The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20051764 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20021108O~O~ W AT ~qQG r Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources • L Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director ~ Division of Water Quality January 13> 2003 MEMORANDUM To: Melba McGee From: John Hennessy ~~~ Subject: Comments on the EA for proposed improvements to SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) from NC 42 west to US 264 in Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1158(2), State Project No. 8.2341801, TIP Project No. U-3823, DENR Project Number 03E-0106. This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document: A) The DWQ will work with the DOT in the selection of the project's preferred alternative. B) At this time, the DWQ does not support the selection of an alternative that incorporates curb and gutter as part of the project design. However, the DWQ will discuss design options with the DOT as part of selecting the preferred alternative. C) Given the close proximity of downstream water supply intakes and the projected increase in trucks carrying industrial materials along this road, the DWQ strongly supports (and may likely require) the installation of hazardous spill catch basins for the project. D} In previous discussions about the project alignment and the use of roadway shoulders, the DWQ expressed concerns about the proposed relocation of a local resident to avoid impacting natural resources and/or cemetery. The document indicates that the project will result in the relocation of a local resident. However, no explanation about the issues associated with the proposed relocation is presented. If the relocation is a result of avoidance and minimization practices for impacts to jurisdictional waters or riparian buffers, please provide detailed information that describes the design parameters that are resulting in the residential relocation. Dependent on the magnitude of the natural resource impact and the desires of the potentially relocated resident, the DWQ may support impacting natural resources to prevent the loss of the residential dwelling. E) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)). tJ N. C. Division of Water 4uality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733-1786 Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748 Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1 ' Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director F) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) },mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than I50 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. G) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. H) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. I) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation. J) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the protected riparian buffers. K) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. L) Future documentation should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland, stream, and buffer impacts with corresponding mapping. M) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will likely require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 40I Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. In addition, the project will require a Neuse River Buffer Certification prior to incurring in impacts in protected riparian buffers. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at (919) 733-5694. cc: John Thomas, Corps of Engineers Gary Jordan, USFWS Travis Wilson, NCWRC John Hennessy, NCDWQ File Copy c:\ncdot\TIP U-3823\comments\U-3823 comments.doc N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (919) 733-1786 Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748 t ` w SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) From NC 42 West to US .264 Wilson County Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2) State Project 8.2341801 TIP Project Number U-3823 ~~ ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Approved: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N.C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) f~ 2 8 o Z- O'/ •Date Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Assistant Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT -~ ~ G' ate ~ ~}U!llivisi L. Graf~'.E. Administrator, FH WA SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) From NC 42 West to US 264 Wilson County Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2) State Project 8.2341801 TIP Project Number U-3823 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N.C. Department of Transportation Division of Highways September, 2002 Documentation Prepared in Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch by: v 828 (~z Douglas P eremiah Project Development Engineer ~' CAROc,'••., Charles R. Cox, P.E. ;.~'t*4,DEESSIDN'yq ,,~~% Project Development Unit Head ~, l ~ SE Al ~ _ " ~ 19328 ~~ i ; ~'• ~.y'•FiyGl NE~~ G~ . '••b+u nN~N~~' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY ...............................................•---•-•---•--.........---••--•-•-•--•----•----•-----•--.........--•-••-•--•-•---•-•----....I A. TYPE OF ACTION ................................................................................................................................ I B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... .. 1 C. PROJECT BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................... .. I D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................................................... .. I E. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ III F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................................................ III G. PERMITS REQUIRED (ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES) .................................................... III H. COORDINATION ................................................................................................................................ Ill I. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................. IV I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................... . 1 A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... . 1 B. TRANSPORTATION PLAN .................................................................................................................. . 1 II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................ . 2 A. PROJECT NEED ................................................................................................................................. .2 B. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... . 2 C. THOROUGHFARE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... . 2 D. OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN AREA ................................................................................. . 2 III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY .......................................................................................... . 3 A. LENGTH ........................................................................................................................................... . 3 B. ROUTE CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................... . 3 C. ROADWAY TYPICAL-SECTION .......................................................................................................... . 3 D. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................... . 3 E. RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................................................................... . 3 F. ACCESS CONTROL ............................................................................................................................ . 3 G. SPEED LIMIT .........................................................................:.......................................................... . 4 H. INTERSECTION AND TYPE OF CONTROL .................................................................................:.......... . 4 I. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ..................................................................................................................... . 4 J. AIRPORTS ......................................................................................................................................... .4 K. STRUCTURES .................................................................................................................................... .4 L. TYPE OF ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. . 4 M. UTILITIES ......................................................................................................................................... . 5 N. SIDEWALKS ...................................................................................................................................... .5 O. BICYCLE PROVISIONS ....................................................................................................................... . 5 P. SCHOOL BUS DATA ...........:.............................................................................................................. . 5 Q. ACCIDENTS ...................................................................................................................................... . 5 IV. A LTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. .6 A. "NO-BUILD" ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................. . 6 B. MASS TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... . 6 C. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................:............................. . 6 I. Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................................... . 8 2. Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................... . 8 3. Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................... . 8 4. Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................... . 8 ~. Alternative 5 ............................................................................................................................... . 9 6. Alternative 6 ............................................................................................................................... . 9 7. Recommended Alternative .......................................................................................................... . 9 v. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. M. N. VI PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE* ................ l0 LENGTH OF PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 10 DESIGN SPEED ................................................................................................................................. 10 PROPOSED TYPICAL-SECTION ......................................................................................................... l 0 RIGHT-OF-WAY .............................................................................................................................. 10 ACCESS CONTROL ........................................................................................................................... 10 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ................................................................................................................. 10 PARKING ......................................................................................................................................... 11 SIDE WALKS ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1 BICYCLE FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 LANDSCAPING ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 NOISE BARRIERS ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................ 1 1 INTERSECTION ROADS AND TYPE OF CONTROL .............................................................................. 1 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ............................................................................................................. 1 l SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................. 12 A. 1. 2, 3. B. C. 1. 2. 3. D. 4 ~. 6. 7. 8. E. LAND USE ....................................................................................................................................... Existing Land Uses 12 .................................................................................................................... 12 Local Land Use Plans ............................................................................................................... 12 Future Land Use Plans .............................................................................................................. 12 FARMLAND IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 13 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................... 13 ..................................... Compliance Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 13 Historic Architecture ................................................................................................................. 13 Archaeology ............................................................................................................................... 14 COMMUNITY IMPACTS ................................................................ 14 .................................................... Methodology ...... . ..................................................................................................... .................. 14 Community Description ............................................................................................................. 14 Public and Private Facilities ..................................................................................................... 1~ a. Business Activity and Employment Centers .............................................................................................. 15 b. Community Buildings and Recreation Facilities ....................................................................................... 15 c. Public Services .......................................................................................................................................... I ~ Social, Psychological, and visual Effects .................................................................................. 15 a. Demographics ............................................................................................................................................ 15 b. Project Effects ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Economic Effects ....................................................................................................................... 20 Relocations ................................................................................................................................ 20 Title VI and Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 22 Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ...........................................:......................................................... 23 NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 24 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 24 Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2=1 a. Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 2~ b. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 25 1) Surface Water Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 26 2) Best Usage Classification ..................................................................................................................... 26 3) V1'ater Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 27 4) Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............................................................................................. 28 Biotic Resources ........................................................................................................................ 29 a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................................................ 30 I) Maintained/Disturbed ........................................................................................................................... 30 2) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) .............................................................. 31 3) Pine Plantation ...................................................................................................................................... 3] 4) Agricultural Land ................................................................................................................................. 31 b. Faunal Component ..................................................................................................................................... 32 c. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................................................ 32 d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ............................... .................................................................... 33 4. JurisdictionalIssues ..................................................... .............................................................34 a. Waters of the United States ................................................... .................................................................... 34 I) Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands .............. .................................................................... 35 2) Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S ........................ .................................................................... 35 3) Permits .............................................................................. ....................................................................36 4) Neuse River Buffers ......................................................... .................................................................... 36 - - 5) Mitigation ......................................................................... ....................................................................37 a) Avoidance ................................................................... .................................................................... 37 b) Minimization ............................................................... ....................................................................37 c) Compensatory Mitigation ............................................ .................................................................... 38 S. Protected and Rare Species .......................................... ............................................................. 38 ~ a. Federally-Protected Species ................................................... .................................................................... 38 1) Dwarf Wedge Mussel ....................................................... .................................................................... 39 2) Red-cockaded Woodpecker .............................................. .................................................................... 40 3) Michaux's Sumac .............................................................. ....................................................:............... 40 b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............ .................................................................... 41 6. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................... ............................................................. 42 a. Cumulative Impacts from other NCDOT Projects ................. .................................................................... 42 b. Impacts to Water Resources .................................................. .................................................................... 43 c. Impacts to Wildlife Habitat .................................................... .................................................................... 44 F. AIR AND NOISE QUALITY ................................................... ............................................................. 44 1. Air Quality Analysis ...................................................... ............................................................. 44 a. Carbon Monoxide .................................................................. .................................................................... 45 b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides ....................................... .................................................................... 46 c. Particulate Matter .................................................................. .................................................................... 46 d. Lead and Sulfur Dioxide ........................................................ .................................................................... 47 e. Project's Effect ...................................................................... .................................................................... 47 2. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ... ............................................................. 47 a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................ ..................................................................... 48 b. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................... ..................................................................... 48 c. Ambient Noise Levels .......................................................... ..................................................................... 