjoining projects in this area, 3:1 (H:V) or flatter roadway side slopes are needed to establish vegetation and assist in erosion control. For Geotechnical Engineering questions please contact Jarett Swartley at (252) 355-9054. cc: Art McMillan, PE, State Highway Design Engineer Jay Bennett, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer Greg Perfetti, PE, State Bridge Engineer D.R. Henderson, PE, State Hydraulics Engineer Charles W. Brown, PE, PLS, State Location & Surveys Engineer APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Scoping Letter sent by NCDOT Federal Agencies • US Dept of the Interior - US Fish and Wildlife Service State Agencies • NC Dept of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office • NCDENR Division of Water Quality • NCDENR Wildlife Resources Commission Local Agencies • City of Greenville - City Manager's Office • City of Greenville - Community Development Dept APPENDICES 04/14/08 07/22/08 08/O1/08 07/29/08 08/O1/08 08/13/08 07/21/08 � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment APPENDICES � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment April 14, 2008 Mr. William Wescott Washington Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 1000 Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000 Re: Greenville Northern Rail Siding, TIP no. P-3309AB, Greenville, Pitt County DearMr. Wescott, The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning the addition of two yard tracks and a repair track along approximately 4,400 feet of North Carolina Railroad / CSX Transportation (NCRR / CSXT) rail bed. A CSXT office building would also possibly be relocated from l Oth street in downtown Greenville to the project site. The proposed improvements will begin approximately 2,150 feet north of the NC 903 / NC 11 juncture, just north of Greenville, N.C, and will extend from approximately Milepost AA 144.8 to AA 143.9, approximately 600 feet south of the Staton Mill Road crossing (see Figures 1 and 2). Tl�e projecY study area (PSA) has been defined by NCDOT as an area approximately 330 feet in width and 4,780 feet long, comprising approximately 36.2 acres surrounding the proposed proj ect. The purpose of the project is to relocate the existing CSXT switching operation and improve the movement of freight through downtown Greenville. The project will improve the safety for motorists and train crews by reducing prolonged waiting periods and eliminating difficulC maneuvering conditions between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. CSXT breaks trains down and rebuilds them on sidings (one east and one west of the mainline track) between Arlington Boulevard and Howell Street. Switching operations often occur at peak travel times. Tbis often blocks the at-grade crossings at Fourteenth Street (SR 1703), Howell Street, Arlington Boulevard, and Pitt Street (SR 1531). The proposed site was chosen due to limited development in the area, availability of needed utilities, and the spacing between NC 903 and Staton Mill Road. Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projecY. It is desirable that you respond by June I5, 2008, so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a Federally- funded Categorical Exclusion in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The following describes the general features of the study area, as well as anticipaCed impacts. Existing Land Use The proposed project is located beyond the city limits of Greenville, but partially witbin the ETJ limits. Land use consists of woodlands, silviculture, and industry (Figure 3). Parcels that extend into the PSA are zoned RR and GI by Pitt County regulations, with the more southerly parcels under City of Greenville Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) regulations and CG zoning. The proposed switching yard will be located between two crossings approximately 1.4 miles (7,400 feet) apart. The NC 903 crossing is located at Milepost AA 145.2 and is equipped with gates, bells, and flashing lights. US Highway 13 / NC 11 parallels the rail bed south of its intersection with NC 903, just west of the railroad crossing at NC 903. US Highway 13 / NC 11 then veers to the west and continues in a northwest/southeast direction. To the north, a crossing at Staton Mill Road (SR 1514) is located approximately at Milepost AA 143.8, approximately 600 feet north of the proposed improvements. Water Resources The PSA is located approximately 4 miles north of the Tar River, with the closest named stream being Grindle Creek approximately 0.8 mile north (Figure 2). Field surveys within the PSA were completed in March 2008. The PSA was walked and visually inspected for significant environmental features. Jurisdictional area boundaries were delineated and are pending verification. Bxtensive wetlands were identified on the site, comprising most of the project study area outside of Che railroad bed fill. Threatened and Endangered Species As of January 31, 2008, three federally protected species are listed for Pitt County (Table 1). Table 1: Federally Protected Species listed for Pitt County No habitat for any of these species exists in or near the project study area. Cultural Resources A preliminary searcli of the North Carolina StaYe Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) files did not identify any significant archeological or historic places within the PSA. SHPO will make the final determination if the project will affect any properties that may be eligible for the National Register. Thank you for assisting us in tl�is study. If further information regarding the proposed action or tl�e environmental analysis process is required, please contact me by phone at (919) 828-3433 or by email at Scherrer@EcoscienceNC.com. Sincerely, Elizabeth Scherrer Senior Scientist EcoScience: a Division of PBS&J Attachments cc: Marc Hamel, NCDOT Rail Division _ _ � �- . �i` c c .r : �:.. . _ _ 2 � � / . 1 � C "– gry t0.. RC� �� . ' W— .��v —E .,�� .�.n��0^� ��°.�� uht��'� y.� �� .. ,��/� � _ .. _ �:'�+��i� . / ..' S :- . . � _;� �/ �� yyyppy�� . up4tiQ ` \ .':O 46� � P' / S \ � �� `ol� �-�� $� � �' � . ✓ � . � � � ' j � o . I ��` O^l ' � �� _ 1 " _� y :4 � -� �� .S� _ a i � �+ { . ,�, .. � i, f � ��`� i r . ( � � � \ L. � �. , 1 ia _� / .. \ . q \,.'�.. r / { / � 3 i i�. . L��a - � /i-' .�C ` ( �U�(�j'+' _ 1u'`l tF''Fif4ry-'... ��1a �` �- . �.... : �� \ . \�'-�1� / -1 `'g` �+t _.. - ��'�c'� 'a Y> __ i .� R ,�4) �e dPyT Sm , t �� . "�J ry£iSLV - \\ BI Y� i . _e� �� '��',� �� . I C oA�s- ��r � . . ( I��nJ ' .. � � �_ ' ' µ � ,� E � . 4 � .�. ° � � 6+�£-�� 1� �,�� . ��\ � / �r� �.. �5 � .. . cyRry /� "C+ > � � w�.,n,,a:� - . �`. i � � . SITE � �_�'i�...__ r . ` �'$ �,;; �a•.- LOCATION . , �.�,_ _;— � `, �� . . =g =laY . � . X � -� � 1'y �s'� - � �_ _ . / i . . . - . --� _ . .� ... / ,`, � /� �\,\ � e. . a6%'� 3s ' _� �.�� . - � �`� � � �� - _ � _ ,, __ ; �- _ ,-� � :� r�,, rt.�_ � �� , . �.� �- � �z� 4 ` °i - . .. �� ar� .. . i cs1�;., _ �." :�� C+irdle_ : ., _-. . p� . �� °�" � � ��" `�__ . - � r i— � �� —� �-.e - c� F'�' //� s w o �� ' . . � - \�v��7� �°'�[e �L�,� �� aa�sth � a- �y-�� '" � +'� . .. . . - !. I � i C v iiUt x i \ F . a [ s9� • ` � . �F ' 3 � y - � 2E4 ��.;v4�s .�j �� 5 � �.i2 sL--• � -- ' - _.¥ `` .. ,.:..,_ • � � =I � . x �\ 4 FP � � �11e � � . , �•,,s xnw . -c i *' � _ ` . S � S, nnp�_ .. 2fi4 �'J _ � D onx � x -� su��,F � -�. � `� >�-"-> " - �__i,- -�-°--�-�-:� � . r , �':' - -- z ��_ r .; �;14 -i . --,..._._. �: . � r l , ._ ' .�GC2C�3VIIIe - � ` i�� '�.3 -� � �_ '- ..._ .. - , ��'� - _ � ¢^ _�C, : . ,� i.._�. ' . ��-i., " _ . . _� r .,,,.vl`I'. +f .,rf�,.. 2 MILES 0 2 MILES SCALE: 1 "=2 MILES so�A�E �oo� �oa,� �.Aa„�,..us.�o � R > . Prepared by: Client: GREENVILE `°°e, � NORTHERN RAIL SIDING � DELINEATION , ecos '�: a°„��,°°°, ``"'°°�•N='° SITE LOCATION j��" e� , i�> � �7 PITT COUNTY, NC T� � o0 MAR 200F ns SHOwn �ject No.: 06-324.03 1 � .�,:.; � i � y- . t N � Pitt County Parcels � �% , _ ` �-" W�� l� Project Study Area � � � � � yQ-° ° � >�� C � . . �.�' � �.. ! � , 500 250 0 500 �� i � S Feet � . t i � ^ �e."',.;, 1 inch equals 750 feet ' ��=`"��+ l I � r � `� � � . r � �. � � �� 13 �%�: � �/ Sand and�Gravel Operation ° �� ''�� /i � (DWM Properties LLC) � , � �=� � � �� 1 �_ �� _ - � , �'��, � ` �� , ;� � � — � �a � �St. Mary's Missionary � �I � w� � o � � Baptist Church � � '• ; � �� i o �a`j� �. / y I l�i� � � � s. S�i ' � �' ///, / Y ,,,,�, � � �/ �,,,� � � r F� � ,� � ; s .' � i 3 '. � . � �� : ��., ��'.j�;.NC :.'. � ' : �� i � . 'G � i ��. � �� . � , �., �. � .� � , . _ .� f � ' ? � � �'• � �.• r "� � I � r- � � m � � ` The Way Of Truth, ��i �, ,� �-� Temple Church of God: � �Q ad '�- �� &Christinc_. � t 1 °� � ' � I � �4 � � �� -r ''�,.II, I'� � . � I ' .xj \ . . . � q 1� /' �� Y 3 . l�I t � Y ( •. / , � S. � , I :v.,� '� //�, { *X � r �� V � � o 'H'L S�i,A. S �� 9� �i ��"4.q , . \ �{ �\ �\ / ` � / �� `' 1 � \1 fi'y ��j, i�`� A � � � ��-� '�R: -. S, � 9�3 . �� i . . . � �'. -. ' �,4' . ..�, ' / / : ��j C � � � Xro'.� . �:f ,.. � \:,\ ��y�F i � � i j(: 4��r'� � G � �.Y� � y+� _�• � , � �, �. . 4 � •F� � . . .��y � � �� / � �♦ � 5� r t y . /�/</ / �\\� ��`y�/` � I. �'+�,�' `� pr. �•f ° s.� . � �� e � \ ..,. \ PJ :5.: �. I �� // ff \ y L �. � . . i � '\\ � . � / / } ' i f /. ! / � V� �ii � .,�� ,,,- '_ � . . � . 1�� '� . i : ��. 'LP, ! � �� "i�-... � .-.:.>.n .-..�.�t_^-=:.er.r.�.—v... . � � � ov,��ey�. ckasy� FIGURE �)(I�iING ES APS Dale: ri CONDITIONS APR2008 3 E`°— �- Greenville Northern Rail Siding Scale B/1/L D/U/SION As Shown `� vr`� ESC Projecf No.: p Pitt County, North Carolina 06-234-03 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleieh. North Carolina 27636-3726 July 22, 2008 Elizabeth Scherrer EcoScience 1 101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Dear Ms. Scherrer: This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the potentia] environmental effects of the proposed Greenville Northem Rail Siding in Pitt County, North Carolina (TIP No. P-3309AB). These comments provide inforniation in accordance with provisions of tlie National Euviroiuneutal Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and section 7 of the Bndangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.5.C. 1531-1543). Tlie Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize enviromnental impacts to fish and wildlife resources: Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent practical; 2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the pluining process; 3. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Constniction and Maintenance AcYivities should be implemented; and Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their desi;uated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assess�nent/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can be fi�und on our web page at htto:/!nc-es.fws.�ov/cs/countvfr.html . Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNFIP data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. Tlie NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity For any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species. If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office witl� your determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cunmlative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you detern�ine that tUe proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence. Wc reservc the right to review any federal pennits tliat may be required for this project, at tl�e public notice stage. Therefare, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in pro�ect implementation. In addition to tlie above guidaitce, we recoinmend that tlie environmental documentation for Uiis project include the followiiig in sufficient detail To facilitate a thorough review of the action: 1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project; 2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered; 3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their l�abitats, within the project i�npact area that may be directly or indirectly affeeted; 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 Ue differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetlaud boundaries should be deterniined by using Yhe 1987 Corps of Engineers Wet]ands Delineation Mauual and verified by the U.S. Amiy Corps of Engineers; 5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to which the proposed project would resiilt in indirect and cumulative effects to ��atural resources; 6. Design features and construction techniques which would be e�nployed to avoid or minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both dircct and indircet, and including fragmentation and direct loss of habitat; Design features, constiuction techniques, or any other mitigation ineasures which would be employed at wetland crossings to avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the US; and, 8. If unavoidable weUand impacts are proposed, project plaruiing should include a compensatory nutigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts. Thc Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520, ext. 32. Sincerely, /� !. �d�- Pete Benjamm Field Supervisor cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC tw5TNE4 � �w a � �, .. - S .'� b.! I" � yy�ppjtl J�I.�pM1��.�� North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Presen�ation OfSce Pcrcr H. S�.�ndbeck..\dmini>he[nr \Iich.ml I�- lia¢Im'. Gnccmi�r 1_i>bc�h C. IS.�ns. ti�crcnr, I�'l lrcv I. � io'r. Dcpcn, <ccoun� t�u�USt I, �OOH D1cid O�Loualtlin Elizebeth Scherrec RcnScieue I 101 Ha.nes Stxeet, Suitc ]01 Raleigh, NC: 27G04 UEticcof Archn'a��ndlL.mn' Dfculun ul I listona� Rc+ou¢cs I lm'id Hmuk Dlveanr RE: Gxeencille I�'oithccn Rail Connectoi, P-3309.i�i, Greencille, Pitt Countv, ER OS-1734 Greenville 1��oitlicrn Rail Siding, P-3309,�8, Gxeev��ille Piu County, ER 08-1735 Dear �Ix. O'Loughlin and �I,. ticherrer: 1'l�anl: ti ou Eor � oui seParare letters oE Jul� 17, 200g, conceming the abo� e icfereneed projects. �X�e ha�-e seardied our maps and filr. and determined rhat neither of the projects is lil;rl�- to aEfect acchaeological resource=. �\/e hace detee�nined tl�at tl�e Gxeem ille I�ord�em IZail 5iding (1'-3309.1Ii) as proposed �vill �ot affect an� 6istoric srr�cmres. Ho��ei-cr, tl�ere are se�eia] historic buildings �vithin ox near t6e axea of porendal effect tor the Greem-ille I�?arthern Rail Connec[or (P-3309.��). Thus, �ve iccoinmend that tl�e axea be sume}�ed to ideittifj� and e��ntuate an�� properties diat arr more dinu fifq� (50) ��ears old to deYrrtnine dzeir eligibility Eot listv�g i� the Nadonal Registex of Histoiic Places. The aUo� e coimnencs nre made pursunnt to Secdon l0G of the Nadonal Hisro�ic Presen anon �ict and the �d�isorc Council on Historic Presenatiods Rcgulauons Eor Compiiance �vith Secnon 106 codified at 3G CFR Part R�O. Tliank � ou Eor cour cooperanon ai�d coi�siderauon. lf � ou haae yuesnons conceining tlie nboe e camnent, coi�tact Renee Gledhill-I�aelel•, en�-uoimien[a] m�-ie�t� cooidu�ator, at 919-80?-6579. In all future commumc�don conccrning this project, plelse cite thc abo�-e mfemnced txacl;ing number. Sincerelc. �� --` � �eter 5andbcck cc: \lan� Pope Fui�r, NCD01� \[arc 1-Iamel, NCDOl/RR LocmioalOSi�:�nl��i�=+��n��.liplig6SC27601 MuilingAddress:4GG\lail5cn-imCcn�eqRalcl,�hNC37G9R.IG17 Telephone/Fax;(719)0.o:G5'.n/Wq�l,590 ) r 1 < MEMORANDGM T�: Mr. David O'Loughlin. l 101 Havnes Street su��e ioi Michael F. Easley. Governor William G Ross Jr.. Secretary North Caroiina Department of Environment antl Natural Resources Senior Scientist EcoScience Ralei�h, NC 27604 From: David V✓ainwright. NC Division of Water Quality"�'� Coieen Sullins, Director Division of Water Quaiity �Uly 29, zoo$ ;� :;, � o �r 2ooe Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed G�eeirville Northern Rail Sidine in Pitt County, TIP P-3309AB. Referznce your correspondence dated 7uly 17.2008 in ��iiich vou requested comments Por the referenced pn�ject. Preliminary analysis of fhe project area indicates YhaP your project will not inspact any perennial streams, but has the potential to impact some wetlands which may be jw�isdictionaL Fwther investigaCions at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/orjurisdicYional wetlands in the area. lii U�e event �hat auy� jurisdictiunal areas are identified, die Division of Water Quality requests that EcoScience or the NCDOT Rail Division consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project: General Pruject Comments: I. Any environmental documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to �vetlands and streams �vith corresponding mappina. If mitieaCion is necessary as required by I SA NCAC 2H.0�06(h). it is preferable to presen[ a concept�ual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the enviromnental documantation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Cenification. Priorto an issuance oftl�e 401 Water Quality Certification, the applicant is respecttully reminded thaY thcy will nccd to dcmonstraYc thc avoidancc and mii�imization of im�acts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum ertent practicaL In acca�dance with the Environmental Mana�ement Commision�s Rules (l�A NCAC 21-1.0�06[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts ofgreater than 1 acre to wetlands. hi the e��ent that miti_afion is required. the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. I he NC Gcosystem Gnhancement Pro�*ram may be available for use as wetland mitieation. 3. DWQ is very° concerned with sediment and erosion impacts ihat could result fi-om this project. NC DOT should address these concerns by describing t�he potential impacts that may oceur to [he aquatic environments and an�� mitigatina factors that would reduce the impacts, 4. If concrete is used durin, construction. a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct conCact between curing concrete and streain wat�er. Water that inadve�tently contacts uncured Tra'.isportation Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Service Center. Rale�gh. North Camllna 27699-1650 2321 Cra6tree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Garolina 27604 Phcne: 919-733-17861 FAX 919-73388931 Internet. htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlantls AnEqualOppoRunitylAffirmativeACtionEmployer-50%Recycled110°/ PosiCorsumerPaper Vo�thCaroli� ,%��tll!liT��! concrete should not be discharged to sw-face waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. If temporary access roads or detom•s are constructed, the site should be eraded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and ap�ropriate native �aoody species should be planted. When using tempora�q structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws. mowers, bush-ho��s, or other mechanized equipment and leaving che stumps and root mat� intact allows the area to re-vegetate natwally and minimizes soil disturbance. 6. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maaimum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrowhvasre areas could precipitate compensa[or�� miti�ation. 8. While the use ofNational Wetland Inventay (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region EvaluaYion of Wetland Sianificance (NGCREWS) maps and soil swvey maps are useful tools, Yheir inhereni inaccw'acies require tl�at qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Qualit�� Ce�tification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensw�e that water quality standards are me[ and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questiais or require additional information, please contact David Wainwri�_ht at (919) 715-3415. cc: William Wescott, US Arnry Corps of Gn�ii�eers, Washington 1=ield Office Chris Miliucher, Environmental Protection Agency Travis Wilson, NC W'ildlife Resources Commission Gary Jordan. US Fish and Wildlife Service Garcy Ward, DW'Q Washington Regional Oftice File Copy � North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission � MEMORANDUM TO: Elizabeth Scherrer EcoScience: a Division ofPBSJ FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator� //, s;/ Habitat Conservation Program �/ DATE: August 1, 2008 SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed Northern Rail Connector and Greenville Northern Rail Siding, Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina. TIP No. P-3309AA/AB This memorandum responds to a request from the NCDOT for our concems regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) l�ave 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). At this time we do not have any specific concems related to this project. To help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs are outlined below: L Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concem species. Potential borrow azeas to be used for project construction should be included ui the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with: NC Natural Hcritage Prograni Dept. of Enviromnent & Natural Resources 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601. WWW.ncnhp.ore and, Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 bfail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 Memo August 1, 2008 NCDA Plant Conservation Progrun P. O. Box 27647 Raleigh, N. C. 27611 (919) 733-3610 2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streanis crossed and the extent of such activiCias. Cover type inaps sho�ving wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wefland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic chazige as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construcYion. Wetland identification may be accoinplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Co�ps 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 tlie 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 de,gadation 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, murucipal, or privale development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental documeut, and all project sponsors should be identified. Thank 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 (919) 528-9886. CCII' �tA�AGER'S OFFICE City of Greenville North Carolina P.O. Box 7207 - Greenville, N.C. 27835-7207 AuguSt 13, 2008 ,,r��_ � ;� . r. Ms. Elizabetl� Scherrer Mr. David O'Loughlin PBS&J, Senior Scientist 1101 Hayr.es Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Deaz Ms. Scherrer and Mr. O'I.oughlin: RE: TIP No. P-3309AA and P-3309AB, Greenville Northern Rail Connector and Sidine• Solicitation for Scooing Comments Related to the Proiects 1'he City of Greenviile supports the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) plazis to minimize the impact of rail operations on Greenville residents and visitors. The City is a member o£ NCDOT's steering committee developing solutions to the issues caused by CSX's rail yard operations in the City. Arlington Boulevard and Fourteenth Street, in addition to being major corridors in the City, are also critical to emergency responders as these two roads are direct routes to Pitt County Memorial Hospital from the eastem areas of the City. Both projects aze important to reducing the impact of rail traffic on the local transportation nenvork. 