48 d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ...................... ..................................................................... 49 e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Countours ......................... ..................................................................... 49 f Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................... ..................................................................... 50 1) Highway Alignment Selection ......................................... ..................................................................... 50 2) Traffic System Management Measures ........................... ..................................................................... 51 3) Noise Baniers .................................................................. ................................:.................................... 51 4) Other Mitigation Measures Considered ........................... ..................................................................... 52 g "Do Nothing' Alternative ..................................................... ..................................................................... 52 h. Construction Noise ............................................................... ..................................................................... 52 i. Summary ............................................................................... .....................................................................53 G. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INVOLVEMENT ........................... .............................................................. 53 H. FL OODPLAIN ..................................................................... .............................................................. 53 VII. COMMENTS & COORDINATION .......................................................................................... 54 A. COMMENTS SOLICITED ................................................................................................................... 54 B. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ....................................................................................................... 54 C. CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORICSHOP ............................................................................................ 55 D. DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................................................................... 55 VI11. LIST OF PREPARERS ...............................................................................................................56 A. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ................................................................. 56 B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................... J7 IX. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................58 TABLES Table 1. Traffic Capacity (Level of Service) ................................................................................7 Table 2. Alternatives Comparison of Impacts .............................................................................9 Table 3. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City, and Tract for 2000 .................................16 Table 4. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City, and Tract for 1990 .................................17 Table 5. Age Distribution within North Carolina, Wilson County, the City of Wilson, and the Study Area Tracts for 2000 .............................................................................................18 Table 6. Income Levels and Poverty Status for Households in the Study Area for 1989 .......19 Table 7. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ...............................................................33 Table 8. Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters .........................................................................36 Table 9. Estimated Impacts to Wetlands .....................................................................................36 Table 10. Estimated Impacts to Riparian Buffers .....................................................................37 Table 11. Federally-Protected Species for Wilson County ........................................................39 Table 12. NCDOT Mussel Surveys Conducted in Bloomery Swamp ......................................39 Table 13. Federal Species of Concern for Wilson County ........................................................42 APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Aerial Photo Figure 3 Roadway Typical Section -Alternatives 1,3,5 Figure 4 Roadway Typical Section -Alternatives 2,4,6 Figure 5 2000 Traffic Data Figure 6 2025 Traffic Data Figure 7 Alternatives 1 & 2 -Culvert at Bloomery Swamp Figure 8 Alternatives 3 & 4 - 200-foot Bridge at Bloomery Swamp Figure 9 Alternatives 5 & 6 - 475-foot Bridge at Bloomery Swamp Figure 10 FEMA Flood Plain Mapping - . Appendix B Relocation Report Appendix C Comments Received From Federal, State, and Local Agencies Appendix D Noise Tables PROJECT COMMITMENTS SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) - From NC 42 West to US 264 Wilson County Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2) State Project 8.2341801 TIP Project Number U-3823 Hydraulics Unit The Bloomery Swamp stream crossing on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is within 1.1 miles of a critical water supply intake area (classified WS-IV NSW). Therefore, according to guidelines developed by NCDOT and the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), hazardous spill retention basins will be installed at the crossings of Bloomery Swamp. Stormwater treatment measures will be evaluated. Selection of these measures will be finalized further along in the design process. Roadside Environmental Unit and Division 4 Construction Unit Due to the presence of high quality wetlands at Bloomery Swamp, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024 NCAC Title 15A provisions will be included in the design. Division 4 -Design Unit A "sealed crossing" will be installed at the railroad crossing near Bloomery Swamp, which includes gates, signal flashers, and a monolithic concrete barrier installed in the median leading up to the crossing. U-3823 -Environmental Assessment Pa'e 1 of 1 September. 2002 SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) From NC 42 West to US 264 Wilson County Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2) State Project 8.2341801 TIP Project Number U-3823 I. SUMMARY R A. Type of Action This Environmental Assessment action is being taken because the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation (likely a Finding of No Significant Impact document). B. General Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) to a multi-lane facility from north of NC 42 to US 264 in Wilson County (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). A five-lane facility is proposed for the project except for the section in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp, where a four-lane facility is proposed to minimize impacts to wetlands. As part of the widening, several turn lanes are proposed for addition to the road system. Both curb and gutter and shoulder sections are being studied. Both bridging and culvert options are being studied at Bloomery Swamp. Typical sections can be seen in Appendix A, Figure 3 and Figure 4. The estimated current cost of this proposed project ranges between $6,900,000 - $9,200,000. The estimated cost in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $7,500,000. C. Project Benefits The proposed project will have a positive overall impact on the area involved by improving traffic flow and safety in the area. A multi-lane facility will better handle the expected increase in traffic into the design year (2025). D. Alternatives Considered Eight alternatives were considered for this project including the "no-build" alternative, the mass transportation alternative, and six highway construction alternatives (Alternatives 1-6). _ The "no-build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facility. This alternative would not improve capacity or safety along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project area which is the stated purpose and need of the project. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The mass transportation alternative includes the expansion of bus and/or - introduction of rail service in place of increasing the capacity of the roadway. Expansion of bus and introduction of rail service is not expected to reduce traffic volumes " sufficiently to eliminate this project's need. The mass transportation alternative, without increasing the roadway capacity of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), does not meet the ~ purpose and need of this project and was therefore eliminated from further study. Six highway construction alternatives are being studied. There are three different proposals being studied for extending/replacing the existing structure over Bloomery Swamp. Each of these proposals will also look at using shoulder or curb and gutter along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), for a total of six highway construction alternatives. Each of the alternatives proposes to widen the existing roadway from north of NC 42 to US 264 to a five-lane facility, a distance of approximately 2 miles. The recommended pavement marking for this section in each direction calls for two 12-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot center-turn lane. The horizontal cross-section would be _ reduced to four lanes in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp to minimize impacts to wetlands. A "sealed crossing" will be installed at the railroad crossing near Bloomery Swamp including gates, signal flashers, and a monolithic concrete barrier installed in the median leading up to the crossing. As part of the widening, several turn lanes are proposed for addition to the road system. The existing right-of--way widths of 60-100 feet along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) are not expected to contain any of the six highway construction alternatives. A continuous right-of--way width of 110 to 122 feet will be necessary (depending on the alternative selected), thus new right-of--way will be required. Drainage easements outside of this right-of--way width may also be necessary in certain areas of the project. These six alternatives are summarized below: Alternative 1 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative includes the extension of the existing five-barrel 12=ft. x 7-ft. reinforced concrete box culvert at Bloomery Swamp. Five equalizer pipes would be added to expand the reach of floodwaters throughout the wetland system. Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except that curb and gutter would be used. Alternative 3 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative also replaces the existing box culvert at Bloomery Swamp with a bridge 200 feet in length. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that curb and gutter would be used. ii Alternative 5 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative also replaces the box culvert at Bloomery Swamp with a bridge 475 feet in length. Alternative 6 is the same as Alternative 5 except that curb and gutter would be used. E. Recommended Alternative No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the design public hearing will be reviewed, and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. F. Summary of Environmental Effects One residential relocation is anticipated due to the proposed improvements. Land use in the area will not be adversely impacted. No historic architectural or archaeological sites on or eligible for the National Register will be involved. No recreational facilities aze involved. No adverse impacts to the community aze expected. No substantial impacts to animal or plant life are expected. Approximately 0.004 - 0.734 acres of permanent impacts to wetlands are expected. Approximately 87 - 123 feet of stream impacts are expected. Based on NCDOT noise analysis, noise abatement is not recommended and no abatement measures are proposed. The project's impact on air quality will not be significant. G. Permits Required (Actions Required by Other A encies) Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters aze anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the dischazge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." It is likely that an Individual Permit (IP) will be required for this project. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Major Water Quality Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 IP. H. Coordination Beginning in January 2000, the following federal, state, and local agencies were contacted to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project. (Note: an asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to this letter): United States Anmy Corps of Engineers -Regulatory Division * National Marine Fisheries Service * United States Fish & Wildlife Service * N. C. Department of Public Instruction -School Planning * N. C. Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office * N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality iii N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Wildlife Resources Commission N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Marine Fisheries * State Clearinghouse Upper Coastal Plain Council of Governments Wilson County Commissioners * City of Wilson I. Additional Information Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following: Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Assistant Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch N.C. Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 iv SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) From NC 42 West to US 264 Wilson County Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2) State Project 8.2341801 TIP Project Number U-3823 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. General Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) to a multi-lane facility from north of NC 42 to US 264 in Wilson County (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). A five-lane facility is proposed for the project except for the section in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp, where a four-lane facility is proposed to minimize impacts to wetlands. As part of the widening, several turn lanes are proposed for addition to the road system. Both curb and gutter and shoulder sections are being studied. Both bridging and culvert options are being studied at Bloomery Swamp. The travel lanes on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) will be 12 feet wide. Typical sections can be seen in Appendix A, Figure 3 and Figure 4. The intersection of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) with NC 42 is currently being reconfigured as part of TIP Project U-3472. B. Transportation Plan The project is included in the latest approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of--way acquisition is currently scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 and construction in FFY 2005 in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Project Need The traffic volumes on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) between NC 42 and US 264 for the year 2000 range between 4,000 - 4,500 vehicles per day (vpd) (see Appendix A, Figure 5). The projected design year (2025) traffic volumes along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) are projected. to increase to a range of 21,600 - 22,000 vpd (see Appendix A, Figure 6). With these traffic volumes and the current facility's design, SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) is operating at a LOS F in the current year (2000) at the intersection with US 264 and will continue to worsen as traffic increases. The intersection of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) with SR 1157 (Merck Road) is expected to operate at a LOS E in the design year (2025) if no improvements are made. SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is expected to operate at a LOS F in the design year (2025) if no improvements are made. While the accident rate is currently under the statewide average for similar roadways, the increase of traffic into the design yeaz (2025) may increase the facility's accident potential if no improvements aze made. B. Purpose of Project The purpose of the project is to improve capacity and improve safety along this section of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd). C. Thoroughfaze Plan SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), SR 1157 (Merck Road), US 264, and NC 42 aze all classified as Major Thoroughfares in the City of Wilson Thoroughfaze Plan. SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road) is classified as a Minor Thoroughfaze. D. Other Transportation Projects in Area In addition~to the subject project, two projects are included in the Draft 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in the same general area: TIP Project U-3472 is currently under construction and is widening NC 42 from I-9~ to SR 1165 (Forest Hills Road) from two-lanes to multi-lanes. Both five-lane with center-turn lane and four-lane with median designs are being used. TIP Project R-1023 is currently under construction and is constructing a bypass of Wilson (future US 264 Bypass) on new location from west of I-95 to NC 58 east of Wilson. This facility is a four-lane with divided median facility with full control of access. III. EXISTING .ROADWAY INVENTORY A. Len h The total roadway length of SR 1 l 58 (Airport Boulevard) within the project limits is approximately 2.0 miles. B. Route Classification SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is classified as a rural major collector from NC 42 to the urban boundary limit (approx. 1.25 miles), then is classified as a rural minor collector up to US 264. US 264 is classified as an urban principal arterial, SR 1157 (Merck Road) as a rural local, SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road) as a rural minor collector, and NC 42 as an urban principal arterial. C. Roadwa~Typical-Section Within the project area, SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) exists as atwo-lane roadway with 10 to12-foot travel lanes and 6 to 8-foot grass shoulders. US 264 is a five- lane roadway with 12-foot travel lanes and curb and gutter. SR 1157 (Merck Road) is a five-lane (with center-turn lane) with 12-foot travel lanes and curb and gutter. SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road) is a three-lane (with center-turn lane) with 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot grass shoulders. NC 42 is a five-lane roadway (with center-turn lane) with 12-foot travel lanes and curb and gutter. D. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The horizontal and vertical alignment of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) currently meet a 50-mph design speed. E. Right-of-Way The existing right-of--way along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project area ranges between 60-100 feet. Along US 264, the existing right-of--way is 100 feet. On SR 1157 (Merck Road), the existing right-of--way is 100 feet. On SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road), the existing right-of--way is 170 feet near the SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) intersection and gradually tapers down to 60 feet. F. Access Control No control of access is in effect within the project limits. -, G. Speed Limit The posted speed limit along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project area is 55 mph. On US 264, the posted speed limit is 45mph. H. Intersection and Tvpe of Control There are three intersecting streets within the project widening limits. US 264 intersects with SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) at the northern end of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd). This intersection is signalized. SR 1157 (Merck Road) intersects with SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) approximately halfway between US 264 and NC 42. This intersection is signalized. SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road) intersects with SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) at neaz the southern terminus of the project north of NC 42. This intersection is stop-sign controlled. Railroad Crossines There is one at-grade railroad crossing within the project azea. SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) crosses railroad tracks that aze privately owned by the Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS). The crossing is presently protected by flashing "cross bucks." Approximately 4 trains per day pass through this area at a maximum allowable train speed of 35 mph. Presently, no passenger trains serve this area. Airports Wilson Industrial Air Center Airport serves the City of Wilson and Wilson County and is owned by the City Of Wilson. The airport is located off of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) approximately 1.5 miles north of US 264. The airport primarily serves industrial air traffic and personal aircraft. K. Structures A five-barrel 12-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (structure No. C77) is located at the crossing of Bloomery Swamp. The culvert was built in 1991 on an 85-degree skew and is approximately 46 feet in length. Another stream crossing (of an unnamed tributary to Bloomery Swamp), between SR 1157 (Merck Road) and SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road), has 30-inch and 24-inch reinforced concrete pipes. L. Tvpe of Roadside Development The project azea contains a mixture of agricultural and residential development. 4 M. Utilities Utility impacts should be medium to high. Utilities along the roadway corridor include telephone, fiber optic, water, power, sanitary sewer, natural gas, and cable. N. Sidewalks There are no sidewalks within the project area. O. Bicycle Provisions According to the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, there are no known bicycle routes located within the project area. P. School Bus Data There are 8 to10 Wilson County school buses that travel along this section of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) in the morning and afternoon, for a total of 16-20 bus trips. However, none of these buses stop at the Wilson Christian Academy, located on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard). Q. Accidents There were 16 reported collisions along the section of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project limits from October 1998 to September 2001, resulting in a collision rate of approximately 188 collisions per 100 million vehicle miles (c/100mvm). This collision rate is below the statewide average of 262 c/100mvm for all Rural SR routes (2-lane undivided). Total property damage from these collisions is $74,800. There were no fatalities reported during the study period. IV. ALTERNATIVES A. "No-Build" Alternative The "no-build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facility. This alternative would not improve capacity or safety along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project area which is the stated purpose and need of the project. Road capacity would remain unchanged while the traffic demand substantially increases. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative does however, provide a basis for comparison of the build alternatives. B. Mass Transportation Alternative The mass transportation alternative includes the expansion of bus and/or introduction of rail service in place of increasing the capacity of the roadway. The Wilson Transit System serves the City of Wilson. The System is currently offering provisional bus service to the SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) area through a private contractor. The service is "on-demand" meaning that riders must request pick-up service in advance. If demand increases enough, the City may offer regular bus service to this area in the future. The City of Wilson does not currently offer intra-city passenger rail service and no plans exist to offer this service in the near future. Long term transportation solutions for SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) will likely consist of a mixture of roadway expansion and increased bus service. Therefore, widening this section of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) can be viewed as one part of the overall transportation plan for the area. Expansion of bus and introduction of rail service is not expected to reduce traffic volumes sufficiently to eliminate this project's need. The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway and improve safety along the project area. The mass transportation alternative, without increasing the roadway capacity of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), does not meet the purpose and need of this project and was therefore eliminated from further study. C. Hi~hway Construction Alternatives The highway construction alternatives consist of six widening options. Each of the alternatives proposes to widen the existing roadway from north of NC 42 to US 264 to a five-lane facility, a distance of approximately 2 miles. The recommended pavement marking for this section in each direction calls for two 12-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot center-turn lane. The widening will be done with a combination of symmetric and asymmetric widening to provide a "best-fit alignment", in order to minimize impacts to wetlands and to residences. The horizontal cross-section would be reduced to four lanes in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp to minimize impacts to wetlands. The cross-section would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction within this area. Dry detention/hazardous spill control basins will be installed in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp to properly treat runoff prior to discharge into Bloomery Swamp. 6 A "sealed crossing" will be installed at the railroad crossing near Bloomery Swamp including gates, signal flashers, and a monolithic concrete barrier installed in the median leading up to the crossing. A sealed crossing restricts motorists from crossing the railroad tracks while the gates are down. Several turn lanes are also proposed as part of the project scope. At the intersection of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) with US 264, a second left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane is proposed to be added to southbound SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard). Also, a second left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane are proposed to be added to eastbound US 264 at this intersection. Dual exclusive right-turn lanes are proposed to be added to northbound SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) at the intersection. A second left-turn lane is proposed to be added to westbound US 264 at the intersection. At the intersection of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) and SR 1157 (Merck Road), a second left-turn lane is proposed to be striped on existing pavement on eastbound SR 1157 (Merck Road). The traffic volumes on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) between US 264 and NC 42 currently range between 4,000-4,500 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected design year (2025) traffic volumes on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) between US 264 and NC 42 are projected to range between 21,600-22,000 vpd. Approximately 3% of this traffic is comprised of trucks. These traffic volumes provide the following levels of service with the "no-build" and all of the highway construction alternatives ("build"): Table 1. Traffic Capacity (Level of Service) 2002 no- build 2002 build 2025 no- build 2025 build Mainline B B D C SR 1158/LJS 264 Intersection F C F F SR 1158/SR 1157 Intersection A A E B There are three different proposals being studied for extending/replacing the existing structure over Bloomery Swamp. Each of these proposals will also look at using shoulder or curb and gutter along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard}, for a total of six highway construction alternatives. The existing right-of--way widths of 60-100 feet along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) are not expected to contain any of the six highway construction alternatives. A continuous right-of--way width of 110 to122 feet will be necessary (depending on the alternative selected), thus new right-of--way will be required. Drainage easements outside of this right-of--way width may also be necessary in certain areas of the project. These six alternatives are summarized on the next page: 7 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative includes the extension of the existing five-barrel 12-ft. x 7-ft. reinforced concrete box culvert at Bloomery Swamp. Approximately five equalizer pipes would be added to expand the reach of floodwaters throughout the wetland system. This alternative would impact approximately 0.734 acres of wetlands and 123 linear feet of stream. Approximately 122 feet ofright-of--way would be needed for this alternative. The estimated total construction cost is $5,800,000, of which the culvert extension and equalizer pipes cost $300,000. -The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 7. 2. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 except that curb and gutter would be used. Approximately 110 feet of right-of--way would be needed for this alternative. Alternative 2 is estimated to have a construction cost of $5,700,000, of which the culvert extension and equalizer pipes cost $310,000. The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 7. 3. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative also replaces the existing box culvert at Bloomery Swamp with a bridge 200 feet in length. The bridge would enhance the reach of floodwaters throughout the wetland system. This alternative would impact approximately 0.804 acres of wetlands, but approximately 0.140 acres of wetlands would be restored from the removal of fill on either side of the existing culvert. The total net loss of wetlands would be approximately 0.664 acres. There will be approximately 871inear feet of stream impacts. Approximately 122 feet ofright-of--way would be needed for this alternative. The estimated total construction cost is $6,800,000, of which the bridge construction costs $935,000. The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 8. 4. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that curb and gutter would be used. Approximately 1 l 0 feet ofright-of--way would be needed for this alternative. Alternative 4 is estimated to have a construction cost of $6,600,000, of which the bridge construction costs $935,000. The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 8. Alternative 5 Alternative 5 proposes a shoulder section. This alternative also replaces the box culvert at Bloomery Swamp with a bridge 475 feet in length. This "reciprocal" bridging option would remove existing fill from underneath the roadway and replace this area with a bridge. The bridge would enhance the reach of floodwaters throughout the wetland system. This alternative would impact approximately 0.500 acres of wetlands at Bloomery Swamp and restore approximately 0.500 acres of wetlands from the removal of fill on either side of the existing culvert. The total net loss of wetlands would be approximately 0.004 acres. There will be approximately 871inear feet of stream impacts. Approximately 122 feet of right-of--way would be needed for this alternative. The estimated total construction cost is $8,000,000, of which the bridge construction costs $2,220,000. The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 9. 6. Alternative 6 Alternative 6 is the same as Alternative 5 except that curb and gutter would be used. Approximately 110 feet ofright-of--way would be needed for this alternative. Alternative 6 is estimated to have a construction cost of $7,800,000, of which the bridge construction costs $2,220,000. The area near Bloomery Swamp in this alternative can be seen in Appendix A -Figure 9. Table 2. Alternatives Comparison of Impacts Altern- atives Typical Section Right- of-Way Wetland Impacts Stream Impacts Relo- cations Structure Cost Estimate Construction Cost Estimate 1 Shoulder 122 ft. 0.734 ac. 123 ft. 1 $310,000 .$5,700,000 2 C & G 110 ft. 0.734 ac. 123 ft. 1 $300,000 $5,800,000 3 Shoulder 122 ft. 0.664 ac. 87 ft. 1 $935,000 $6,800,000 4 C & G 110 ft. 0.664 ac. 87 ft. 1 $935,000 $6,600,000 5 Shoulder 122 ft. 0.004 ac. 87 ft. 1 $2,220,000 $8,000,000 6 C & G 110 ft. 0.004 ac. 87 ft. 1 $2,220,000 $7,800,000 7. Recommended Alternative No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the design public hearing will be reviewed and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. 9 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE* A. Length of Proposed Project The total length of the proposed project is approximately 2.0 miles. B. Design Speed Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway, which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the recommended or posted speed. The project will be designed for a minimum design speed of 50 mph. The posted speed limit on SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) will be 45 mph. C. Proposed Typical-Section SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) will have five lanes (four travel lanes with acenter- turn lane) for most of the project (see Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4). The widening will be done with a combination of symmetric and asymmetric widening, in order to provide a "best-fit" alignment. The only four-lane segment will be in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp. D. Right-of--Way The proposed right-of--way width for SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) within the project limits ranges between 110-122 feet (depending on the alternative chosen). E. Access Control No control of access is planned for this project. F. Drainage Structures Two bridge alternatives, one 200-feet and one 475-feet in length, are being studied, along with an alternative that would extend the existing 12-feet x 7-feet reinforced concrete box culvert at the Bloomery Swamp crossing. These are discussed in more detail in Section IV -Alternatives. * No alternative is recommended at this time. Comments received at the design public hearing will be reviewed, and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. 10 G. Pazkine Pazking will not be provided for or allowed along the project corridor. H. Sidewalks - No sidewalks are currently planned as part of this project. I. Bicycle Facilities There aze no plans for bicycle accommodations as part of this project. J. Landscaping No landscaping is proposed by NCDOT in conjunction with this project. K. Noise Barriers No noise barriers aze proposed as part of this project. L. Maintenance of Traffic NCDOT anticipates that traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction. M. Intersection Roads and Type of Control There aze three intersecting streets within the project limits. US 264 and SR 1157 (Merck Road) will remain signalized. SR 1136 (Old Raleigh Road) will remain stop-sign controlled at this time. N. Estimated Project Cost Current Estimate T.I.P. Estimate Right-of--Way: $1,200,000* $1,200,000 Construction (range): $5,700,000 - 8,000,000 $6,300,000 Total Cost: $6,900,000 - 9,200,000 $7,500,000 *This estimate is for 100 feet ofright-of--way. Updated estimates for the 110 and 122 feet right of way widths currently being studied will be included in the FONSI. VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Land Use Existing Land Uses The project study area is located within the City of Wilson's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Farmland and dispersed linear residential development encompass the length of the study area from NC 42 to just east of SR 1157 (Merck Road). At the SR 1157 (Merck Road) intersection on the south side of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is Wilson Christian Academy, a private school founded in 1961. The school is well maintained and consists of four main buildings. North on SR 1157 (Merck Road) is Wilson Corporate Park, a relatively new industrial park. The park is approximately 500 acres in size; however, currently there are only four companies located in the park. From SR 1157 (Merck Road) east along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) past Wilson Christian Academy is farmland and the Bloomery Swamp. Railroad tracks cross SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) in the Bloomery Swamp. At the project's eastern terminus, along US 264, are various commercial developments. Based on field observations and meetings with local planners, this area is currently experiencing commercial development as the City of Wilson expands in a northwest direction. 2. Local Land Use Plans The City of Wilson's policies on future development, land use, and growth can be found in the City of Wilson Growth Plan: 1999 Update, prepared by the Planning Board Appointed Growth Plan Update Committee. According to the document, the Plan's goal is to promote development variety, endorse economic development and related opportunities, encourage commercial and industrial development, foster inner city growth and revitalization, and advance geographic equitability in distribution of growth. The City of Wilson approved its thoroughfare plan in 1996. The thoroughfare plan promotes a hierarchical and functional road network that encourages the proper arrangement of land patterns by controlling the location of city and state streets and roads. The proposed improvement is included in the.thoroughfare plan. 3. Future Land Use Plans The proposed widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is compatible with the Ciry of Wilson Growth Plan: 1999 Update. The City of Wilson encourages development. In addition, industrial, residential, and commercial developments are expected to occur in the project study area. The proposed project is not likely to cause changes in the land uses along Airport Boulevard. The project will not provide access to undeveloped land or create any new intersections. It is consistent with the type and intensity of land use changes planned for the area by the City of Wilson. 12 Currently, Heritage Place, a proposed multi-use development, is the largest project in the area. Construction has begun on asingle-family residential phase of the project. There is no housing shortage in Wilson and Heritage Place has no affordable housing requirements. A $950,000 grant was received for the Heritage Place development by the City of Wilson to build replacement housing after the flooding experienced after Hurricane Floyd. Various commercial developments are planned along US 264 at the intersection with Airport Boulevard. B. Farmland Impacts The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981, (7 CFR 658) requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service. Farmland soils located in an urbanized area or in an area committed to urban development by the local governing body are exempt from the requirements of the FPPA. The proposed widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is located in an intensely urbanizing area. Although some vacant land remains in some areas, this land is slated for residential, commercial, or industrial development. The project lies with the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Wilson and is slated for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required. C. Historic and Cultural Resources 1. Compliance Guidelines This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 2. Historic Architecture The NC State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO), in a concurrence form dated November 2, 2000, agreed that no historic structures eligible for the National Register are located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) (see Appendix C). 13 3. Archaeoloay Five archaeological sites were identified in a Phase I survey. The NCSHPO, in a memo dated August 27, 2001, concurred that the five sites included in the __ archaeological survey are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places (see Appendix C). Therefore, the project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. D. Community Impacts 1. MethodoloQy The assessment process begins with defining the project and the study area. This helps to identify the areas of potential impact. Community information is gathered, including a summary of the history, present conditions, and the anticipated future of an area. Also included are the characteristics of the study area such as the demographic information, location of residences and businesses, economic data, social history of the community, and existing and future land use. This information is collected from a variety of sources including extensive fieldwork, local agencies, census data, tax records, real estate brokers, local citizens and employers, historical societies, and local land use plans. Community information can be used as a basis for identifying potential impacts of a proposed transportation project. It is part of the "affected environment" in this NEPA evaluation. The 1990 United States Census and 2000 United States Census data (when available) were used to gather information on the population and demographics of the project study area, unless otherwise stated. 