'I'he Ciry, however, desires to have T1P No. P-3309AA, the Northern Rail Connector, built tirst due to the impact this project will have on minimizing road blocks associated with rail yard operations. Both projects are necessary to meet the needs of CSX and Cazolina Coastal Railway to mo��e freight efficiently as well as the needs of the City which are to minimize blockages on two of its thoroughfares. The Rail Connector Project Study Area (P-3309AA) is within Greenville's planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ). The Rail Siding Project Study Area (P-3309AB) is located immediately north of the City's ETJ. The City's ETJ limit is approximately 1,450 feet east of the eastern right-of- way of NC Highway 1 L Based upon the general location maps provided in your letter dated July 17, 2008, the southern portion of the study area may extend into the City's ETJ in proximity of Pinewood Estates Subdivision. The two projects will have a positive impact on area properties due to improved automohile traffic flow on Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard, Howell Street, and other crossings as a result of the improvements. Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer Mr. David O'Loughlin Paee 2 August 13. 2008 The pro,jecis are not anticipated Yo have a negative impact on local designated historic landmarks or the National Register Historic District fronti�g Greene and Pitt Streets. With respect to the two local landmarks in proximity of Fourteenth Street, no Certificate of Appropriateness is required unless the improvements directly impact a designated property or the structure(s) located thereon. Ivir. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division, is your contact concerning local historic landmarks and can be reached at (252) 329-4510. The projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the West Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area and are not in conflict with the adopted plans for said areas. Mr. Rees is also your contact conceming the West Greenville and Center City Plans. Che projects are not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan (Horizons: Greenville's Community Plan) or any addendum to said plan. The two projects will significautly improve the traffic flow of motor vehicles and trains, and this will have a positive effect un the local community and wider Greenville area. Sincerely, _ , -�C1 a,�� 'J�u�"5-r-_ Wayne Bowers City Managcr cc: Ma,yor and City Council Merrill F7ood, Director of Community Developmenl Wesley B. Anderson, Director oY Public Works llocl# 779563 July 2l, 2008 City of Greenville North Carolina P.O. Box 7207 - Greenville, NC 27835-7207 Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer Mr. Uavid O'Loughlin PBS&J, Senior Scientist 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 'i 22 � � �l��. ; f ,�D;,., �.: Re: TIP no. P-3309A.A and P-3309AB, Greenville Northern Rail Connector and Siding; Solicitation for Scoping Comments Related to the Projects Dear Ms. Scherrcr and Mr. O'Lou�hlin, fhe Rail Connector Project Study Area (P-3309AA) is located within Greenville's planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ). The Rail Siding Project Study Area (P-3309AB) is located immediately north of Greenville's planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ). The City's ETJ limit is approximately 1,450 feet east of the eastern right-of-way of NC Highway 1 1 Based on the general location maps provided in your letter dated July 17, 2008, the southern portion of the study area may extend into the City's ETJ in proximity of Pinewood Estates Subdivision. The referenced projects are anticipated to have a positive impact on area properties due to improved automobile traffic flow on Fourteenth Street, Arlington Boulevard, Greenville Boulevard, Tenth Street and other crossings as a result. The projects are not anticipated to have a ne�ative impact on local designated historic landmarks or the national re�ister historic district fronting Green Street and Pitt Street With respect to the 2 local landmarks in proximity of Fourteenth Street, no certificate of appropriateness is required unless the improvements directly impact a desienated property or the structure(s) located thereon. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division, (2S2) 329-4510, is your contact concerning local historic landmarks. Doc# 776307 The projects are not anticipated to have a negative impact on the West Greenville Certified Redevelopment Area or the Center City Revitalization Area and are not in conflict with the adopted plans for said areas. Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division, is your contact concernin'the West Greenville and Center City Plans. The projects are not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan (Horizons: Greenville's Community Plan) or any addendum to said plan. The subject projects and the resulting improvements to the railroad system will significantly improve traffic flow and will have a positive effect on the local community and broader Greenville communitv. � �i�� Harry V. Hamilton. Jr. Chief Planner Communit_y Development Department City of Greenville, NC Office (252) 329-4511 Fax(25?)329-4483 CC: Merrill Flood, Director of Community Development Department Carl Rees, Senior Planner, Urban Development Division Doc# 776307 2 APPENDICES APPENDIX D WETLAND DATA FORMS � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment APPENDICES � Greenville Northern Rail Siding Environmental Assessment DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Pinus taeda T FAC 9. 2 Liquidambarstyracifiva T FAC+ 10. 3. Magnolia virginiana S FACW+ 11. 4. Smilax laurifolia V FAC 12. 5. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 13. 6. Vaccinium spp. S FAC 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 10 (in.) Remarks: Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Byars loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Umbric Paleaquults Drainage Class: Very poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. Oi +3-0 -- __ __ Un-decomposed fibric material A1 0-4 lOYR 2/1 -- — Loam A2 4-7 lOYR 2/2 -- -- Loam Bt 7-16+ lOYR 4/1 -- -- Sandy clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: hydric soil indicator F3 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: Upland area consists of stone ballast for railroad tracks DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Pinus taeda T FAC 9. 2 Liquidambarstyracifiva T/S FAC+ 10. 3. Quercus falcata T/S FACU 11. 4. Vaccinium stamineum S FACU 12. 5. Quercus velutina S UPL 13. 6. Prunus serotina S FACU 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 33% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: no hydrology -- (in.) - (in.) - (in.) Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Leaf silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-4 A lOYR 4/2 loam 4-12 Bl 2.5 Y 5/4 7.5 YR SB few, prominent Clay loam 10 YR 6/2 few, faint 12-16 B2 10 YR 6/2 7.5 YR 5/8 many, prominent Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Acer rubrum T FAC 9. 2 Liquidambarstyracifiva T/S FAC+ 10. 3. Nyssa sylvatica T/S FAC 11. 4. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 12. 5. Arundinaria gigantea S FACW 13. 6. Clethra alnifolia S FACW 14. 7. Sphagnum sp. H -- 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Remarks: -- (in.) - (in.) - (in.) Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves X Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Leaf silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-5 A 7.5 YR 4/1 7.5 YR SB few, prominent clay loam 5-16 B 10 YR 5/1 7.5 YR 5/8 Common, prominent clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: hydric soil indicator F3 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Pinus taeda T FAC 9. 2 Liquidambarstyracifiva T/S FAC+ 10. 3. Quercus nigra S FAC 11. 4. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 12. 5. Arundinaria gigantea S FACW 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Remarks: soil saturated at the surface Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bladen fine sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-16 A lOYR 4/1 lOYR 5/8 Common, prominent Sandy clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: hydric soil indicator F3 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: Upland area consists of stone apron for railroad tracks DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Pinus taeda T FAC 9. 2. Quercus lyrata S OBL 10. 3. Magnolia virginiana S FACW+ 11. 4. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 12. 5. Arundinaria gigantea S FACW 13. 6. Myrica cerifera S FAC+ 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: -- (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: 8 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 (in.) Remarks: Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Leaf silt loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. Oi +3-0 -- __ __ Un-decomposed fibric material A 0-5 lOYR 2/1 -- — Loam E 5-8 lOYR 5/2 -- -- Loam Bt 8-16+ lOYR 5/2 lOYR 5/6 Few, prominent Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: hydric soil indicator F3 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: Upland area consists of stone apron for railroad tracks DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator 1. Geranium carolinianum H NI 9. 