2. Community Description Wilson County is centrally located in North Carolina's Coastal Plain region. Wilson County is bounded by Nash, Edgecombe, Pitt, Greene, Wayne, and Johnston Counties. The terrain is relatively flat. The project is located just west of the City of Wilson in the City's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. this project. Census Tracts 4, l 4, and I S encompass the length of the study corridor for 14 Public and Private Facilities a. Business Activity and EmQloyment Centers The project study area is primarily rural in nature although suburban development is found just east of the azea. However, Wilson Corporate Park, located on SR 1157 (Merck Road) is located in the project study area. Purdue Pharmaceuticals, EON Pharma, and Cox Beverage aze located in Wilson Corporate Park. Pazkwood Mall, strip mall development, and restaurants are located along US 264 near the SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) intersection. This azea along US 264 is currently being developed with a variety of commercial businesses. b. Community Buildings and Recreation Facilities Wilson Christian Academy, a private Christian school, is located in the project study azea at the intersection of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) and SR 1157 (Merck Road). The Academy provides caze and education for approximately 500 students ranging from nursery to Grade 12. There is no bus system to provide transportation for the students. According to the school's administrator, the primary mode of transportation for the students is pazent's private vehicles. c. Public Services There are no police or fire departments located in the project study area. Because the project study azea is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, the Wilson County Sheriff's Department serves the azea. The City of Wilson Police Department serves the portion of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) from US 264 to NC Highway 58. Station 2 and Station 5 of the City of Wilson Fire Department serve the project study azea. Station 2 serves Wilson Christian Academy and Wilson Corporate Park. Station 5 serves the portion of the project study azea from US 264 to SR 1157 (Merck Road). Both Station 2 and Station 5 have First Responders and EMT's. In addition, Station 10 of the Wilson County Fire Department serves the residential properties located in the project study area. Station 10 only has volunteer EMT's. 4. Social, Psychological, and Visual Effects a. Demographics According to the available 1990 and 2000 census data, the total population for North Carolina increased by approximately 18 percent over the past decade. The total populations of Wilson County and the City of Wilson increased by 11 percent and 17 percent, respectively. At the tract level the growth within the study area ranged from 7 percent to 36 percent. This increase in population at the tract level may be due to the fact that the City of Wilson has annexed outlying areas and experienced a steady increase in development over the past ten years. Both Wilson County and the City 15 of Wilson expect a continued increase in population, as the county and city continue to develop. From 1990 to 2000, the White population as a percent of the total decreased throughout North Carolina. In addition, the Census data showed a decrease of the White population within the study area, except in tract 15, where it increased slightly. The Black population as a percent of the total decreased slightly in North Carolina. However, at the county, city, and tract level the Black population increased. The most notable increase within the study area was in Tract 4, where the Black population increased approximately 16 percent. However, the majority of the population is racially white throughout North Carolina, including the study area tracts, except in the City of Wilson where the Black population. is slightly (approximately one percent) higher. Using 2000 Census data, a breakdown of the ethnicity and racial characteristics of North Carolina, Wilson County, the City of Wilson, and Tracts 4, 14, and 15 is shown in Table 3. The same information using 1990 Census data is shown in Table 4. Table 3. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City and Tract for 2000 Category North Carolina Nilson Counry~ City of Wilson Tract 4 Tract 14 Tract 15 Total Population 8,049313 73,814 44,405 6,990 4,545 3.739 White 5,804.656 (72.1%) 41,210 (55.8%) 20,723 (46.7%) 3,945 (56.4%) 3,841 (84.5%) 2,903 (77.6%) Blsck or African 1,737,545 (21.6%) 29,032 (39.3%) 21,106 (47.5%) 2,807 (402%) 597 (13.1%) 582 (15 6%) American . American Indian, and 99,551 (12%) 199 (0.3%) 136 (0.3%) 18 (0.003%) 20 (0.0%) 6 (0.0%) Alaska Native Asian 113,689 (1.4%) 310 (0.4%) 257 (0.6%) 26 (0.0%) 32 (0.0%) 7 (0.0%) Native Hawaiian 3,983 (0.05%) 16 (0.0%) 8 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0 0%) and Other . Pacific Islander Hispanic or 378,963 (4.7%) 4,4$7 (6.0%) 3237 (7.3%) 225 (3.2%) 44 (0.0%) 346 (9.3%) Latino (of any race) source: Luuu u~ c;ensus The Hispanic population has grown tremendously throughout North Carolina at the state, county, and local levels. Within Wilson County, the Hispanic population increased from 0.8 percent of the population in 1990 to 6 percent of the population in 2000. Within the City of Wilson, the Hispanic population increased from 0.7 percent of the population in 1990, to 7.3 percent of the population in 2000. At the tract level the most dramatic growth of the Hispanic population is shown in Tract 15, from 2.8 percent in 1990 to 9.3 percent in 2000. 16 Table 4. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City, and Tract for 1990 Category North Carolina Wilson Counq City of Wilson Tract 4 Tract 14 Tract 15 Total Population 6,628,637 66,061 36,930 6,012 2,945 3,496 White 5,008,491 (75.6%) 40,623 (61.5%) 19,338 (52.4%) 4,485 (74.6%) 2.573 (87.4%) 2.663 (762%) Black 1,456,323 (22%) 24,896 (37.7%) 17,326 (46.9%) 1,477 (24.6%) 345 (11.7%) 761 (21.8%) American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 80,155 (12%) 70 (0.1%) 40 (0.1%) 4 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) Asian 49,970 (0.8%) 169 (0.3%) 109 (0.3%) 26 (0.4%) 20 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) All Pacific Islander 2,196 (0.03%) 8 (0.0%) 4 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Hispanic origin 76,726 (12%) 537 (0.8%) 259 (0.7%) 57 (0.9%) 8 (0.0%) 98 (2.8%) Sotuce: 1990 US Census Age within the state, county, city, and study azea can be found in Table 5. The percent of the total number of persons each age group comprises is shown in pazenthesis. According to 2000 Census data, within North Cazolina 12 percent of the population is age 65 or older. Within Wilson County and the City of Wilson 12.9 percent and 13.5 percent of the population are within this age group, respectively. However, the percentage of persons over 65 in Tract 4 of the study azea is 20.2 percent. This may indicate the presence of well-established neighborhoods in Tract 4 of the project study azea. 17 Table 5. Age Distribution within North Carolina, Wilson County, the City of Wilson, and the Studv Area Tracts fns 2nnn Age North Carolina Wilson Couni\~ City of Wilson Tract 4 Tract 14 Tract 15 Total Population 8,049313 73.814 44.405 6,990 4,545 3,739 Under 5 years 539,509 (6.7%) 5,062 (6.9°%) 3,284 (7.4°,'0) 498 (7.1 %) 304 (6.7%) 219 (5.9%) 5-9 Years 562,553 (7%) 5386 (7.3%) 3.312 (7.5%) 444 (6.4%) 369 (8.1%) 255 (6.8%) 10-14 years 551,367 (6.8%) 5,230 (7.1%) 3.096 (7%) 415 (5.9%) 260 (5.7%) 287 (7.7%) 15-19 years 539,931 (6.7%) 5308 (7.2%) 3.163 (7.1 %) 374 (5.4%) 250 (5.5%) 254 (6.8%) 20-14 Years 577.508 (7.2%) 4,629 (6.3%) 3.060 (6.9%) 394 (5.6%) l92 (4.2%) 238 (6.4%) 25-34 years 1,213,415 (15.1%) 9,976 (13.5%) 6.215 (14%) 1,002 (14.3%) 625 (13.8%) 468 (12.5%) 35-44 years 1287,120{16%) 11305 (15.3%) 6.602 (14.9%) 952 Q3.6%) 810 (17.8%) 607 (16.2%) 45-51 years 1,085,150 (13.5%) 1Q499 (14.2%) 5955 (13.4%) 842 (12%) 764 (16.8%) 561 (IS%) 55-64 years 723,712 (9%) 6,192 (8.4%) 3.742 (8.4%) 658 (9.4%) 479 (10.5%) 416 (11.1%) 65 years and over 969,048 (12%) 9,507(12.9%) 5.976 (13.5%) 1,411 (20.2%) 492 (10.8%) 434 (! 1.6%) Median Age 353 36.2 35.1 38.8 38.1 37.6 source: LVVU u~ l;ensus The mean household income for North Cazolina was $26,647 in 2000. The mean household income for the study azea is compazable to the state, except at the city and Tract 141eve1. The mean household income for the City of Wilson and Tract 14 is $21,881 and $35,264, respectively. This may indicate a more educated working population in Tract 14 and a higher percentage of poverty in the city. Household income levels within the study area for 1989 can be found in Table 6. Also shown in Table 6 is the percent of the total number of households each income level comprises. Historical poverty tables from the United States Census Bureau show that the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four is $17,050 per year. According to the United States Census Income and Poverty Status in 1989, 179,906 families were below poverty level in North Cazolina, which equates to 7.1 percent of the total number of households. The percentage of families below the poverty level ranges from 4.1 percent. to 10.7 percent at the tract level, which is low, compared to the county and city level. 18 Table 6. Income Levels and Poverty Status for Households in the Study Area for 1989 Iucome Level North Carolina Wilson City of Wilson Tract 4 Tract 14 Tract 15 (1989) County TotslNumberOf 2,517,098 25,107 14,462 2,431 1,17 1,294 Households (family and nonfamilly) Family 179,906 (7.1%) 2,943 (11.7%) 1,900 (13.1%) 182 (7.48%) 48 (4.1%) 139 (10.7%) Households Below the Poverty Level (as a percentage of total households) Less than $ 5,000 185,418 (7.4%) 2,712 (10.8%) 1,909 (13.2%) 185 (7.6%) 68 (5.9%) 95 (7.3%) S5,000 to S9,999 243.607 (9.7%) 3,077 (122%) 1,94 I (13.4%) 269 (11 %) 94 (8.1 %) 176 (13.6%) 510,000 to $14,999 250,496 (10%) 2,548 (10.1%) 1,526 (10.6%) 190 (7.8%) 96 (8.2%) 163 (12.6%) 515,000 to 524,999 497,371 (19.8%) 4,593 (18.3%) 2,585 (17.9%) 439 (18%) 139 (12%) 212 (16.4%) $25,000 to 534,999 432,954 (172%) 4.017 (16%) 2,012 (13.9%) 493 (20.3%) 176 (15.2%) 236 (18.2%) 535,000 to 549,999 443,188 (17.6%) 4,185 (16.7%) 2,177 (15.1%) 500 (20.6%) 237 (20.5%) 214 (16.5%) $50,000 to 574,999 312,349 (12.4%) 2,757 (11%) 1,492 (10.3%) 268 (I I%) 224 (19.4%) 168 (13%) $75,000 to 599,999 85,545 (3.4%) 701 (2.8%) 412 (2.8%) 52 (2.1%) 79 (6.8%) 15 (1.2%) S100,000 to 42,401 (1.7%) 352 (l.4%) 285 (2%) 35 (1.4%) 20 (1.7%) 8 (0.6%) 5149,999 $150,000 or more 23.769 (0.9%) 165 (0.7%) 123 (0.9%) 0 (0%) 24 (2%) 7 (0.5%) Median 526,647 524,021 21,881 $28,166 $35,264 $25,036 Household Income Source: 1990 US Census b. Project Effects Social and psychological impacts can result from changes in population, community cohesion, social values, or the quality of life of the residents in the project study area as a result of the proposed project. According to the City of Wilson Growth Plan: 1999 Update and discussions with local planners, the project study area is slated for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The project will not directly cause or encourage an influx or loss of population, affect the cohesion of the area, or isolate people from one another. The study area is sparsely populated with residences associated with large farms. The development pattern is not conducive to pedestrian movement, although a few homes are clustered together. The roadway will not change mobility within the study area, or reduce access among study area residences. Widening the roadway will not isolate one or more residences from the others. The project will benefit the community by making turns from the roadway safer for area residents. Therefore, based on field surveys and discussions with local planners and an area resident, it is concluded that the proposed widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is not expected to cause any changes to the social and psychological aspects of the community. 19 Physical impacts can result from the construction of a barrier (noise walls or fencing), increased noise, vibration, and/or air pollution in the project study azea. None of the above mentioned impacts aze expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Visual impacts can affect a community from both the view of the road and the view from the road. The view of the road by the residents contributes to the feeling of community pride and value. The view from the road is from the user's perspective and leaves an impression of the community on the driver as well as the residents. The proposed widening will add more pavement to the existing roadway, increasing the roadway width and changing the view of the road from study azea residence. However, the widening will not dramatically change the chazacter of the azea or the residences' relationship to the roadway. The existing residences face the roadway, most set back well from the pavement. The widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) is compatible with the development that is planned for the azea, and the project will not change the aesthetic chazacter of the area. Therefore, no impacts to the visual environment are expected to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC 1271) was adopted to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, or recreational features in afree-flowing condition. No Wild, Scenic, or Recreational Rivers designated under the Act occur within the project area. North Cazolina passed similar legislation in 1971,.the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. Four rivers have been designated as State Scenic Rivers: the New River, Lumber River, Horse Pasture River, and the Linville River. None of these rivers aze located within the project area. 5. Economic Effects The proposed widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) is not expected to cause any changes in the economic condition of the project study area. However, some land will be required for right-of--way; removing it from the azea's tax base. The project study azea is and has been experiencing commercial and residential growth. The proposed project is not expected to encourage or affect the current growth. 6. Relocations The project will likely bring about one relocation of a residential house (see Appendix B). Adequate replacement housing is anticipated to be available for all relocatees at the time the residents and business must relocate. The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. 20 It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: • Relocation Assistance Relocation Moving Payments Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staff to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify. The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose. The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations~for relocation advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time prior to displacement for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property. All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering 21 assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision. A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250. It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law. Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary. 7. Title VI and Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income__Populations," provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, 22 and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. NCDOT Environmental Justice Position Statement: Environmental Justice (EJ) embraces the precept that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection under our environmental, health, employment, housing, transportation, and civil rights laws. The three basic principles of EJ are to: (1) engage low-income and minority populations in the transportation decision- making process; (2) identify and address "disproportionately high and adverse" impacts of transportation programs, policies, and activities on low income and minority populations; and (3) evaluate the benefits and burdens upon low income and minority populations of transportation programs, policies, and activities. The proposed project will not place any adverse impacts upon any areas having low income and/or minority populations, or split or isolate any such communities. In addition, Census data and field surveys indicate that no low income or minority communities exist within the immediate vicinity of the project. This assessment has found no evidence or indication of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. 8. Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Indirect and cumulative impacts are discussed here as they relate to the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality defines indirect impacts as those "which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.8). Based on these definitions, the current land use plan and zoning ordinance for the City of Wilson, and information provided by the City Planner, it is concluded that the project will not produce indirect impacts within the study area. Furthermore, the proposed improvements will accommodate the planned suburban development in the area. The study area is located on the outskirts of recent industrial, commercial, and residential development and during the next 18-20 year period based on the forecast in the City of Wilson's Growth Plan: 1999 Update, the City of Wilson has plans for further industrial, commercial, and residential development within the study area. The City's plan for suburban development in the project study area will change the character of the area from a farming area. This is consistent with recent development trends that focus new growth to the north and west of Wilson. No other public or private actions have taken place in the study area that would adversely affect its residents. Therefore, it is concluded that no past or present actions combine to result in a cumulative impact that would either adversely or beneficially affect the study area. 23 E. Natural Resources 1. Methodoloay Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps for Wilson County (Wilson, 1978 and Winstead Crossroads, 1977), Geographical Information Systems (NC Center for Geographical Information & Analysis), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Wilson and Winstead Crossroads), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) - (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soils information for Wilson County, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1"=400'). Water resource information was obtained from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, 1998). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the FWS list of protected species and federal species of concern and from the N. C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologists in September, 2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). A survey for listed mussels in Bloomery Swamp was conducted by NCDOT biologists in December, 2000. Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C. Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)], "Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (1999). The DWQ indicated that Bloomery Swamp is classified as Water Supply- IV nutrient sensitive waters (DWQ stream index number 27-86-6-(3)). The project is located in a protected watershed area for a water supply intake. 2. Physical Characteristics Soil and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils information was obtained from the NRCS for Wilson County. 24 a. Soils Two soil associations occur within project boundaries, Bibb- Wilbanks-Wehadkee, and Norfolk-Gritney-Wagram. Bibb-Wilbanks-Wehadkee is nearly _ level, and has poorly drained and very poorly drained soils with a loamy or clayey subsoil. It is located in the floodplain of Bloomery Swamp. Norfolk-Gritney-Wagram is nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained to moderately well drained with a loamy or clayey subsoil. Soil series to be impacted by the project include Rains sandy loam, Goldsboro sandy loam, Norfolk loamy sand, Gritney sandy loam, Tomotley fine sandy loam, Bibb loam, Aycock very fine sandy loam, Exum very fine sandy loam, Grantham very fine sandy loam, and Altavista fine sandy loam. Of these, four series are identified as hydric: Rains, Bibb, Tomotley and Grantham (MRCS, 1995). The hydric soils are found along Bloomery Swamp and its tributaries within the project vicinity. Rains is a poorly drained soil that formed in coastal plain sediment. It is found in broad interstream areas and in shallow depressions on coastal plain uplands. Slopes range from zero to two percent. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface in winter and early spring. Bibb is a poorly drained, nearly level soil found in floodplains. The organic content of the surface layer is medium; permeability is moderate. Flooding is common, and the seasonal high water table is from six to eighteen inches. Tomotley is a poorly drained soil found on flats and in the depressions of stream terraces. It is subject to rare flooding. Permeability is moderate in the upper part of the subsoil and moderately slow in the lower part. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Grantham is a poorly drained soil. It is nearly level and is found in broad interstream areas and shallow depressions of coastal plain uplands. Permeability is moderately slow, and the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). b. Water Resources This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize those impacts. 2~ 1) Surface Water Characteristics Water resources within the study azea are located within the Neuse River drainage basin. The Neuse River drainage basin is the third largest in North Carolina, _ occupying 6192 sq. mi. in the piedmont and coastal plain of the state. It is also one of three major river basins contained entirely within state boundaries, in which 19 counties and roughly one-sixth of the state's population aze contained (DENR, 1998). The Neuse River drainage basin extends approximately 200 miles in a northwesterly direction from Pamlico Sound to north of Durham and Chapel Hill. According to DENR (1998), many water resources in the basin aze not fully supporting their uses. "Problems with excessive nutrients, limited waste assimilative capacity, and threats to highly valued and biologically sensitive resource waters have been identified." The continuation of rapid population growth and development "will exacerbate these problems unless effective point and nonpoint source control measures aze put in place" (DENR, 1998). Water resources within the project study azea aze contained within sub-basin 03-04-07 (Contentnea Creek). This sub-basin drains to the Neuse neaz Grifton, downstream of Kinston. The DWQ has identified this basin as a priority for cooperative efforts between government agencies to identify where nonpoint source controls can be most effectively implemented (DENR, 1998). A total of two stream segments are located within the project study area. The first is an unnamed perennial stream (no DEM index number) approximately 10 feet wide and three feet deep. The substrate is primarily sand. It drains to Bloomery Swamp downstream of the project. The second stream, Bloomery Swamp (DEM index number 27-86-6-(3)), is a blackwater stream with at least two different channels that converge at SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard). It appeazs to be flooded regularly outside its banks. The main channel is approximately 20 feet wide and three feet deep. The substrate is primazily sand. 2) Best Usage Classification Bloomery Swamp and its unnamed tributary (UT) aze classified as WS-IV nutrient sensitive waters. "WS-IV" classification denotes waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas. Point source dischargers of treated wastewater aze permitted pursuant to rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A NCAC 2B .0100; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution aze required; the water is suitable for all Class C uses. The "C" classification denotes freshwaters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. 26 Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Waters (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The entire project vicinity, however, is located within a protected water supply watershed, as it provides drinking water for the City of Wilson. Approximately 6,000 ft downstream of the project, the watershed is designated as a critical water supply watershed. 3) Water Ouality_ The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. Biological monitoring is now performed as part of the basinwide assessment program. Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution; therefore, long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity, and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions. There are no BMAN stations within the project vicinity. The nearest station is on Contentnea Creek in Stantonsburg, many miles downstream of the project. Ratings there from 1986 to 1995 ranged from Fair to Good-Fair. The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters that are collected are determined by the water body's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding water quality standards Several ambient monitoring stations exist within the subbasin. Water quality for Contentnea Creek was rated Good at NC 42 below Buckhorn Reservoir, Fair at Stantonsburg and Good-Fair near Griffon. High phosphorous and low dissolved oxygen levels were found (low dissolved oxygen is fairly typical of slow-moving swamp waters.) Fish tissue was collected at two sites within the Contentnea Creek subbasin. Contaminants were found, but only mercury exceeded the levels of concern (DWQ, 1998). 27 Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any dischazger is required to register for a permit. The nearest permitted dischazger is located approximately 4.0 miles downstream of the project vicinity: the __ Willow Springs Country Club is permitted to dischazge 0.01 million gallons a day to Contentnea Creek. The Wilson wastewater treatment plant is permitted to discharge 12.0 million gallons a day to Contentnea Creek approximately six miles downstream of the project. Nonpoint source dischazge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The rate and volume of runoff from urbanized areas is greater than agricultural runoff due to the high concentration of impervious surface areas. Urban pollutants include lawn caze products, automobile-related pollutants, household wastes, and fecal coliform bacteria. Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (DWQ, 1998). According to the NRCS (USDA, 1983), most of the Contentnea Creek subbasin has high nonpoint source pollution potential, including runoff from cropland, forage land, and animal operations. Approximately 1.3 miles downstream of the project, Bloomery Swamp flows into Contentnea Creek. From this convergence to the headwaters of the Wiggins Mill Reservoir, Contentnea Creek is designated by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as a Natural Heritage Area for its aquatic habitat. 4) Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources Project impacts on topography and soils are expected to be restricted to localized changes in relief. There is only minor potential for changes such as mass soil movements as a result of road widening.. Two streams that are crossed by the highway will be temporarily and locally impacted by the project. Construction will impact water resources via culvert extension and/or bridge construction. Construction activities are likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at both aquatic sites. Temporary diversions of water flow may raise the water level upstream from the project 28 and lower the water level downstream of the project. Anticipated impacts to project area water resources are contained in Table 8 of this report. Surface water impacts were derived using the estimated construction footprint from the preliminary design plans. Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters: 1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion. 2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal. 3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from construction. 4. Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation. 5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. 6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic spills, and increased vehicular use. The proposed project may increase concentrations of toxic compounds (oil, gas, etc.) from machinery during the construction phase and from increased post-construction traffic volumes. Post construction water quality impacts are generally associated with flushing the roadway surface during storm events, where stormwater runoff eventually reaches surface waters. This flushing into surface waters will be reduced if grass swales are used. Compounds normally associated with roadway runoff include: oil and grease, total suspended solids and heavy metals (Barrett, et: al., 1996). Increased amounts of these compounds can adversely alter the water quality of the water resources. Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion of stormwater away from surface water supply waters"as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024 NCAC Title 15A provisions will be included in the design. _ Biotic Resources Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition and distribution of 29 biotic communities throughout the project area reflect topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems aze presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community aze described and discussed. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) aze provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Spoor evidence equates to observation of the species. Published range distributions and habitat analysis aze used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area. a. Terrestrial Communities Four distinct terrestrial communities aze present in the project study area: maintained/disturbed, coastal plain bottomland hazdwoods (blackwater subtype), pine plantation, and agricultural land. Community boundaries within the study azea are generally well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Most of the project study area consists of maintained/disturbed community. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study azea may exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities. 1) Maintained/Disturbed The maintained/disturbed community includes maintained road shoulders that are present along the entire length of the project, residential azeas, sewer easement, and institutional development. A railroad crossing near Bloomery Swamp consists of fill material covered with loose stone, maintained free of vegetation. Periodic residential areas primarily consist of maintained lawns of fescue grass (Festuca sp.), with a mixture of scattered horticultural shrubs. . Road shoulders are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications. Vegetation occurring within highly maintained portions of the road shoulder include low growing species such as: fescue, dandelion (Taraxacum o~cinale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and kudzu (Pueraria lobata). A sewer easement runs parallel to Bloomery Swamp at one point on the west side of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), and parallel to SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) along its east side. The vegetation along the easement is dominated by Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), path rush (Juncus tenuis), and fescue. 30 Institutional development, Wilson Christian Academy, occurs on the east side of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), near the intersection of SR 1157 (Merck Road). It consists of grassed lawn within the project study area, in addition to athletic fields, buildings and a parking lot. The main type of vegetation is fescue and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.). 2) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtvpe) This community type occurs in a narrow fringe around the UT to Bloomery Swamp, and in a wide band around Bloomery Swamp itself. The transition from bottomland hardwoods to the surrounding agricultural fields is abrupt due to the change in vegetation and maintenance activities. On the east side of the road, south of Bloomery Swamp, the bottomland hardwoods transition slowly into pine plantation. The canopy is a mixture of black willow (Sal ix nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), and river birch (Betula nigra) in the wettest areas. The understory contains netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), tear thumb (Polygonum sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), and honeysuckle vines. Willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet gum (Liquidambar sryraciflua), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are more predominant in the areas further from Bloomery Swamp and in the wooded border around the UT. 3) Pine Plantation On the east side of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), between Bloomery Swamp and the grounds of Wilson Christian School, is a pine plantation. It consists of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) roughly 10 years old, with sweet gum saplings, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle, and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). Where the pine plantation is close to Bloomery Swamp, the pines are less successful due to the higher groundwater level. Other species, such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) become more predominant, as the community type transitions into coastal plain bottomland hardwoods. 4) .Agricultural Land Agricultural fields are located along the majority of the project and consist of cotton and corn crops. Some pastureland is located along the east side of the road, adjacent to the unnamed tributary to Bloomery Swamp. It contains a mixture of grasses, primarily fescue and foxtail grass (Setaria sp.). An abandoned field is located west of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) at the north end of the project. Vegetation there consists of foxtail grass, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacrylon), beard grass (Erianthus sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus ), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). _ 31 b. Faunal Component Many faunal species aze highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of biotic communities discussed. Forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for species requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement corridors for other species of wildlife within the project vicinity. Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily ofwide-ranging, adaptable species that aze well suited to coexistence with human development. Mammals common to disturbed edge azeas, such as eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. Birds likely to occur in the project vicinity include common crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern cazdinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), European stazling* (Sturnus vulgaris), great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), catbird* (Dumetella carolinensis), Cazolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensus), tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor), and redbellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes cazolinus). Reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities within the project area include: eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), five-lined skink* (Eumeces fasciatus), and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus). The forest communities near surface water provide excellent habitat for amphibians such as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), American toad (Bufo americanus), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), leopard frog* (Rana utricularia), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris). c. Aquatic Communities Two aquatic communities, Bloomery Swamp and the UT, will be impacted by the proposed project. Bloomery Swamp runs perpendicular to SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) and crosses under it roughly in the center of the project. The stream banks along Bloomery Swamp aze low with an extensive floodplain. The UT is a perennial stream that also runs perpendicular to SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) and drains into Bloomery Swamp south of the project. Its banks are steeper and it floodplain much narrower that that of Bloomery Swamp. The substrate of both creeks is primarily sandy; both are blackwater streams. Due to its smaller size, habitat types and fauna in the UT are not as diverse as in Bloomery Swamp. ;~ Fauna within the project area depend upon physical characteristics of the water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. Fauna associated with the aquatic communities include various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur in Bloomery Swamp and the UT include: sunfish (Family Centrarchidae), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Invertebrates likely to be present include: crayfish* (Cambaridae), dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), nymphal and larval stages of caddisflies (Trichoptera) and stoneflies (Plecoptera), whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae), water striders (Aquarius sp.), and various mussels* (Elliptio spp.). d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well. Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present within the study area. Project-construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 7 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using a construction footprint of 100 ft. Table 7. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities Community Type Impact* Maintained/Disturbed 4.02 acres Agricultural Land 14.12 acres Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods 3.96 acres Pine Plantation 0.46 acres Totals: 22.56 acres *Note -based on "worst-case" scenario of widening. Actual impacts may be less. Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife species. Widening SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. Widening the road will accommodate more traffic, will involve more disturbances to wildlife, and may hinder the movement of wildlife from one side of the road to the other. 33 Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species, if sufficient habitat is available. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase of competition for the remaining resources. Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from construction- related work would affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from construction may result in long term or irreversible effects. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and will remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit- feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light penetration thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation; it also hinders the ability of sight-feeding organisms to obtain food. The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank increase the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil, thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds, and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species. 4. Jurisdictional Issues This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues: Waters of the United States and protected and rare species. a. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, 34 marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). 1) Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an azea to be considered a wetland. Three wetlands aze present within the project azea. Wetland 1 (W 1) is located in an abandoned field on the northwestern side of the project (see Appendix A -Figure 9). This wetland was mapped in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded. Soils within the wetland have a sandy clay loam texture and a soil matrix Munsell color notation of 10 YR 3/1 within 8 inches of the surface. The hydrological indicator was standing water at the surface. The site is no longer forested; vegetation included softstem rush, broom sedge, beggar's ticks (Bidens sp.), smartweeds, and goldenrods. Some of this wetland was permanently filled for the realignment of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) several years ago. Wetland (W2) consists of the bottomland hardwoods that border the UT, mapped as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded. Soils have a silty clay texture and a soil matrix color notation of 10 YR 4/2, with mottles of 7.5 YR 4/6 common. Soil was saturated within 8 inches of the surface. Vegetation included black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet gum, willow oak, netted chain fern, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and honeysuckle vines. Wetland (W3) is the extensive bottomland hardwood forest that borders Bloomery Swamp, also described as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, but with an intermittently flooded hydrologic regime. Soils have a sandy loam texture with a matrix color notation of 10 YR 5/1 and abundant mottles of 10 YR 5/6. Standing water was present several inches deep. Vegetation included black willow, red maple, river birch and sweet gum with an understory of tear thumb, softstem rush, lizard's tail and honeysuckle vines. Some of this wetland was planted with pines on the east-side of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), south of the main channel of Bloomery Swamp. 2) Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S. - Estimated linear impacts to wetlands. and surface water were derived from aerial photographs of the project area, onto which wetland boundaries and surface water locations were mapped in the field. Calculations for impacts in Tables 8 and 9 were made using the estimated construction footprint from the preliminary design 3~ plans. Table 8 summarizes estimated surface water impacts. Table 9 summarizes estimated wetland impacts. Table 8. Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters Surface Water Alternatives 1&2 Alternatives 3&4 Alternatives 5&6 Bloomery Swamp 36 feet 0 feet 0 feet Unnamed Tributary 87 feet 87 feet 87 feet Total 123 feet 87 feet 87 feet Table 9. Estimated Impacts to Wetlands Wetland Alternatives 1&2 Alternatives 3&4 Alternatives 5&6 Bloomery Swamp 0.730 acres 0.660* acres 0.000** acres Wetland along UT 0.004 acres 0.004 acres 0.004 acres Total 0.734 acres 0.664 acres 0.004 acres ~rvote- u.bbu acres mctudes u.8uo acres of wetlands impacted minus 0.140 acres of possible restored wetlands from fill removal **Note- 0.000 acres includes 0.500 acres of wetlands impacted minus 0.500 acres of possible restored wetlands from fill removal Alternatives 5 & 6 would have the smallest impact on wetlands if the area underneath the bridges where fill would be removed are considered to be "restored wetlands." Wetland locations are identified in Appendix A, Figure 2. 3) Permits Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Factors that determine applicability. of Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs) include: hydrology; juxtaposition with a major resource; and whether the impacts occur as part of the widening of an existing facility or as the result of new location construction. Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may require authorization under and Individual Permit (IP). A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit. 4) Neuse River Buffers As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient Sensitive Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges. stormwater management facilities, ponds, and utilities may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. They also state that these structures shall be located, designed, constructed and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat, and to protect 36 water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of best management practices. Every reasonable effort will be made to_ avo_id and minimize wetland and stream impacts. Estimated impacts to riparian buffers were made using the estimated construction footprint from the preliminary design plans and are quantified in Table 10. Table 10. Estimated Impacts to Riparian Buffers Water Biotic Alternatives 1&2 Alternatives 3&4 Alternatives 5&6 Resource Community Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 Bloomery Bottomland Swamp' hardwood 924 ft.z 533 ft.2 1105 ft.2 730 ft.2 1105 ft.2 730 ft.2 Unnamed Bottomland Tributary hardwood, 779 ft.2 104 ft.2 779 ft.2 104 ft.2 779 ft.2 l04 ft.2 agricultural Total 1703 ft.2 637 ft.2 1884 ft 2 834 ft.2 1884 ft.2 834 ft.2 5) Mitigation The USACE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR Section 1508.20). Ea_ ch of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. a) Avoidance Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 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. Wetlands were avoided to the extent practicable, however, the alignment is not able to avoid wetlands in the Bloomery Swamp area. Avoidance of the wetlands near the unnamed tributary was not possible_due to other factors in that area such as home and gravesite locations. b) Minimization Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United 37 States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. For this project, the roadway will be reduced to four lanes from five lanes in the vicinity of Bloomery Swamp. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re- establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control. Hazardous spill control basins will also be installed near Bloomery Swamp. In selecting the recommended alternative, minimization of wetland impacts will be considered along with cost and other factors. c) Compensatory Miti ation Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. No specific mitigation (if mitigation is required) has been identified for this project. 5. Protected and Rare Species Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally- protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. a. Federally-Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the FWS lists three federally-protected species for Wilson County (see Table 11). A brief description of the species' characteristics and habitat follows. 38 Table 11. Federally-Protected Species for Wilson County Scientific Name Common Name Status Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E Picoides borealis red-cockaded wood ecker E Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its - ` range). 1) Dwarf Wedge Mussel The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white. Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well-oxygenated water to survive. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Mussel surveys have been conducted in the past by NCDOT at the NC 42 crossing of Bloomery Swamp (@1.5 miles downstream of project crossing) and at the SR 1157 (Merck Road) crossing of a tributary to Bloomery Swamp (@1.5 miles upstream of project crossing). A survey was also conducted at the SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) crossing. The only mussel species found during any of the surveys were elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.). The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was found to be common in Bloomery Swamp. The dwarf-wedge mussel was not found during these surveys. The survey results are shown in Table 12. Table 12. NCDOT Mussel Surveys Conducted in Bloomery Swamp Date Location TIP Method Results 7/18/95 SR 1157 ~ U-3345 Tactile Elliptio spp. (65), Corbicula (Merck Road) fluminea (common) 5/20/99 NC 42 U-3472 SCUBA, Elliptio spp. (145), Corbicula Batiscope fluminea (common) 12/01/00 SR 1158 U-3823 Batiscope Elliptio sp. (>40), Corbicula (Airport fluminea (common) Boulevard) Given the survey results, it is apparent that the dwarf- wedge mussel does not occur in Bloomery Swamp. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species. The surveys indicate that Bloomery Swamp does contain a viable mussel fauna. Best Management Practices for the Protection of 39 Surface Waters should be strictly adhered to ensure the protection of the mussel fauna in the creek. 2) Red-cockaded Woodpecker The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker aze white with streaked flanks. The RC W has a lazge white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat. The RC W uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 yeazs of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres. This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites. These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that aze infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 ft above the ground and average 30-50 ft high. They can be identified by a lazge incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable nesting. habitat in the form of lazge pine trees with little understory is not present within the project study area. The study azea is dominated by maintained/disturbed azeas and bottomland hazdwoods with dense undergrowth. Pines in the study area consist primazily of a young pine plantation, less than 20 years old, with a dense understory. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats in September, 2000 found no records of red-cockaded woodpeckers within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the species. 3) Michaux's Sumac Michaux's sumac is a shrub growing to a height of 1.0-2.0 ft. Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4-5 parted greenish-yellow to white flowers. Fruits, produced from August through September, are red, densely short-pubescent drupes, 0.25 in across. Most populations, however, are single sexed and reproduce only by rhizomes. The entire plant is densely pubescent. The deciduous leaves are composed of 9-13 sessile, oblong leaflets on a narrowly winged or wingless rachis. The acute to acuminate leaflets have rounded bases and are 1.5-3.5 in long and 1.0-2.0 in wide. They are simply or doubly serrate. 40 Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Most populations occur in North Carolina. This species prefers sandy, rocky, open woods, and roadsides. Its survival is dependent on disturbance (mowing, clearing, and fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy. There is no longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types. This species is threatened by loss of habitat. Since its discovery, 50 percent of Michaux's sumac habitat has been lost due to its conversion to silvicultural and agricultural purposes and development. Fire suppression and herbicide drift have also negatively impacted this species. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the road shoulder portions of the project study area and within the sewer easement. A plant by plant survey for sumac was conducted within areas of suitable habitat on September 26, 2000 by NCDOT biologists. No specimens were found during the survey. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats in September, 2000 revealed that no known occurrences of Michaux's sumac occur within the project study area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the species. b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species There are four Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wilson County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare species and unique habitats are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. 41 Table 13 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species' state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study azea. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future. Table 13. Federal Species of Concern for Wilson Countv Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR Yes Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE Yes Tofieldia glabra Cazolina asphodel C* Yes "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world. "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina. "/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process. * -- Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of the species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats in September 2000 revealed no records of North Carolina raze and/or protected species in or near the project study azea. 6. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis Indirect and cumulative impacts aze discussed here as they relate to the natural environment. Bloomery Swamp, the major water crossing for this project, serves as a major connector, not only for linking habitat, but also for transporting impacts (sediment and toxins) from the project area to areas downstream of the project. Because of this, the assessment of cumulative and secondary impacts will focus on Bloomery. Swamp. a. Cumulative Impacts from other NCDOT Projects Bloomery Swamp is already crossed by I-95, NC 264, and NC 42, which is in the process of being widened to a five-lane road. All of these roadways have impacts on the waterway, similaz in nature to those described in this document, if not greater. 42 b. Impacts to Water Resources There aze several pieces of land in the vicinity of the project that will be developed or could be subject to development within the next decade, according to discussions with planners from the City of Wilson: A 600-acre parcel of land adjacent to SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) and Bloomery Swamp, known as Heritage Place, is already in the process of being developed into 4241ots, with an average lot size of 1.4 acres. This development does not appear to be caused by the widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), as it has an access point on another street and is already in progress. • A 500-acre industrial pazk on SR 1157 (Merck Road) already has some development in place, with the potential for more. Future development will probably not result from the widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard), as the primary access to this azea is from US 264. • A 400-acre area zoned A-1 for agricultural use lies directly along SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd). If development were to take place here in the future (city planners predict that it could undergo residential/commercial development within the next 15- 20 years), this could occur as an indirect impact from the project. • Upstream of the project along Bloomery Swamp aze approximately 1,000 acres of land primarily zoned for agricultural use. Any future development here is unlikely to be the result of the project, since the main access would be US 264. Streams become degraded as the imperviousness of a watershed increases. According to Schueler and Galli (1992), as the amount of imperviousness reaches 10-25%, stream health becomes impacted. As imperviousness reaches more than 25%, streams become degraded. Development of two or less dwelling units per acre keeps imperviousness below 25%. Industrial and commercial development typically result in greater than 70% impervious surfaces (Soil Conservation Service, 1975). The majority of Bloomery Swamp's 20.7 square mile watershed is in rural areas, outside the City of Wilson. The four areas described above which may undergo development tota12,500 acres, or 3.9 square miles. If all four of those azeas were to become fully developed within the next couple of decades, surfaces along a portion of Bloomery Swamp could reach 25% imperviousness. Although this would not be a large enough portion of the watershed for Bloomery Swamp to become significantly degraded, it is very possible that the waterway could become locally degraded, especially after storm events. Should this occur, the widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) would not be directly responsible but would contribute to cumulative impacts. The more wetlands and buffers that can be maintained or restored at the crossing of Bloomery Swamp, the more the impacts to water quality will be offset. 43 The second stream crossed by SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd), an unnamed tributary to Bloomery Swamp, has an 800-acre watershed (approximately) centered around SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd). Roughly 9% of the watershed is zoned for low-density single family housing; roughly 18% is zoned industrial. The remainder of the watershed is rural or is zoned for agricultural use. The widening may increase the overall attractiveness of the azea to development. Should the quality of the creek degrade in the future, the widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) could be indirectly responsible to some extent. Measures such as storm water detention ponds, grass swales, and other erosion/sediment control measures, if instituted, would lessen the impacts of development, traffic, and impervious surfaces on water quality. c. Impacts to Wildlife Habitat Widening SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) may increase a barrier to the movement of wildlife and may degrade habitat in the area, adding to the cumulative impacts on habitat that have occurred from other NCDOT projects (I-95, NC 264, and NC 42) that bisect Bloomery Swamp and from current and future development. Currently the swamp is large enough to support both interior forest dwelling species (i.e. pileated woodpeckers, Drycopus pileatus, warblers, Dedroica sp., bobcats, Lynx rufus), and species requiring lazge ranges. It is likely that such species will become locally extinct as development increases, due to loss of forest interior/edge effects, increasing human disturbance, and disruption of wildlife corridors. The remaining habitat will favor more "weedy" species of plants and animals that are adapted to edge habitat and disturbed azeas. Biological diversity will decrease. Biological community structure will change over time, as may ecosystem function. Widening SR 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) will not be directly responsible for these impacts, but it will contribute to them. _ Impacts to wildlife habitat could be reduced over time if development is controlled tightly through zoning, restrictions on tree cutting, and stormwater management. F. Air and Noise Ouality 1. Air Ouality Analysis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. 44 Federal standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), are required to set levels that protect human health. There are currently NAAQS for six pollutants. They are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO2), ozone (03), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The main pollutants that are significant from transportation sources are carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area and can be analyzed with a project level analysis. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow. a. Carbon Monoxide In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Air Quality. Once the two concentration components were ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A microscale air quality analysis was performed~to determine future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors. Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005, 2010 and 2025, using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILESB mobile source emissions computer model. The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for the rural and suburban area. 45 The US 264 and SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) intersection was used to analyze air quality impacts of the project. Air quality receptors were located incrementally approximately 75 ft. from the centerline of each roadway along each leg from the intersection. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 11.9, 12.4, and 13.5 ppm, respectively. A persistence factor of 0.61 was used and the predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 7.3, 7.6, and 8.2 ppm, respectively. Due to the improvements already done in the vicinity of the intersection, the no-build was not evaluated. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. See Tables Al through A3 for input data and output (Appendix B). b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOZ). Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC and NO2 are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area. The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally take place 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole, not individual streets and highways, are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and are analyzed using anarea-wide analysis. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California. c. Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke, while others are so small that they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Fine particulate matter (PM-2.5 define particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) result from fuel combustion from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities, as well as from residential fireplaces and wood stoves. Coarse particulate matter (PM-10 define particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter) based on estimates of anthropogenic emissions includes fuel combustion, industrial processes, and transportation sources. Transportation sources account for only 6 percent of the total PM-10 emissions nationwide. The PM standard is 4fi under review and may be changed in the future to account for fine particular matter and the effects on human health. The NCDOT Standard Specification for Roads and Structures requires contractors to control dust and other particulate matter at all areas utilized during construction, including unpaved roads, haul roads, and borrow~and disposal sites. d. Lead and Sulfur Dioxide Lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are predominantly the result ofnon-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of lead matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS. Project's Effect The project is located in Wilson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary. 2. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the immediate project area as the result of widening SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard). This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise 47 abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts. a. Characteristics of Noise The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table NI (see Appendix D). Review of Table N1 (see Appendix D) indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: l) The amount and nature of the intruding noise. 2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise. 3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard b. Noise Abatement Criteria The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix D). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content. Ambient Noise Levels An ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq 48 noise measurement site was located approximately 1350' north of SR 1157 (Merck Road) on SR 1158 (Airport Road) at a distance of 50' from edge of pavement. At this site the noise level was determined to be 63.7 dBA. The ambient measurement location is presented in Figure N1 (see Appendix B). d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the TNM 1.1 traffic noise prediction model. The TNM model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation. In this regard, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes the widening of SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.) from an existing 2-lane facility to a 5-lane facility. The project would begin at NC 42 and end at US 264. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed. Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report. The TNM computer model was utilized in order to determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2025. Aland use is considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4 (see Appendix D). Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Countours Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with_"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value (see Appendix D)), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2 (see Appendix D). Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category. 49 In accordance with NCDOT Traffic. Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODS, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N4 (see Appendix D). These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 6 residences are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level contour is 62.0 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour is 97.7 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. Contour information in Table N4 (see Appendix D) shows this contour information by alternative and section. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. Table NS (see Appendix D) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway section. There were no substantial noise level impacts anticipated by this project. The predicted noise level increases for this project range from +6 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. £ Traffic Noise Abatement Measures If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There are 6 receptors impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project. 1) Highway Alignment Selection Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental 50 parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement 2) Traffic System Management Measures Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility. Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective ofproviding ahigh-speed, full-access facility. 3) Noise Barriers Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls. The project will maintain uncontrolled control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersection will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access opening of 40' (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27). Hence, this type of control of access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures. ~l In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particulaz highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. 