2. Glechoma hederacea H FACU 10. 3. Oxalis dillenii H FACU* 11. 4. Taraxacum officinale H FACU 12. 5. Allium canadense H FACU- 13. 6. Lamium amplexicaule H NI 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) Remarks: Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bladen fine sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-4" Bl 10YR3/1 clayloam 5-12"+ B2 lOYR 4/2 lOYR 5/6 20% loamy clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: Ditch in mowed lawn leading to large wooded wetland. Many crayfish burrows present. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) VEG ETATIO N Dominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator pominant Plant Spedes Stratum Indlcator t Ludwigia repens H OBL 9. 2. Oxalis dillenii H FACU* 10. 3. Chaerophyllum tainturieri H FAC 11. 4. Plantago lanceolata H FAC 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 75% Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Other No Recorded Data Available Fleld Observatlons: Depth of Surface Water: 3 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Remarks: Prlmary Wetland Hydrology Indlcators: Inundated X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches X Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indlcators: (2 or more requlred): Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data X FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bladen fine sandy loam Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Albaquults Drainage Class: Poorly drained Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle TeMure. Concretions inches Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc. 0-5" Bl 10YR3/1 clayloam 5-12"+ B2 lOYR 4/2 lOYR 5/6 20% loamy clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No Remarks: Ditch in mowed lawn leading to large wooded wetland. Many crayfish burrows present. Wetland Rating Worksheet Hardwood-dominated wetland (DOA01) Project Name Greenville Northern Rail Siding Nearest Road US 13 and Staton Mill_ _ County Pitt Name of Evaluator _DKO/ESC_ _ Date _03/13/08 Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 0.5 mile upstream) on pond or lake forested/natural vegetarion _50_ _ __ on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban _ 50_ on intermittent stream impervious surface _ X within interstream divide other Soil Series _ _ predominantly organic humus, muck or pete _ X_ predominantly mineral, non-sandy _ _ predominantly sandy Hydraulic Factors X Wetland Type steep topography ditched or channelized wetland width >/=50 feet _ _ bottomland hardwood forest headwater forest swamp forest X_ wet flat _ _ pocosin Water storage Bank/Shoreline stabilization Pollutant removal Wildlife habitat Aquatic life value Recreation/Education _ 3_ 0 —2— 3 —2— 0 X X X X X X 4 4 5 2 4 1 Dominant Vegetation 1) _Nyssabiflora _ 2) _TaYOdium distichum _ 3) _Arundinaria gigantea _ _ Flooding and Wetness _X_ semi-permanently to permanently or inundated _ seasonally flooded or inundated intemuttently flooded or temporary surface water no evidence of flooding or surface water pine savanna freshwater marsh bog/fen ephemeral wetland other _ _12_ = 0 Total Score _ _10_ 36_ = 6 – 8— = 0 Wetland Rating Worksheet Pine-dominated wetlands (XA01, XB) Project Name Greenville Northern Rail Siding Nearest Road US 13 and Staton Mill_ _ County Pitt Name of Evaluator _DKO/ESC_ _ Date _03/13/08 Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 0.5 mile upstream) on pond or lake forested/natural vegetarion _50_ _ __ on perennial stream agriculture,urban/suburban _ 50_ on intermittent stream impervious surface _ X within interstream divide other Soil Series _ _ predominantly organic humus, muck or pete _ X_ predominantly mineral, non-sandy _ _ predominantly sandy Hydraulic Factors X Wetland Type steep topography ditched or channelized wetland width >/=50 feet _ _ bottomland hardwood forest headwater forest swamp forest X_ wet flat _ _ pocosin Water storage 3 Bank/Shoreline stabilization 0 Pollutant removal _ 2_ Wildlife habitat 3 Aquatic life value 2 Recreation/Education 0 g>forms/DWQ DEM form/WQ Wefland Rafing Form X X X X X X 4 4 5 2 4 1 Dominant Vegetation 1) _Pinustaeda_ _ 2) _Liquidambar styraciflua_ 3) _Arundinaria gigantea _ _ Flooding and Wetness _ semi-permanently to permanently or inundated _X_ seasonally flooded or inundated intemuttently flooded or temporary surface water no evidence of flooding or surface water pine savanna freshwater marsh bog/fen ephemeral wetland other _ _12_ = 0 Total Score _ _10_ 36_ = 6 – 8— = 0 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the inshuctlons provided in Sectlon IV of the JD Form Inshuctlonal Guidebook. SECTIONI:BACKGROUNDINFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:Greenville Northern Rail Siding C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: doa/dob/doc/docUdoe, xa/xb State:NC County/pazish/borough: Pitt City: Center coorclinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.679484° N, Long. -77357210° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Grindle Creek Name of nearest Traclitlonal Navigable Water (TN4� lnto which the aquatic resource flows: Taz River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03 0201 03 07 0030 � Check if map/diagam of review azea and/or potentlal jurisclictlonal azeas is/aze available upon request. ❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitlgatlon sites, disposal sites, etc...) aze associated with this actlon and aze recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determinatlon. Date: ❑ Field Determinatlon. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no "navigable waters of the CI.S." within Rivers and Hazbors Act (RHA) jurisdictlon (as defined by 33 CFR pazt 329) in the review azea. [Reguired] ❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tlde. ❑ Waters aze presenfly used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptlble for use to hansport interstate or foreigu commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the CI.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictlon (as defined by 33 CFR pazt 328) in the review azea. [Reguired] 1. WatersoPtheU.S. a. Indicate presence oP waters oP U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 ❑ TNWs, inclucling territorial seas ❑ Weflands adjacent to TNWs ❑ Relatively permanent waters� (RPWs) that flow direcfly or indirecfly into TNWs ❑ Non-RPWs that flow clirecfly or indirecfly into TNWs ❑ Weflands direcfly abuttlng RPWs that flow clirecfly or indirecfly into TNWs ❑ Weflands adjacent to but not clirecfly abuttlng RPWs that flow direcfly or inclirecfly into TNWs � Weflands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow clirecfly or inclirecfly into TNWs ❑ Impoundments ofjurisdictlonal waters ❑ Isolated (interstate or inhastate) waters, including isolated weflands b. Identify (estimate) size oP waters oP the U.S. in the review area: Non-wefland waters: linear feeC width (fr) and/or 1.02 acres. Weflands: 29.56 acres. c. Limits @o�ndaries) oPj�risdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Man�al Elevatlon of established OHWM (if lmown): . 2. Non-reg�lated waters/weUands (check iPapplicable):' ❑ Potentlally jurisdictlonal waters ancUor weflands were assessed within the review azea and determined to be notjurisclictlonal. Explain: � Boxes checked below ahall be aupported by completing the appropriate aecfiona in Secfion III below. � For purpoaes of ttua form, an RPW ia defined aa a tdbutary thatia not a TNW and thattypically flowa year-round or haa confinuoua flow at leaat "aeaaonall}�' (e.g., typically 3 montha). ' Supporting documentafion ia preaented in Secfion III.F. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert j�risdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. IP the aq�atic reso�rce is a TNW, complete Section III.A1 and Section III.D1. only; iP the aq�atic reso�rce is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A1 and 2 and Section III.D1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Idenfify TNW: Summarize ratlonale supportlng determinatlon: 2. WeUandadjacenttoTNW Summarize ratlonale supportlng wnclusion that wefland is "adjacenC': B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section s�mmarizes inPormation regarding characteristics oP the trib�tary and its adjacent wetlands, iP any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards Por j�risdiction established �nder Rapano.r have been meL The agencies will assert j�risdiction over non-navigable trib�taries oP TNWs where the trib�taries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. trib�taries that typically flow year-ro�nd or have contin�o�s Plow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A weUand that direcUy ab�ts an RPW is also j�risdictional. IP the aq�atic reso�rce is not a TNW, b�t has year-ro�nd (perennial) Plow, skip to Section III.D.2. IP the aq�atic reso�rce is a wetland direcUy ab�tting a trib�tary with perennial Plow, skip to Section III.D.4. A weUand that is adjacent to b�t that does not direcUy ab�t an RPW req�ires a signiPicant nea�s eval�ation. Corps districts and EPA regions will incl�de in the record any available inPormation that doc�ments the eaistence oP a signiPicant nea�s between a relatively permanent trib�tary that is not perennial (and its adjacent weUands iP any) and a traditional navigable water, even tho�gh a signit5cant nea�s t5nding is not req�ired as a matter oP law. IP the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a weUand direcUy ab�tting an RPW, a JD will req�ire additional data to determine iP the waterbody has a signiPicant nea�s with a TNW. IP the trib�tary has adjacent wetlands, the signiPicant nea�s eval�ation m�st consider the trib�tary in combination with all oP its adjacent weUands. This signit5cant nea�s eval�ation that combines, Por analytical p�rposes, the trib�tary and all oP its adjacent wetlands is �sed whether the review area identiPied in the JD req�est is the trib�tary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. IPthe JD covers a trib�tary with adjacent weUands, complete Section III.B1 Por the trib�tary, Section III.B.2 Por any onsite weUands, and Section III.B.3 Por all wetlands adjacent to that trib�tary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a signit5cant nea�s eaists is determined in Section III.0 below. 1. Characteristics oP non-TNWs that Plow direcUy or indirecUy into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage azea: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relatlonship with TNW: ❑ Tributary flows direcfly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tdbutaries before entering TNW. Project waters aze Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters aze Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters aze Pick List aerial (shaight) miles from TNW. Project waters aze Pick List aerial (shaight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Eaplain: Identlfy flow route to TNWs: Tributary sheam order, if lmown: ° Notethatthe Inatrucfional Guidebook containa adclifional informafion regazding awalea, clitchea, waahea, and eroaional featurea generally and in the arid Weat. ' F1ow route can be described by identifying e.g., tdbutary a, wlrich flowa through the re�+iew azea, to flow into tdbutary b, wlrich then flowa into TNW. (b) General Tributary Chazacteristics (check all that aDO1V1: Trib�tary is: ❑ Natural ❑ Artlficial (man-made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (man-altered). Eaplain: Trib�tary propertles with respect to top of bank (estlmate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick LisL Primary tdbutary subshate compositlon (check all that apply): � Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetatlon. �pe/% cover: ❑ Other. Explain: . Tributary conditlon/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: satble. Presence of mn/riftle/pool complexes. Explain: absent. Tributary geomehy: Pick List Tributary gaclient (approximate average slope): 2-4 % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estlmate average number of flow events in review azea/year: 610 Describe flow regime: Intermittent on soil survey. Other informaflon on duraflon and volume: . Surface flow is: Pick List. Chazacteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick Lisk Eaplain findings: surrounding weflands. ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: . Tributary has (check all that apply): ❑ Bed andbanks ❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ changes in the chazacter of soil ❑ shelving ❑ vegetatlon matted down, bent, or absent ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ sediment depositlon ❑ water staining ❑ other (list): ❑ Discontlnuous OHWM � Explain: . ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■ ■ the presence of litter and debris deshuctlon of terrestdal vegetatlon the presence of wrack line sediment sortlng scour multlple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisclictlon (check all that apply): ❑ High Tide Line inclicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mazk inclicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings; ❑ physical markings/chazacteristics ❑ vegetatlon lines/changes in vegetatlon types. ❑ fldal gauges ❑ other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Chazacterize tdbutary (e.g, water color is clear, cliscolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed chazacteristics, etc.). Explain: Identlfy specific pollutants, if lmow�: . °A natural or mao-made cliaconfinuity in the OHWM does not neceaaarily aeverjuriaclicfion (e.g., wherethe atream temporarily flowa unduground, or where the OHWM haa been removed by development or agricultural pracficea). 4Vhue there ia a break in the OHWM that ia unrelated to the watubod}� a flow regime (e.g., flow ovu a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agenciea will look for inclicatoia of flow above and below the break. �Ibid. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel s�pports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian corridor. Chazacteristics (type, average width): . ❑ Weflandfringe. Chazacteristics: . ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Eaplain finclings: . ❑ Fish/spawn azeas. Explain findings: . ❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Eaplain finclings: ❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Eaplain finclings: . 2. Characteristics oP weUands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirecUy into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wefland Chazacteristics: Properfles: Wefland size:29.56 acres plus 1.02 acres of open water acres Wefland type. Eaplain:hazdwood flat, pine flat. Wefland quality. Eaplain:high: forested weflands. Project weflands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No. (b) General Flow Relatlonshiro with Non-TNW: Flow is: Intermittent flow. Eaplain: stormwater sheetrlow, underground drains, and surface ditches. Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow Chazacteristics: seasonal flooding. Subsurface flow: Yes. Eaplain findings: Headwater weflands. Some underground pipes have been installed in the drainage area. ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: . (c) Wefland Adiacencv Determinatlon with Non-TNW: ❑ Direcfly abuttlng � Not direcfly abuttlng ❑ Discrete wefland hydrologic connectlon. Eaplain: . ❑ Ecological connectlon. Explain: . � Sepazated by berm/barrier. Explain: flat topography with some ditching and draining. (d) Proximity (Relatlonshirol to TNW Project weflands aze 510 river miles from TNW. Project waters aze 510 aerial (shaight) miles from TNW. F7ow is from: Wetland to navigable waters. Estlmate approximate locatlon of wefland as within the 500-year or greater floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Chazacterize wefland system (e.g, water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed chazacteristics; etc.). Explain: stancling water, sediment depositlon, some herbicides and other pollutants from rail operaflons. Identlfy specific pollutants, if lmow�: herbicides. (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland s�pports (check all that apply): � Riparian buffer. Chazacteristics (type, average width):forested, skaub, 200-1300'. � V egetatlon type/percent cover. Eaplain:Nonriverine Wet Hazdwoods (42%), pine plantatlon (29%), disturbed (29%). ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Eaplain finclings: . ❑ Fish/spawn azeas. Explain findings: . ❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Eaplain finclings: . � Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Eaplain finclings:ephemeral fish-free pools, damp leaf litter. 3. Characteristics oP all weUands adjacent to the trib�tary (iP any) All wefland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 4 Approximately ( 30.58 ) acres in total aze being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wefland, specify the following: Direcfly abuts7 (Y/N) Size (in acres) Direcfly abuts7 (Y/N) Size (in acres) (xa/xb) No 153 (doa/dob/doc/docUdoe) No 143 Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functlons being performed: stormwater and secliment retentlon, filtering of pollutants, aquatic habitat. C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A signiPicant nea�s analysis will assess the flow characteristics and P�nctions oP the trib�tary itselP and the Punctions perPormed by any weUands adjacent to the trib�tary to determine iP they signit5cantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity oP a TNW. For each oP the Pollowing sit�ations, a signit5cant nea�s eaists iP the trib�tary, in combination with all oP its adjacent wetlands, has more than a spec�lative or ins�bstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity oP a TNW. Considerations when eval�ating signit5cant nea�s incl�de, b�t are not limited to the vol�me, d�ration, and Preq�ency oP the Plow oP water in the trib�tary and its proaimity to a TNW, and the P�nctions perPormed by the trib�tary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine signit5cant nea�s based solely on any specit5c threshold oP distance (e.g. between a trib�tary and its adjacent wetland or between a trib�tary and the TNW). Similarly, the Pact an adjacent wetland lies within or o�tside oP a floodplain is not solely determinative oP signit5cant nea�s. Draw connections between the Peat�res doc�mented and the ePPects on the TNW, as identit5ed in the Rapmaos G�idance and disc�ssed in the Instr�ctional G�idebook. Factors to consider incl�de, Por eaample: • Does the tdbutary, in combinatlon with its adjacent weflands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW7 • Does the tdbutary, in combinatlon with its adjacent weflands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functlons for fish and other species, such as feeding, nestlng, spaw�ing, or rearing young for species that aze present in the TNW 7 • Does the tdbutary, in combinatlon with its adjacent weflands (if any), have the capacity to hansfer nutdents and organic carbon that support downsheam foodwebs7 • Does the tdbutary, in combinatlon with its adjacent weflands (if any), have other relatlonships to the physical, chemical, or biological integriry of the TNW7 Note: the above list oP considerations is not incl�sive and other P�nctions observed or known to occ�r sho�ld be doc�mented below: 1. Signit5cant nea�s Pindings Por non-RPW that has no adjacent weUands and flows direcUy or indirectly into TNW s. Eaplain finclings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tdbutary itself, then go to Sectlon III.D: . 2. Signit5cant nea�s Pindings Por non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows direcUy or indirecUy into TNWs. Eaplain findings of presence or absence of siguificant nexus below, based on the tdbutary in combinatlon with all of its adjacent weflands, then go to Sectlon III.D: headwater wefland. The weflands have the capacity to hap pollutants and flood waters that would enter the downsheam TNW, the Taz River. The tdbutary also provides habitat and lifecycle support for benthic macroinvertebrates and amphibians that aze also present in the Taz River. 3. Signit5cant nea�s Pindings Por weUands adjacent to an RPW b�t that do not directly ab�t the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the hibutary in combinatlon with all of its adjacent weflands, then go to Sectlon III.D: . D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent WeUands. Check all that apply and provide size estlmates in review azea: ❑ TNWs: linear feet width (fr), Or, acres. ❑ Weflands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow direcUy or indirecUy into TNWs. ❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tdbutaries typically flow year-round azejurisclictlonal. Provide data and ratlonale indicatlng that hibutary is perennial: . ❑ Tributaries of TNW where tdbutaries have contlnuous flow "seasonall}�' (e.g., typically ttaee months each year) are jurisdictlonal. Data supportlng tlris conclusion is provided at Sectlon III.B. Provide ratlonale inclicatlng that tdbutary flows seasonally: . Provide estlmates for jurisclictlonal waters in the review azea (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (fr). ❑ Other non-wefland waters: acres. Identlfy type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-RPWsB that flow directly or indirecUy into TNWs. ❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows direcfly or inclirecfly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictlonal. Data supportlng tlris conclusion is provided at Sectlon III.C. Provide estlmates for jurisclictlonal waters witlrin the review azea (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (fr). ❑ Other non-wefland waters: acres. Identlfy type(s) of waters: . 4. WeUands direcUy ab�tting an RPW that flow directly or indirecUy into TNWs. ❑ Weflands direcfly abut RPW and thus aze jurisdictlonal as adjacent weflands. ❑ Weflands direcfly abuttlng an RPW where hibutaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and ratlonale indicatlng that tdbutary is perennial in Sectlon III.D.2, above. Provide ratlonale indicatlng that wefland is direcfly abuttlng an RPW: . ❑ Weflands direcfly abuttlng an RPW where hibutaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicatlng that tdbutary is seasonal in Sectlon III.B and ratlonale in Sectlon III.D.2, above. Provide ratlonale inclicatlng that wefland is direcfly abutfing an RPW: . Provide acreage estlmates for jurisdictlonal weflands in the review azea: acres. 5. WeUands adjacent to b�t not direcUy ab�tting an RPW that flow direcUy or indirecUy into TNWs. � Weflands that do not direcfly abut an RPW, but when considered in combinatlon with the tdbutary to which they aze adjacent and with similazly situated adjacent weflands, have a significant nexus with a TNW aze jurisidictlonal. Data supportlng tlris conclusion is provided at Sectlon III.C. Provide acreage estlmates for jurisdictlonal weflands in the review azea: 30.58acres. 6. WeUands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ❑ Weflands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combinatlon with the tdbutary to wfich they aze adjacent and with similazly situated adjacent weflands, have a significant nexus with a TNW azejurisclictlonal. Data supportlng tlris conclusion is provided at Sectlon III.C. Provide estlmates for jurisclictlonal weflands in the review azea: acres. 7. Impo�ndments oP j�risdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisclictlonal tdbutary remains jurisdictlonal. ❑ Demonshate that impounchnent was created from "waters of the U.S;' or ❑ Demonshate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-�, or ❑ Demonshate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY);io ❑ which aze or could be used by interstate or foreigu havelers for recreatlonal or other purposes. eSee Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analyaia refu to thekey in Secfion III.D.6 of the Inatructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserGug or decliuiug CWA jurisdictiou based solely ou this category, Corps Districts will elevate the actiou to Corps aud EPA HQ Por review cousisteutwith the process described iu the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWAActJurisdicNon Foliowing Rapanos. B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: ❑ from which fish or shellfish aze or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreigu commerce. ❑ which aze or could be used for industdal purposes by indushies in interstate commerce. ❑ Interstateisolatedwaters. Eaplain: . ❑ Other factors. Eaplain: . Identify water body and s�mmarize rationale s�pporting determination: Provide estlmates for jurisclictlonal waters in the review azea (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (fr). ❑ Other non-wefland waters: acres. Identlfy type(s) of waters: . ❑ Weflands: acres. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ If potentlal weflands were assessed witlrin the review azea, these azeas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wefland Delineatlon Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. ❑ Review azea included isolated waters with no substantlal nexus to interstate (or foreigu) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC;' the review azea would have been regulated based solelv on the "Migatory Bird Rule" (MBR). ❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standazd, where such a fincling is required for jurisdictlon. Eaplain: . ❑ Other. (eaplain, if not covered above): . Provide acreage estlmates for non-jurisdictlonal waters in the review azea, where the sole potentlal basis of jurisdictlon is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migatory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agiculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ❑ Non-wefland waters (i.e, rivers, sheams): linear feet width (fr). ❑ Lakes/ponds: acres. ❑ Other non-wefland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . ❑ Weflands: acres. Provide acreage estlmates for non-jurisdictlonal waters in the review azea that do not meet the "Siguificant Nexus" standazd, where such a finding is required for jurisclictlon (check all that apply): ❑ Non-wefland waters (i.e, rivers, sheams): linear feet, width (fr). ❑ Lakes/ponds: acres. ❑ Other non-wefland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . ❑ Weflands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed Por JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): � Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanUconsultant: . � Data sheets prepazed/submitted by or on behalf of the applicanUconsultant. ❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineatlon report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineatlon report. ❑ Data sheets prepazed by the Corps: . ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: . � US. Geological Survey HydrologicAflas: . � USGS NHD data. � USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. � US.GeologicalSurveymap(s).Citescale&quadname:GreenvileSW1:24000. � USDA Natural Resources Conservatlon Service Soil Survey. (,7tatlon:Pitt County USDA 1974 . � Natlonal weflands inventory map(s). Cite name:Greenvile SW 1:24000. ❑ State/Local wefland inventory map(s): . � FEMA/FIRM maps: . ❑ 100-yeaz Floodplain Elevatlon is: (Natlonal Geodectic V ertical Datum of 1929) ❑ Photogaphs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): . or ❑ Other (Name & Date): . ❑ Previousdeterminatlon(s). Fileno.anddateofresponseletter: . ❑ Applicable/supportlngcaselaw: . ❑ Applicable/supportlngscientlficliterature: . ❑ Other informatlon (please specify):Jurisclictlonal delineatlons performed on Mazch 13 and 14, 2008. NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM VERSION 3.14 (November 27, 2007) Wetland Type Hardwood Flat Assessor Name/Organization Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area) Please circle and/or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following. • Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.) • Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.) • Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.) • Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.) Is the assessment area intensively managed? � Yes ❑ No Describe effects of stressors that are present. Regulatory Considerations Select all that apply to the assessment area. ❑ Anadromous fish ❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species ❑ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect ❑ Wetland adjacent to Primary Nursery Area or associated with a stream that drains to a Primary Nursery Area ❑ Publicly owned property ❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concem (AEC) (including buffer) ❑ N.C. Division of Water Quality best usage classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout ❑ Designated NCNHP reference community ❑ Wetland adjacent to a 303(d)-listed stream What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply) ❑ Blackwater ❑ Brownwater ❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes � No Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantialty altered by beaver? ❑ Yes � No 1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual v1.0). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence of alteration. GS VS ❑A ❑A Not severely altered �B �B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration) 2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the NRCS Scope and Effect Guide (see User Manual v1.0 Appendix G) for North Carolina hydric soils for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable. Surf Sub ❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered. �B �B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). ❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change) (examples: intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, stream incision, sewer lines, soil compaction). 3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT ❑A ❑A Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water > 2 feet �B �B Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water 1 to 2 feet ❑C ❑C Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot ❑D ❑D Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 3- to 6-inches deep ❑E ❑E Depressions able to pond water < 3-inches deep 4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top foot. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. ❑A Sandy soil �B Predominantly characterized by mottled (redoaymorphic features), mineral soil ❑C Predominantly characterized by other, mineral soil (no mottling) ❑D Gleyed mineral soil ■ �/ �/ ■ ■ Soil ribbon < 1 inch Soil ribbon? 1 inch No peat or muck presence A peat or muck presence Peat or muck soil (histosol or histic epipedon) 5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub �A �A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area ❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area ❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive sedimentation, odor) 6. Land Use — opportunity metric Check all that apply. Evaluation of this metric involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont and 30 feet wide in the Mountains. WS 5M 2M ❑A ❑A ❑A > 30% impervious surfaces with stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (land use examples: ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N industrial, commercial, and high-density residential) > 30% impervious surfaces without stormwater BMPs 10 to 30% impervious surfaces < 10% impervious surfaces Old urban development (pink areas on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles) New adjacent development Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants) ? 20% coverage of pasture without riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of pasture with effective riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) without riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) with effective riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land with disturbance < 5 years old Little or no opportunity. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic modifications that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area. 7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric Is assessment area within 50 feet of a stream or other open water? (open water does not typically include man-made ditches or canals) ❑Yes �No If No, Skip to next metric Stream width (Stream width is normal flow width [ordinary high water to ordinary high water]). If the stream is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total stream width. ❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑No stream associated with the assessment area Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the adjacent stream/open water? ❑Yes ❑No Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? ❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. ❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic. 8. Wetland/Riparian Buffer Width — assessment area/wetland type/wetland complex metric Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT), the wetland complex (WC), and the riparian buffer at the assessment area (RB) (if applicable). Riparian buffer width is measured from top of bank and need only be present on one side of the water body. The riparian buffer is measured from the outside banks of the outer channels of an anastomosed system. Make buffer judgment based on dominant landscape feature. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. WT WC RB (if applicable) �A �A �A ? 100 feet ❑B ❑B ❑B From80to<100feet ❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet ❑D ❑D ❑D From40to<50feet ❑E ❑E ❑E From30to<40feet ❑F ❑F ❑F From 15 to <30 feet ❑G ❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet ❑H ❑H ❑H <5feet 9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric Answer for assessment area dominant landform. ❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) ❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation �C Evidence of long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more) 10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). �A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. ❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. ❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland. 11. Wetland Size —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the contiguous wetland complex (WC), and the size of the contiguous, forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User Manual). Boundaries are formed by uplands, four-lane roads, or urban landscapes. An observed beaver pond forms a boundary if it extends across the entire width of the floodplain. Additionally, other wetland types are considered boundaries for column WT. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) ❑A ❑A ❑A ? 500 acres ❑B �B �B From 100 to <500 acres �C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres ❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to <50 acres ❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to <25 acres ❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres ❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to <5 acres ❑H ❑H ❑H From0.5to<1 acre ❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to <0.5 acre ❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to <0.1 acre ❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre 12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) ❑A Wetland type is the full extent (? 90%) of its natural landscape size. �B Wetland type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size. 13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric Check appropriate box(es). This metric refers to the landscape patch, the contiguous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate) that includes the wetland type. Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. What size landscape patch is the wetland type either well-connected (Well) or loosely- connected (Loosely) to? Well Loosely ❑A ❑A ? 500 acres ❑B �B From 100 to <500 acres ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres ❑D ❑D From 10 to <50 acres �E ❑E < 10 acres ❑F ❑F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats Check Yes or No. ❑Yes ❑No Does wetland type have a surface hydrology connection to open waters or tidal wetlands? (evaluate for marshes only) ❑Yes �No Is the assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions? 14. Edge Effect —wetland type condition metric Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include permanent features such as fields, development, two-lane or larger roads (? 40-feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two-lane road, and clear-cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight main points of the compass. ❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions ❑B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four to seven directions �C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four directions or assessment area is clear-cut 15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) ❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. ❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. �C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic species or composed of planted stands of non-characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species. 16. Vegetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) ❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species. �B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% cover of exotics. ❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species. 17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric � Vegetation present Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for marshes only ❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation ❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes �B �B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer �C �C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer �C �C Shrub layer sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer �C �C Herb layer sparse or absent ❑ Vegetation absent 18. Snags — wetland type condition metric �A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). ❑ B Not A 19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric ❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12-inches DBH) are present. �B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6- and 12-inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH. ❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6-inches DBH or no trees. 20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric Include both man-made and natural debris piles. �A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). ❑ B Not A 21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only) Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. ❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D ,!��,^ � r, � �� ,� ��i��' � ' � I '� � �� t� � °�y� 1 y ��'' '� �,�r. M � �� Y�r,��tl �� m '� r II� �{ ,�,ry . �,� ��' � i I� rvi y��u �� i �� ±�' � 7 ' U \ �� p '1� ��'1, �' �d�' 1 � '"Y , i � i� ;� �` ��a� � � ir, �'�. � � � Y�,� �m�,t �,�� 1 �, � .� � J� � i � � � . � �� ( � .� � � � � qA�� ` , I y, p W� � �.l � ° ' � � il � u\ i i� ��, � � i� ��' l i P�y� � ' y� �,\�,� � r�� , .��j�� .� � �I� � rn �P�� v�F �� II��`� 'o�i�� i^� \ �� yV��l'T ,, i�� ^'�r .��r'i'�2. � � � i t� u�,� �, b iiJ�W�� -.,1 �i�,l ^�y:�� . � 1 �� i Lti � � o� r I�� II ;;� I�?' V"� I it' Ik' W�� ,� u; ,�, ` 22. Habitat Uniqueness — wetland type condition metric ❑Yes �No Has the N.C. Environmental Management Commission classified the assessment area as "Unique Wetlands" (UWL)?" Notes Wetland Site Name hardwood Wetland Type Hardwood Flat NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet Date of Assessment 03/21/OS Assessor Name/Organization DKO/ESC Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y/N) Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) Wetland may be a high-quality riverine wetland (Y/N) Assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) Assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) Sub-function Function Hydrology Water Quality Sub-function Surface Storage and Retention Sub-surface Storage and Retention Pathogen Change Particulate Change Soluble Change Physical Change Pollution Change Habitat Physical Structure Landscape Patch Structure Vegetation Composition Uniqueness Metrics Condition Condition Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition Condition Condition NO NO NO NO NO YES HIGH HIGH X X X X X X X X X X X X HIGH HIGH NO HIGH MEDIUM X NO Function Rating Summary Function Metrics Rating Hydrology Condition HIGH Water Quality Condition HIGH Condition/Opportunity HIGH Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Habitat Condition HIGH Overall Wetland Rating HIGH NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM VERSION 3.14 (November 27, 2007) Wetland Type Pine Flat Assessor Name/Organization Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area) Please circle and/or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following. • Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.) • Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.) • Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.) • Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.) Is the assessment area intensively managed? � Yes ❑ No Describe effects of stressors that are present. pine plantation Regulatory Considerations Select all that apply to the assessment area. ❑ Anadromous fish ❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species ❑ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect ❑ Wetland adjacent to Primary Nursery Area or associated with a stream that drains to a Primary Nursery Area ❑ Publicly owned property ❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concem (AEC) (including buffer) ❑ N.C. Division of Water Quality best usage classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout ❑ Designated NCNHP reference community ❑ Wetland adjacent to a 303(d)-listed stream What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply) ❑ Blackwater ❑ Brownwater ❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes � No Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantialty altered by beaver? 1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric ❑ Yes � No Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual v1.0). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence of alteration. GS VS ❑A ❑A Not severely altered �B �B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration) 2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the NRCS Scope and Effect Guide (see User Manual v1.0 Appendix G) for North Carolina hydric soils for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable. Surf Sub ❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered. �B �B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). ❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change) (examples: intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, stream incision, sewer lines, soil compaction). 3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT ❑A ❑A Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water > 2 feet �B �B Majority of the wetland type with depressions able to pond water 1 to 2 feet ❑C ❑C Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot ❑D ❑D Majority of wetland type with depressions able to pond water 3- to 6-inches deep ❑E ❑E Depressions able to pond water < 3-inches deep 4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top foot. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. ❑A Sandy soil �B Predominantly characterized by mottled (redoaymorphic features), mineral soil ❑C Predominantly characterized by other, mineral soil (no mottling) ❑D Gleyed mineral soil ■ �/ �/ ■ ■ Soil ribbon < 1 inch Soil ribbon? 1 inch No peat or muck presence A peat or muck presence Peat or muck soil (histosol or histic epipedon) 5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub �A �A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area ❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area ❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive sedimentation, odor) 6. Land Use — opportunity metric Check all that apply. Evaluation of this metric involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont and 30 feet wide in the Mountains. WS 5M 2M ❑A ❑A ❑A > 30% impervious surfaces with stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (land use examples: ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N ❑B ❑C �D ❑E ❑F ❑G ❑H ❑I ❑J �K ❑L ❑M ❑N industrial, commercial, and high-density residential) > 30% impervious surfaces without stormwater BMPs 10 to 30% impervious surfaces < 10% impervious surfaces Old urban development (pink areas on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles) New adjacent development Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants) ? 20% coverage of pasture without riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of pasture with effective riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) without riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) with effective riparian buffer ? 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land with disturbance < 5 years old Little or no opportunity. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic modifications that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area. 7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric Is assessment area within 50 feet of a stream or other open water? (open water does not typically include man-made ditches or canals) ❑Yes �No If No, Skip to next metric Stream width (Stream width is normal flow width [ordinary high water to ordinary high water]). If the stream is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total stream width. ❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑No stream associated with the assessment area Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the adjacent stream/open water? ❑Yes ❑No Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? ❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. ❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic. 8. Wetland/Riparian Buffer Width — assessment area/wetland type/wetland complex metric Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT), the wetland complex (WC), and the riparian buffer at the assessment area (RB) (if applicable). Riparian buffer width is measured from top of bank and need only be present on one side of the water body. The riparian buffer is measured from the outside banks of the outer channels of an anastomosed system. Make buffer judgment based on dominant landscape feature. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. WT WC RB (if applicable) �A �A �A ? 100 feet ❑B ❑B ❑B From80to<100feet ❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet ❑D ❑D ❑D From40to<50feet ❑E ❑E ❑E From30to<40feet ❑F ❑F ❑F From 15 to <30 feet ❑G ❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet ❑H ❑H ❑H <5feet 9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric Answer for assessment area dominant landform. ❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) ❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation �C Evidence of long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more) 10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). �A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. ❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. ❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland. 11. Wetland Size —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the contiguous wetland complex (WC), and the size of the contiguous, forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User Manual). Boundaries are formed by uplands, four-lane roads, or urban landscapes. An observed beaver pond forms a boundary if it extends across the entire width of the floodplain. Additionally, other wetland types are considered boundaries for column WT. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) ❑A ❑A ❑A ? 500 acres ❑B �B �B From 100 to <500 acres �C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres ❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to <50 acres ❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to <25 acres ❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres ❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to <5 acres ❑H ❑H ❑H From0.5to<1 acre ❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to <0.5 acre ❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to <0.1 acre ❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre 12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) ❑A Wetland type is the full extent (? 90%) of its natural landscape size. �B Wetland type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size. 13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric Check appropriate box(es). This metric refers to the landscape patch, the contiguous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate) that includes the wetland type. Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. What size landscape patch is the wetland type either well-connected (Well) or loosely- connected (Loosely) to? Well Loosely ❑A ❑A ? 500 acres ❑B �B From 100 to <500 acres ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres ❑D ❑D From 10 to <50 acres �E ❑E < 10 acres ❑F ❑F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats Check Yes or No. ❑Yes ❑No Does wetland type have a surface hydrology connection to open waters or tidal wetlands? (evaluate for marshes only) ❑Yes �No Is the assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions? 14. Edge Effect —wetland type condition metric Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include permanent features such as fields, development, two-lane or larger roads (? 40-feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two-lane road, and clear-cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight main points of the compass. ❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions ❑B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four to seven directions �C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four directions or assessment area is clear-cut 15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) ❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. ❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. �C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic species or composed of planted stands of non-characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species. 16. Vegetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) ❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species. �B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% cover of exotics. ❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species. 17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric � Vegetation present Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for marshes only ❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation ❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps �C �C Canopy sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer �C �C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer �C �C Shrub layer sparse or absent ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer �C �C Herb layer sparse or absent ❑ Vegetation absent 18. Snags — wetland type condition metric �A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). ❑ B Not A 19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric ❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12-inches DBH) are present. �B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6- and 12-inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH. ❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6-inches DBH or no trees. 20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric Include both man-made and natural debris piles. �A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). ❑ B Not A 21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only) Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. ❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D ,!��,^ � r, � �� ,� ��i��' � ' � I '� � �� t� � °�y� 1 y ��'' '� �,�r. M � �� Y�r,��tl �� m '� r II� �{ ,�,ry . �,� ��' � i I� rvi y��u �� i �� ±�' � 7 ' U \ �� p '1� ��'1, �' �d�' 1 � '"Y , i � i� ;� �` ��a� � � ir, �'�. � � � Y�,� �m�,t �,�� 1 �, � .� � J� � i � � � . � �� ( � .� � � � � qA�� ` , I y, p W� � �.l � ° ' � � il � u\ i i� ��, � � i� ��' l i P�y� � ' y� �,\�,� � r�� , .��j�� .� � �I� � rn �P�� v�F �� II��`� 'o�i�� i^� \ �� yV��l'T ,, i�� ^'�r .��r'i'�2. � � � i t� u�,� �, b iiJ�W�� -.,1 �i�,l ^�y:�� . � 1 �� i Lti � � o� r I�� II ;;� I�?' V"� I it' Ik' W�� ,� u; ,�, ` 22. Habitat Uniqueness — wetland type condition metric ❑Yes �No Has the N.C. Environmental Management Commission classified the assessment area as "Unique Wetlands" (UWL)?" Notes NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet Wetland Site Name pines Date of Assessment 03/21/OS Wetland Type Pine Flat Assessor Name/Organization DKO/ESC Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y/N) Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) Wetland may be a high-quality riverine wetland (Y/N) Assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) Assessment area subject to overbank or overland flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) Sub-function Function Hydrology Water Quality Sub-function Surface Storage and Retention Sub-surface Storage and Retention Pathogen Change Particulate Change Soluble Change Physical Change Pollution Change Habitat Physical Structure Landscape Patch Structure Vegetation Composition Uniqueness Metrics Condition Condition Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition/Opportunity Opportunity Presence (Y/N) Condition Condition Condition Condition YES NO NO YES NO YES HIGH HIGH X X X X X X X X X X X X HIGH HIGH NO LOW LOW X NO Function Rating Summary Function Metrics Rating Hydrology Condition HIGH Water Quality Condition HIGH Condition/Opportunity HIGH Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO Habitat Condition LOW Overall Wetland Rating HIGH