4) Other Mitigation Measures Considered The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive azeas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the amount of substantial amount of.right-of--way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA reseazch has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100 ft. wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of--way would be required. The cost of the additional right-of--way and plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non- profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project. g. "Do Nothing;" Alternative The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, three receptors are expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Furthermore, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +4 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed. h. Construction Noise The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short- term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. 52 Summary Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project. G. Hazardous Material Involvement A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along the project. The purpose of this investigation was to identify the existence of any unknown hazardous materials within the proposed project alignment. In addition to the field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. Based on the field reconnaissance survey, there are no anticipated UST impacts. Based on the GIS search and the field reconnaissance, no apparent Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites were identified within the project limits. Based on the GIS, no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits. H. Fooodplain The project is located within the Neuse River Basin and corresponding nutrient sensitive water rules will apply. This crossing of Bloomery Swamp has a drainage area of 20.7 square miles and is located below headwaters. Wilson County and the City of Wilson are currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program (NFIP). The proposed crossing of Bloomery Swamp is located in a designated flood hazard zone where a detail study has been performed. According to the above mentioned detailed study and the hydraulic analysis performed for the culvert in 1990 by the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit, the existing culvert passes the 100-year flood with no overtopping. NFIP Mapping can be seen in Appendix A, Figure 10 that shows the floodway, 100-year flood fringe, and 500-year flood fringe. The floodplain at the Bloomery Swamp crossing is wooded and swampy with braided channels. It is not anticipated that the proposed project should have any adverse impacts on the existing floodplain. 53 VII. COMMENTS & COORDINATION A. Comments Solicited Beginning in January 2000, the following federal, state and local agencies were contacted to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project. (Note: an asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to this letter): United States Army Corps of Engineers -Regulatory Division * National Marine Fisheries Service * United States Fish & Wildlife Service * N. C. Department of Public Instruction -School Planning * N. C. Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office * N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Wildlife Resources Commission N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Marine Fisheries * State Clearinghouse Upper Coastal Plain Council of Governments Wilson County Commissioners * City of Wilson Written responses from the agencies are found in Appendix C. B. Interagency Coordination A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) /Clean Water Act Section 404 (404) Merger Team was established for the project to coordinate environmental protection and the regulatory process. The merger team consists of representatives from the following federal and state agencies: United States Army Corps of Engineers Federal Highway Administration United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service North Carolina Department of Transportation North Carolina Division of Water Quality North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Merger team meetings were held to discuss and agree on the project purpose and need, alternatives to be studied, and to review impacts associated with the alternates under consideration. 54 C. Citizen Informational Workshop Citizen comments and concerns were taken into consideration during the planning stage of this project. A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held in Wilson County by NCDOT representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and/or suggestions about the anticipated improvement. The project was advertised in the local news media and informational flyers were sent to approximately 40 residences. The workshop was held on June 27, 2000 at the James B. Hunt, Jr. High School in Wilson. Approximately 11 people attended this meeting to express their interest in the project. D. Design Public Hearing A public hearing will be held for this project following the circulation of this document. At the hearing, more detailed information about the proposed improvements will be made available for the public. At the hearing, the public will be invited to make comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project. Comments received at the design public hearing will be reviewed and the additional coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. 5~ VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS The North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration prepared this Environmental Assessment. The following personnel were instrumental in the preparation of this document: A. North Carolina Department of Transportation Mr. Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Assistant Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Engineer responsible for highway planning and environmental impact analyses, 16 years of experience. 2. Mr. Charles R. Cox, P.E., Project Development Engineer Unit Head, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Engineer responsible for highway planning and environmental impact analyses, 15 years of experience. 3. Mr. Douglas P. Jeremiah, Project Development Engineer, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Engineer responsible for highway planning and environmental impact analyses, 2 years of experience. 4. Mr. Jerry Page, P.E., Division Design Engineer, Division of Highways, Division 4 Engineer responsible for preparing the preliminary highway design, 14 years of experience. 5. Ms. Mary E. Frazer, Natural Systems Specialist, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Biologist responsible for assessing the potential impacts to Natural Resources, 8 years of experience. 6. Mr. Stephen Walker, Transportation Engineer, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Engineer responsible for preparing the Traffic Noise and Air Quality Assessments, 28 years of experience. 56 7. Mr. Matthew T. Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Archaeologist responsible for assessing potential impacts to archaeological resources, 15 years of experience. 8. Mr. Robert Deaton, Community Planner, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Planner responsible for assessing potential impacts to the human environment, 11 years of experience. B. Federal Highway Administration 1. Ms. Emily O. Lawton, Operations Engineer Engineer responsible for Federal-aid projects in North Carolina, 11 years of experience. 2. Mr. Ron Lucas, P.E. Area Engineer Engineer responsible for Federal-aid projects in North Carolina, Highway Division 4, 12 years of experience. 57 IX. CONCLUSION This Environmental Assessment action is being taken because the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, (likely a Finding of No Significant Impact document). 58 ~R~~ ~ y r~~ , 1 i ,{ ~'" ~ `. ... ~ .,.ra`w' ~ ,i.r45 C ^^~ ~/w N C w Q ~^, . ~. ri~ 'eft ~ a*" N T '~ r` ~ a '~ `" . ~ l~ o~~ I°~ ~~ ~~^ t_ z, ~ ,~ ~~0, ,o/ r oN r~, ~ z~°OO ~' <ON~~ ,~ Z~ZZ '~~ rnr~jr Q~~ ~~ D m = ~ O ~ r ~ ~ ,~ D3~~~ a,t r Z ~ ~.~' N D N~.~ Z r* mo ~ Z n a { ~ % h !.1 J ~: P ~_ N O~ A -~. tD 1~ Q S Q 4 Z~ ~ n~ ~~N~ oo~oo • ~ r.~, ~~ °~ ~O W~_F C ~. N` W N~ ~~ ,', T ~ ~ S M4 r -~ ~~ Y'M+ "~ ~. `::.. t . O ° r,' "i,, ~ ~j- r - ~ ~ ~ .~ ~: .' y de `. 41rog1 ~~ ~ ~ _ . ~ ^ a ~ syr_-._ ~{.s W r ~tl h `~dr,.'~N~q y i'a+tta+ .: •. .,.. ~ ~ tG .95,.: kW:la 1'R ~ ~~' ~~' ~ 'Y ' d~ r ~Yt _. ~ f ~ .r~~F r ~~ ;,. ~f ,. t ' ~ r s~ ~' '",- ~ x ; a ~ w ~~ ff f i ,~ M1 t i<, 1 $t;~ ~ °' t :5w, r '~. , ~~, A t ~ a * ~ , m., ~~ „ra ,~ ~ ~`d > ~ 9 `f r ~, zr Y, 'k:. l 1 i.~ ~: Y ~.-ky 'r ~ f ~~~. ~, ~ ~ n~.r~ ~' 3; ~a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ x~„f', ~'~ ~~, g~^y c ~ ~ ~ ~¢ h ~. ~*~s,sc r ~ ~, w~, ,r;+a~ `~'~._,,. ~ re~ ~a ~ e ~ * ~ ~ '~' ~~ Ax i! "' ~ ,,~~yy,, ~ ~"'.t `'~~ , . ., ~ ' ~`I ~`~. 7a ~~ S. ~- .a~ ' 3 ~ 1q ' ~~ ~ f~ a ~ ti\ti ~;f w ~ a '""'- ~" ~ k; `3 t~~~~t~~ `'Yq ~, }~l4 ~' ~~ c5 is ~1 ~MY .~,4 ~ mR~} k ~ ~~`~~~~j_ ;~! ~~`~b1~ti !M •63 4~ •yti. t ~,^c{y~ ~',t~ ..r y~ Pi ; r ~~0i~'.!t} ~~~ `F y ~ s e %~'j 711 `tl_f ` 1` ~'1 i t ~ ~ ` ~ ~e ' , l ~~~ T ~~ f ~ it ,}?, m~ ~ ~ti 1'. ,~~,11 7 ~ r ~ t ! ~ c i~}a rV R'~ iR. C~ i q r e s' t *.' k ~. i4 i ~, m ~~ f :. '~ ~. ~ C 1 m„ y 5~1 ht ~ `ty~yi J' m ~ . s 1C" ~ _t 4t .a j' ~ii1` F1 _y~ ys'5,~,~~`q fie' b1 t~'ga Y-.a~ ~ ` ~~it' ~~ ~ ~~ ie ~~ It ~~ C I Y ~~iiP ~ ~' ~ ~ s ~ ~f v o~ ± ~ ~ ~ s i ~. ° a' •# o - ,'+~ccok~d '~ q'~3 ~~~~~~.', 7~``Y t~; ~ ~ gym, ~t,~..R. ,, : { ~, a ,n :a, 4 ~ I t 1 ~ yq 4'sKKitt'v-i ~d~ 4 ~ .- R :.n tit ksti ~ r ~ ~ tr a i. f;. ~ `' "'~[ ~ La }, m> M~ t ~ 'r~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~f` ~,~ \ * t~q~~~. i~{~. ~ dye ' ~ of . ~ ~:; ~ `Ii P ° 7r R - ~ l ~y" ~~ + S V ` SAL :, :. t S~ Y k„ I ~ y~ ~± 11 h{ ~y~~p ~ { w;. ~, 4~,`~ ~ ! ~•r ` ~~' C`'E ~ s~,~ i ~. ~ R, ~ . 'wrAYr~ ~~~~r~rAI1wR I..a..,. ~ ° "° "` ~' iy:~ `~, d~4/ ~ E'. ~ri.ca Irk'~;~` +5r dd"e1~4~'Y xr~~i~4 ~# ~ r 7 ~ M s /~l 47 ~.~~yP ~ A ! ~~~ a ,,~ as ~''~a,'F v„ ~ ~ i° ~,{~ ,a,,}],u,~. ~y¢ .~ r <R t ~ '~ ~ " ,la - ,~ ~ ~! • i Y -ry• D d , Yi N ,Y W~'"R,. ~i9' ~, i = < SF"" }~~'2,'A~^i~.«~,n~g 'm~ ~ .l' , f ~ ' i ~ krYM/~iFIW?Ilya...y~MIP _ ~ ~~.~ WA "^:^"~MP~fi 4 ~~~~'~` .. ~-~ flF~" S 1 T„u ~ ,.y~am ' . t ":K~ ... ri. ;:. Lt'~,.r4'~ .. -~. ~„ .t.v. ,s4d,`~53ts>'°irs~''~+~~^+~ ~ ~ :q ~a aa.s,. ~ ~.. ~ n ~ ~~ ~yp ~ .. w w \ ~F ~~ v~ Yb hew d ~A~QtiJF w I L ;~ ~q' f 3. 1 f ~i ,~ ~ 1 >m ~~ m U.~264 ~~~ ~ S~ d h- ~ m ~ ~t . ~~ .~~ ~ _. ,' s , ,P Pm ~. : ~,, ' a ~m, ~:.. '~ ': ` ~ a. ! h I Y~ ~I "f ~ ' ` t ` . ~ ' o J 0. ~ ~ Y~ 14~~ ~ ~ O 1 ~+.Ry r Zy ~ n,~ ~~N~ O O w ~•~ ~~ ~~~D CC O m O /~~ ~{ O n -+ tD ~~ Q s 0 0 w\ ...~ ~~~r ~ ^0 j "'~, ~% Z ~ ~ Q TI ~O V1-~~ z~zz 3v ~'~ O~ 7v ~~=p0 y~~~D ,~'-ZDZrn 4...Y = ~ ~ ~~ 'k , r ~ ~ ~ ,r ~~s ~ "-r n..~ ~ ~» • 4~•-~~~. ~v rJh y , 00 ~• DD d vs rn ~, k,' Q • ~ y A sr~ , q 7 A~.,;iy'~ kk~nlfYi<yReb rL ~M~;}*. ~„'~ v qd~ f]WN~Mq;"dA sy ,5invytleO4. ,nr' ., ~. u ~ ~' `'r ' ~: ,. ;~ ~ . ~, ~:~ , 70 ~~ sa '~$ ti .~ i ~ Y r*t, T ~M 1 ~ Wj~I' ~ P~' x~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~~~ cy;.' 3v ~'~ { i ',~, x .~ P e ? n ~ ~ ~~, 7. ~~ ~ ~ i - e ~ ~ t ~ fi ? ¢ ~~' `` gy E~ A ~~'.~i'. , c. ~ .~. ...~~iN n.Y7! W~ C N y H ~ ~ ~'~'° ~ ~`~ ~~, .~ ~~.. ~: ~ th,_ Z ..., , ~ ~. ~;. z ~.. ,..,. T :w +~ . nm r t ~~ y ,~ ,: ~~ ~ ti w, y T <D x 4,> ~! A. ~ ~ at f~'R ' ~,k ~a y,.. ~ £. ~+ .~ 3 fi. ~ ; ,~~a,~ ,r~ ~' ~ F , ~~` ~;~' 4 i ;} 1' ~..... .5 ~,, Q 3 0 N `I O ~ I __ :~ --_ __ O M N M ~ o ~~ N I O O M O aD O 00 ~ cll! v Ili g II I= > =111 ~ 111= 0 -II'. ~ I Illi III= ~ VIII ~ III= _ -III s nl= ~ -II ~ II1= l 0 I __ ~ o i O N Z O ~- 3 ~ ~ ~ V W o ~- "' W C/) ~ w a J U oc ~ ~ a ~ N W I N N M oC c .` ` Vl m m ,~ p ~ ~ u ~ w O ~ ~ E E o o E •c ~, a N N 1 O C C ` O . m ~ ~ `OOO 1 E ~ a~i 1 ~ y ~ ~ a 3 i .E ~ o C V QI 'C 1, ~ 0 d ! 3 > E w a ~ I, p E o Z Z'=III n~- =III "III= ~_III ~~I!I: < _ill Z~lil- v Q N "D C O N } O~ Z ~AA'' AWA, Z W Ou ~ V ~ +Z W ~ ~ J O a a d V m ~ ~ c Z N -C W (/~ m 0 H v \\ I -~ o _In lil= o -' I I t"7 111= _-III ^~ 111= z =i 1111= Z ~ o a N O 0 ~ ~ Z J O ~ ' 0° < u Z ,~3o~F- ~ ~ ~ ~ H = M Z=,pcnOc~, ~ ~o°~3 M W Z~ a N ~ O p 0 ~ D ~ J Z ~ o J ~z3 U ~ N ~ O O GC Z ~ M W GC R ai _ M Z~ O W F=- > W Q Cry J W Q /V_ J fi Q O LL Q L Y 4 I N M ~~ ~ o N I N ~; G C i w 1 z =ul p III= "~ -Ili II II II ~ III-_ -_III III= c -III Z ~ II'- ~ =III ~ III= _III III= ~ _' I I ~ III= r ~ a Z 3 _O LL 0 ~ W W ~ ~ w N J V o r ~ ~ z N X W m moo C D ~ m ,~ o V CdC y C 0 0 ~ ~O ~ ~ ~, > c ~ c 0 c .y Q1 ~ •~ ~ m ~ ~ ~_ ~ a 3 .~ ~ o °~ ~ 3 ~ E ~ ~ O ~ N 0 Z 0 ~o - _ __. I -- - ~ N N M ___ _..~ ° N N OC O ~O N O I i =III ~ III= ~ =111 l7 - IIIIII III-_ =_III III= o'_III 7 i-_ ~ _III ~ Ili= _-III 111= -III I!1= Q N d N ~ O Z~ Z~ V O ~ V ~ W ~ N O J ~ z ~m N ~ ~ X W .,~ N m I..~ ~/ Z ~ O ~O Q N ~ .--. ~ d 0 J ~Q~mpZ ~3o H ~ ~ ~ ~ H = M O N ~ NM W LL O ~ W V W ~0"~3 ~ a z Z ~ d z p Q N ~ W o -- ~ 'n > ~ N Z 0 ~ ~ J_ ode ~ U ~ _ N e~e Z ~ LL W ,~ _V LL V t/7 CV Z O W ~_ _> W ~ N J Q W V ~ LL S~ Ij~j S ~ 1136 r ~~~ ~ M O '° Ld ~ ~,, 9L~jc~ ~O~ G i°4 \~~ir P ~0 ~ ~ !! US ?64 Q `~' H ti 5700 ~4 S a~~ ~ ~ .~/ moo 400~~moo as~u s98oo a,~ ~` US 264 r ~~ LEGEND PM DIIV D (DVA4TTS19 DXV ^ DBSION HOURLY VOLUMB t D = DIRBC170NAL IPI.i'1' t - PBA[ HOUR 1 DURP.CI'ION OP Pew[ PLOW DUAL ^ DUAL TIRP~ BV TRVC[ t TTSI' - MULITI-UNIT TRUC[ I 60F11 (S,2) NC ~2 /~~ ~/~ 7400 NC ~2 NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTNBNT OP . ~ TRANSPORTATION DIVWON OP XION^IAY^ PROIRCT DBVBIAPMBNT AND BNVIRONN[NTAL ANALYfi^ YIANCN SR 1158 (AIRPORT BLVD) FROM NC ~4 WEST TO US R6d WILSON COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-38Y3 4000 TRAFFIC FIGURE 5 s,~ Ij~j ff~b r !: A ~' ~~J S ~ 1136 'jqo (~ ~0~ Ld ~ a.~ to 9L~jc~ ~d~ 3~6p0 as P'y ~ ~ ~ ~, S 26~ ~~ '~ 5~0o O~ ~~ ~ ti `~° ~~ Q~ 4~ :~ ~~ US 26~ LEGEND PM DNV~D fDUAL,TnRI DHV a DBSIpN HOURLY VOLUMB l D a DIRP.C770NAL SPLIT t a PBA[ HOUR t DURECTION OP PBA[ PLOM DuwL a DuwL naeo su ntucc t TTST s MUL177-UNIT TRUC[ t PM i0~11 a,sl 23600 NC ~2 .~ Q~ti NC ~2 NORTN CAROLINA D[PARTMSNT OP TRAN6PORTATION gVISION OP HIpHrAYb PROJ[CT DRVSI.OPMBNT AND [NVIRONMSNTAL ANALY516 BRANCH SR 1158 (AIRPORT BLVDJ FROM NC ~2 WEST TO US 2W WILSON COUNTY TIP PROJECT U-3823 2025 TRAFFIC FIGURE 6 w w ~r ~ I I I ti~~ i~ ~ '~ a ~~3 u ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ I I t~ ~ ~ " ~ F~ f- _- _--- "w ~ 4:~ ~ W - V O ___ . 1 I I ~ r I N ` ___ ------~ I w '~ N w I ~ w II ,; w l "~ w . » .. I_I _ O ~ w w w ww ~I w w w ~I w '~ ~I w w ~ I I w II I www ~I II w w w w w i ~~ w ,, ~ w I w w ~~ '~ ~ ~ w '~ w w w ~~ I I / // I 1,, ~~~~ ~ I(~ ..~~~ , -~ ~ ~ I ~ ..~ ~ i I ~. .~ i Iii ..~~..~ ~~~ , ,. ~ I J~ / / ~ I I I w /j% I w / w I,~ i / f~ w w w`'t.. I f/{'~~ W w w w w I i } w w w w ~- ~ ~ I ~ ~" w w ; f`~f rv w n i~ - C f~ w I ~ {-• ~ ti ~.. ~ w I i ~ f~ w w '~' I I w ww I I w w w w I~ ww I I . I w w , w ~~I I ~ w w w w w w I ~I I ww I ,r~~.n.~.,r4,.~,,~~ w I ly ~j~ ~- ~ ~, » w I I I .~~,.: ~. ~., r - ~ ~, ww ~~! P w I ti ,~ ~, w w w I / w w w ,y /...- ~ ~ w '' w w I y ; w / w w w ~ ~ \~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ w ~ w -~ w -~ / / 'Y ( ~S ~ \ w '1 w ~ '` } w w w w ~ w w w w w w w w w ~ N ~ w ~~ ~ w w w L~ C~ I w w w w S '' w , U w ~~ Zw w w w w '~ w ;I '~ w } w ' O ~ ~ ~ I H w ~ ~ S w * ~ w `~ I ~ w w w w w w '~ "` w w w w w + .. ....... ....~~ ;~ w w ~~ w w w ~ w w w ~ ..~ w w ~ ~ w w ~"~ w ;. w w ' w i:- ~ . w ~`'~ ~ i w ~--' w ~ ~ ~.f . w ,~ w ~, w ~ -i ~f w (^ t ,~ f",' w w w rw '~ ~" j~,J w w / w w w w w w w w w ~ w ~y w .lr^ w w w w i , w ,~ w w i w ~yw w ~ w w w w w w '~ w + ,~ w w '~ w w w w ~, w w '~ w , ,~ w w w w w w ~ w w ~ ww w w w w n w w w l;~l ~ ~ w w w w t~ ~ t;;' ,J 7S ~ w w w w w w w w w w w ~ w ~ ~ '~ w '~ w t ~) ~ w w w w ,~ w w w w w w ~ w w '~ fl w '~ w w ~ w ~ t~ _ w " .~ M w w ~ w t ~ ~, w w w w J ~ ~w '~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w { w w `-.:.~ o ~ `O a N ~ ~ '~•' t/1 ~ ~ M~ } V m 0~ M W o=~~~~~H ~~?~ONO Q ~~o~wVV~ ~zoaNZO~ ooh ~O Z>o~ ~~Q O~ ~Z~~o~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~ O ~ Z ~- Q ~ ~ Z u' O ~ W ~ _ ~ ~ O cn ~ _ DC ~ ~ W p p C7 cry cn cn W W 0 0 N t./') DC Z Z Z m ~ g 0 0 ~ g ~ ~ ~. ~~~~ V V r~ Z 1..i... N I ~ ~ O O m a W m ~t 1 of ~~nol~ Htt•~aaao~~ ~~~~ 4 01111 l f5 l i"d8£-n ayt~tnon tlos~t~n -9a sn o.~ .csan~ a- nN >+to~td ('QA'Ifi .L2IOd~IIV1 BSii 2iS HJNVa9 SISA'idNt' 'It'.LN3I4[N0211.1N3 ~•'iO "~ 4NF .LN3Wd0'13:~8U .LJ8f021d ~; SAt"MHJIH ~O NOISL~IO !`-• ~ it NOI.Lt'.L~IOdSNF'21,1, 1-\~, /` d0 .LN8W.L21t"d3a YNI'IO~It"~ H.L110N i~~nrln~ JI~II.LSIX~ ~; ~~ , ;. ,' ,~. ~ ~ ~~ ;c ~ ~ ~.: ;~ ~JNI?~~ 400~~ ?~`d~Jl 005 i ~JN12~~ a00~~ 2~d~Jl 00 ~ JlbMa00~~ a9~ \~ ~~y s~ ,~~ Od O~ ~J ~~ ~J ~S << d'~ s L ~~ :~ S APPENDIX B Relocation Reports B RELOCp1TION REPORT E.LS. a CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN North Carolina Department of Transportation PROJECT: 0 COUNTY Alternate d AKemale I.D. NO.: ~ F.A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: e o Ci i ~ U ES11W1TE0 DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type d Displaoees Owners Tenards Tdal Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 2r35M 3S50M 50 UP Residential ` ~ BlfSRre.S5e5 VALUE OF DWEWNG DSS OWEWNG AVAILABLE FaIrR>5 Ownens Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Prord o-mrl s o-150 0-2oM s o-1so ANSYVER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20~OIIA 150-250 Yes No Ex !n al! 'YES' answers. 40-701N 25000 10-70M 25000 1. Will special relocation services be rreoessary? ~o-~ooM aoo-ttoo ~o-1ooM 4oo-FOo 2.V1fin sctlods or churches be affect by 10o uP soo uP 10o UP eoo uP dISflfaCtirrerrt? TOTAL 3. Win business services stirs be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number) project? ~ 4. Win any business be displaced? II so, , none bony r~.loc~-f~1 indicate s¢e, type. estimated number d errlployees, mirlarities, etc. 6, ~ t tvspoPprs~ l o c~~ ~jj LS ~-re OI ~rf 5. Win relocaUan cause a housing shortage? ~, a S 1~ u it/F{~ ~j Y ~cLr,~, / )( / 6.Saxce for available housing (list). it ~ ~rl.snn ~f oets~ ~iori~ ~ 7.wd1 additional Ilaluirg pTOgrams be needed? I - ~ I~ ~ «~ 8. Should l.asl Resort Housing be considered? n Q I bu i r ''ff' t~ w% vv 9.Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. famines? 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available during relocation period? , 13. Win Ihen3 be a problem d housing within financial rrleans? .- _ ~ 14. Are suitable business sites available (list - - `d - - source). _ 15. Number months estimated to complete ~ ~~ ~ E. QF T,~ ^,; , ~ ~ ~ ; RELOCATION i~ ~--o , ~ -20- 61 R d W Dale Date Form 15.4 Revised 10/0 Original 8 1 Copy. Sfate Relocation Agent 2 t;,opy Division Rghl d Way Office IS-65 APPENDIX C Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies C n~ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office _ Post Office Box 33726 `~ .; ~`~ Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 ~~ t Fri, k ~: v ~~~D February 24, 2000 Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways P.O. Box.25201 Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Gilmore: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 2000, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed widening of SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to multi-lanes from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3823). This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen Wilson Christian Road from a 2-lane to a multi-lane facility. The proposed project will likely involve the extension of two existing culverts, the addition of curb and gutter, sidewalks, and railroad crossing arms. The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and enhancement offish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project. Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed azeas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland azeas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Wilson 7.5 Minute Quadrangle indicates that there aze wetland resources along the proposed corridor. However, while the NWI maps aze useful for providing an overview of a given azea, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur eazly in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action: A cleazly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the project's independent utility; 2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered, including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative; 3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact azea that maybe directly or indirectly affected; 4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that aze to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); 5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects; 6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value; 7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and, 8. If unavoidable wetland impacts aze proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to protect mitigation azeas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easemen~, should be explored at the outset. Currently there aze six species of federally-listed endangered, threatened, and Federal Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Wilson County (see enclosed list) Habitat requirements for the federally-listed species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regazding protected species: A map and description of the specific azea used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; 2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species that maybe affected by the action, including the results of any on-site inspections; 3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat which includes consideration of: a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its habitat; b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project area and cumulative impacts area; The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those that aze caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur; d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that aze part of a lazger action and depend on the lazger action for their justification) and interdependent actions (those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration); and, e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7 - ` consultation; 4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all ways in which listed species may be adversely affected; 5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality, and/or habitat quantity; and, 6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species. Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection. The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Tom McCartney of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 32. Sincerely /~' ~~ ~c ~ Garland B. Par ue Ecological Services Supervisor cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer) DWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy) WRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox) +~.a °` ~ V~ c ~ s ~ ~.o +~p •-~r[s cf ~ Mr. William D. Gilmore Planning & Environmental Branch N.C. Division of Highways P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Attention Jeff Ingham Dear Mr. Gilmore: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive N St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 February 15, 2000 Please reference your February 1, 2000, request that we provide comments on the scoping sheets for the proposed widening of SR1158 (Wilson Christian Road) to multi-lanes from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, State Project No. 8.2341801, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1158(2), U-3823. We have reviewed the information included with your letter and have determined that no resources for which the National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible will be impacted by the proposed proj ect. Therefore, we have no comments. If we can be of further assistance, please advise. cc: FWS, ATLA, GA FWS, Raleigh, NC EPA, ATLA, GA NCDENR, Raleigh, NC NCDENR, Morehead City, NC COE, Wilmington, NC F/SER4 Andreas Mager, Jr. Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Sincerely, - s , iu05eryFNf ®~J s4, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director August 24, 2000 MEMORANDUM To: Doug Jeremiah Project Development Eng~eer From: David Brook ~~l~ ~' ~ `J 1/ ' Deputy State HII toric Preservation Officer Re: Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.), from NC 42 to US 264, TIP No. U-3823, Wilson County, ER 00-8802 Thank you for your letter of August 8, 2000, concerning the above project. On March 14, 2000, April Alperin of our office attended a scoping meeting for the above project. At that meeting we recommended both an architectural and an archaeological survey. While we understand that the project scope has changed since that time, our recommendations remain the same. We look forwarded to further consultation on this project. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733- 4763. DB:kgc cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT ADMINISTRATION ARCHAEOLOGY" RESTORATION SURVEY & PLANNING Location 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC S l5 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC Mailing Address 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC '7699-4617 4619 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4619 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618 Telephone/Fax (919) 733-4763 733-8653 (9191 733-7342 715-2671 (919)733-6547 715-4801 (919) 733-6545 715-4801 Federal Aid #STP-1158(2) TIP #U-3823 County: Wilson CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Project Description: Widen SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.) from NC 42 to US 264 On November 2, 2000, representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) a ~, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) `~ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Reviewed the subject project at ~:. a scoping meeting photograph review session/consultation other All parties present agreed ^. Signed: there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect. there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect. there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect, but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties identified as ~l i ~ ~'`_ ~ ~ ' t are considered not eligible for the National Register and no fu er evaluation of them is necessary. there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect. 1 C 1~~ti~-~- FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date Date ~ z.:.~ Repr entative, SHPO Date ~~ t ~ll~ MoD J State Historic Preservation Officer Date If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included. awsurto ~ / ~ ~~ •~~d. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jef~ey J. Crow, Director August 27, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Tom Padgett, Archaeological Supervisor Project Development and Environmental~,A~n~arlysis Branch From: David Brook ~ ~~~ ~~+~ ~-~` Deputy State Hist c Preservation Officer Re: Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed widening of SR 1158 from NC 42 to US 264, TIP U-3823, Wilson County, ER 00-8802 We have revie~rcd the survey report by Brian Overton and Paul Mohler and ~ffcr the fc-llo~ving c~mmcnt~. The report, in general, meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following sites are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Sites 31~YZ?G4**, 31~'L265** and 31 WL266** are disturbed to the extent that they will no longer provide information important to our understanding of history or prehistory. Sites 31 WL232 and 31 WL232** were evaluated for a previous project and determined ineligible at that time. We recommend.no additional work for these sites. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory• Council on I-Iistoric Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:kgc cc: Emily Lawton, FHwA Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 733-4763 •733-8653 Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 (919) 733-6547.715-4801 Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 733-4763 •715-4801 D~ \ ~C°~ State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality .~;. ; .. James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor - - Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director March 6, 2000 ewn NCDENR MEMORANDUM To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality~.~. ~~i1 Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of SR 1158 (Wilson Christian Road) from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1158(2), State Project No. 8.2341801, TIP U-3823. Reference your correspondence dated February 1, 2000 in which you requested comments for widening project TIP U-3823. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Furthermore, the impacts include a crossing of Bloomery Swamp (DWQ stream index number 27-86-6-(3)) with a classification of WS-!V nutrient sensitive waters. The DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to comply with all the Neuse River Rules prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project: A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with and without the project. B. ~'he document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications. E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ requirements for General P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-5083 FAX 919-715-6048 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper Mr. William D. Gilmore memo 03/06/00 Page 2 - 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed. F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the ' bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the stream. G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet. I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities. I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) },mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. - J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus. L. The NCDOT is reminded that they will need to plan, design, and construct their project so that they comply with all the Neuse River Rules. Issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification is contingent upon adherence to the Neuse Rules. ivi. W hiie the use of Natiunal ~`'etland inventory (iv'R':) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, thcir inherent inaccuracies require that 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 Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at (919) 733-5694 or John_Hennessy@h2o.enr.state.nc.us. cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers Tom McCartney, USFWS David Cox, NCWRC Central Files ~~o ~,ti~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ .R ~~. ,~ ~ JUN 8 20~: North Carolina Department of Administration Michael F. Easley, Governor June 6, 2001 Mr. William Gilmore N.C. Dept. of Transportation Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC Raleigh NC 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Gilmore: Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary Subject: Scoping -Proposed Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.) from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County; TIP #U-3823 The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This project has been assigned State Application Number 01-E-4220-0775. Please use this number with all inquiries or correspondence with this office. Review of this project should be completed on or before 07/30/2001. Should you have any questions, please call (919)807-2425. Sincerely, ~~ ~ ~~ _ Ms. Chrys Baggett Environmental Policy Act Coordinator PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 1302 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1302 116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone 919-807-2425 State Courier 51-O1-00 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ~ Pudic Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education ~ Department of Public Instruction Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent 1 _ www.ncpublicschools.org ' ~ i~~. June 12, 2001 ~tr~.- ~ ,, , - r x.r . :~.. +rr, MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NC Department of Transportation FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning SUBJECT: Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2), State Project 8.2341801, T.I.P. No. U-3823 Enclosed is the response from Wilson County Schools to our impact inquiry. /ed Enclosure 1 301 N. Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825 Telephone (919) 807-3300 An 6gua/ Opporrunrty/A~rmanv~ Action Employe ~~T Y8 ~~ W V 9~G/~C EK~~~~? June 11, 2001 WILSON COUNTY SCHOOLS Landen, Assistant Superintendent-Administrative Services -~, ~~ n ~ .~ /S -~_ ~ l _ ~~`;~ ` n ,. -,~ may,, ,` , . ..,. `K1' ~ , Russell C Mr. Gerald Knott School Planning Department of Public Instruction 301 N. Wilmington Street Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 Dear Mr. Knott: `~~~ h'•, •~~. ~~ _` , ~~ Concerning the widening of SR 1158 to five lanes between NC 42 and US 264. This project will not affect any Wilson County school or transportation route. If you have any additional questions do not hesitate to contact me. Yo truly, ~~~ Russell Landen Assistant Superintendent -Administrative Services jep 117 North Tarboro Street ^ Post Office Box 2048 ^ Wilson, NC 27894-2048 ^ (252) 399-7741 ^ FAX (252) 234-8000 ^ wilanden@eastnet.educ.ecu.edu • '~ ~ F w~~s `~~ ~~`~ oy CITY OF WILSON ~. --~ Q IB49 ~ V v OII~YI CjWIOy,(YlQ 0w~ "Y PQO INCORPORATED 1849 tiORTN ~' 27894-0010 Office of the Mayor May 25, 2000 Mr. Jeff Ingham, P. E. Project Development Engineer State of North Cazolina Department of Transportation P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 Deaz Mr. Ingham: ~. ~--- .. I received a copy of the minutes of a scoping meeting held at the Transportation Building on February 28, 2000 regazding the widening of State Road 1158 (Airport Boulevazd) to a multi- lane facility, from NC 42 to US 264 in Wilson County. This is state project 8.2341801, TIP U- 3823. It appears staff may be leaning towazd the recommendation of a three-lane facility instead of five lanes. This is a major concern to the City of Wilson. As you aze aware, NC 42 is being widened to a five-lane facility from Forest Hills Road to I-95. US 264 is already afive-lane facility. Merck Road, which connects US 264 and the middle of Airport Boulevazd or proposed project, is also afive-lane facility. The section of Airport Boulevard, between US 264 and NC 58, is already afive-lane facility. If this recommendation was carried out, you would have a three-lane facility connecting afive-lane highway to another five-lane highway with another five-lane highway emptying into the middle of this road. From afuture-planning standpoint, I have great difficulty in understanding how anyone could make this recommendation. It is obvious from a drive through~the azea that afive-lane highway should be built between NC 42 and US 264. In your deliberations, I ask you to seriously consider the recommendations of the City and County of Wilson, because both are on record of supporting a five-lane highway. P.O. BOX 10 • WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 • TELEPHONE (252) 399-2310 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Mr. Jeff Ingham May 25, 2000 Page 2 Since this concern has been brought to my attention, and it appears that staff is making certain recommendations and actions, it is my request that you review this situation and respond as rapidly as possible. This project is of such concern to the City of Wilson that it is in our interest to have this situation resolved quickly. Staff and I will be delighted to meet with you or whomever you recommend to discuss this issue. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Chazles Pittman or me at (252- 399-2461). Sincere C. Bruce Rose Mayor CBR:jb C: David T. McCoy, Secretary, NCDOT Calvin Leggett, P. E., Director Planning & Programming NCDOT Edwazd A. Wyatt, City Manager Chazles W. Pittman, III, Deputy City Mgr./Operations & Public Services APPENDIX D Noise Tables D TABLE Al CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 ~ JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2005 SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM LINK VARIABLES PAGE 1 LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE ' VPH EF H W V/C OUEUE * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH) 1. US 264 - EB App. * -304.8 -7.3 .0 -7.3 305. 90. AG 1577. 16.7 .0 13.4 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 -14.6 .0 -221.8 -5.2 207. 269. AG 1596. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.49 34.5 3. US 264 - EB D * -14.6 ~-9.1 -62.2 -8.8 * 48. 270. AG 1507. 100.0 .0 11.0 .66 7.9 4. US 264 - EB Oepart. * .0 -7.3 304.8 ~.-7.3 305. 90. AG 1789. 16.7 .0 13.4 5. US 264 - WB App. 304.8 7.3 .0 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 1789. 16.7 .0 13.4 6. US 264 - WB Lt ~ * 14.6 .0 30.4 .4 * 16. 89. AG 1507. 100.0 .0 7.3 .50 2.6 7. US 264 - WB 0 14.6 9.1 69.8 8.8 * 55. 90. AG 1374. 100.0 .0 11.0 .74 9.2 8. US 264 - WB Depar .0 7.3 -304.8 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 1577. 16.7 .0 13.4 9. Airport - NB App. * 5.5 -304.8 7.3 .0 * 305. 0. AG 418. 16.7 .0 13.4 10. Airport - NB Lt o * 3.7 -14.6 3.7 -21.5 * 7. 180. AG 813. 100.0 .G 3.7 .47 1.1 11. Airport - NB 0 9.1 -14.6 8.9 -32.6 * 18. 181. AG- 1884. 100.0 .0 11.0 .31 3.0 12. Airport - NB Depart.* 7.3 .0 5.5 304.8 * 305. 360. AG 880. 16.7 .0 13.4 13. Airport - SB App. * -5.5 304.8 -7.3 .0 * 305. 180. AG 880. 16.7 .0 13.4 14. Airport - SB LT 0 * .0 14.6 -3.2 183.4 * 169. 359. AG 1552. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.26 28.1 15. Airport - SB Q * -9.1 14.6 -8.9 37.3 * 23. 1. AG 1774. 100.0 .0 11.0 .35 3.8 16. Airport - SB Depart.* -7.3 .0 -5.5 -304.8 * 305. 180. AG 418. 16.7 .0 13.4 JOB: U-3823: Airport B~vd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/U S 264 - Year 2005 ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS -------------------------------- LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL * LENGTH TIME LOST T[ME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr) 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 * 120 108 2.0 317 1600 330.60 1 3 3. US 264 - EB 0 * 120 68 2.0 1260 1600 330.60 1 3 b. US 264 - uB Lt 0 * 120 102 2.0 186 1600 330.60 1 3 7. US 264 - WB o * 120 62 2.0 1603 1600 330.60 1 3 10. Airport - NB Lt 0 * 120 110 2.0 37 1600 330.60 1 3 11. Airport - NB 0 * 120 85 2.0 381 1600 330.60 1 3 14. Airport - SB LT 0 120 105 2.0 368 1600 330.60 1 3 15. Airport - SB 0 120 80 2.0 512 1600 330.60 1 ~ TABLE Al (Cont'd) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ------------------ * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NNE 3 * 22.9 83.8 .5 2. NNE -2 22.9 .53.3 .5 3. NE -1 * 22.9 _ 22.9 .5 4. ENE -2 53.3 22.9 .5 5. ENE -3 * 83.8 22.9 .5 6. ESE -3 * 83.8 -22.9 .5 7. ESE -2 53.3 -22.9 .5 8. SE -1 22.9 -22.9 .5 9. SSE -2 22.9 -53.3 .5 10. SSE -3 22.9 -83.8 .5 11. SSW -3 -22.9 -83.8 ~.5 12. SSU -2 -22.9 -53.3 .5 13. SW -1 -22.9 -22.9 -5 * 14. WSW -2 -53.3 -22.9 .5 15. WSW -3 * -83.8 -22.9 .5 * 16. WNW -3 * -83.8 22.9 .5 17. WNW -2 -53.3 22.9 .5 18. Nu -1 -22.9 22.9 .5 19. NNW -2 * -22.9 53.3 .5 20. NNW -3 * -22.9 83.8 .5 JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2005 MODEL RESULTS REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximun concentrations, is indicated as maximun. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. PAGE 2 WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE (PPM) (DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC2C Max 7.3 8.9 9.6 9.2 8.9 6.8 7.4 11.9 7.7 5.9 5.7 6.8 11.8 11.3 9.6 7.4 7.4 11.2 8.4 0.8 DEGR. * 213 231 256 237 252 288 284 280 -347 346 8 3 13 37 63 117 135 100 139 150 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 11,90 PPM AT 280 DEGREES FROM REC8 - "' TABLE A2 CAL3~HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3 JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2010 SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES r VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S - ZO = 108. CM U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * X1 Y1 X2 1. US 264 - EB App. * -304.8 -7.3 .0 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 * -14.6 .0 -104.3 3. US 264 - EB 0 -14.6 -9.1 -55.5 4. US 264 - EB Depart. * .0 -7.3 304.8 S. US 264 - WB App. * 304.8 7.3 .0 6. US 264 - WB Lt D 14.6 .0 132.1 7. US 264 - u6 0 * 14.6 9.1 68.6 8. US 264 - WB Depar .0 7.3 -304.8 9. Airport - NB App. * 5.5 -304.8 7.3 10. Airport - NB Lt ~ * 3.7 -14.6 4.4 11. Airport - NB 0 9.1 -14.6 8.8 12. Airport - NB Depart.* 7.3 .0 5.5 13. Airport - SB App. * -5.5 304.8 -7.3 14. Airport - SB LT 0 * .0 14.6 -1.2 15. Airport - SB 0 * -9.1 14.6 -8.8 16. Airport - SB Depart.* -7.3 .0 -5.5 JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE * LENGTH TIME LOST TIME * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 120 105 2.0 3. US 264 - EB D 120 55 2.0 6. US 264 - WB Lt o 120 108 2.0 7. US 264 - wB o 120 58 2.0 1C. Airport - NB Lt 0 120 115 2.0 ~ 11. Airport - NB 0 * 120 95 2.0 14. Airport - SB LT 0 * 120 102 2.0 15. Airport - SB 0 * 120 81 2.0 * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH) -7.3 * 305. 90. AG 1659. 16.1 .0 13.4 -2.3 * 90. 269. AG 1485. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.10 14.9 -8.9 * 41. 270. AG 1167. 100.0 .0 11.0 .55 6.8 - -7.3 * 305. 90. AG 1938. 16.1 .0 13.4 - 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 1938. 16.1 .0 13.4 3.0 * 118. 89. AG 1527. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.24 19.6 8.8 54. 90. AG 1230. 100.0 .0 11.0 .72 9.0 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 1938. 16.1 .0 13.4 .0 * 305. 0. AG 616. 16.1 .0 13.4 -137.9 * 123. 180. AG 813. 100.0 .0 3.7 3.46 20.5 -45.2 31. 181. AG 2015. 100.0 .0 11.0 .68 5.1 304.8 * 305. 360. AG 990. 16.1 .0 13.4 .0 * 305. 180. AG 990. 16.1 .0 13.4 76.3 * 62. 359. AG 1442. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.02 10.3 42.2 * 28. 1. AG 1718. 100.0 .0 11.0 .44 4.6 -304.8 * 305. 180. AG 616. 16.1 .0 13.4 RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2010 APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr) ------------------------------------------------- 320 1600 316.30 1 3 1339 1600 318.30 1 3 262 1600 316.30 1 3 1676 1600 316.30 1 3 45 1600 316.30 1 3 571 1600 316.30 1 3 378 1600 316.30 -'1 3 612 1600 316.30 1 3 TABLE A2 (Cont'd) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ------------------ PAGE 4 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y 2 1. NNE 3 22.9 83.8 .5 2. NNE -2 * 22.9 :53.3 .5 3. NE -1 22.9 22.9 .5 ~ 4. ENE -2 * 53.3 22.9 .5 5. ENE -3 83.8 22.9 .5 6. ESE -3 83.8 -22.9 -5 7. ESE -Z 53.3 -22.9 .5 8. SE -1 * 22.9 -22.9 .5 9. SSE -2 * 22.9 -53.3 .5 10. SSE -3 22.9 -83.8 .5 11. SSW -3 * -22.9 -83.8 -.5 12. SSW -2 * -22.9 -53.3 .5 13. Su -1 * -22.9 -22.9 .5 14. W5W -2 -53.3 -22.9 .5, 15. WSW -3 -83.8 -22.9 .5' 16. WNW -3 * -83.8 22.9 .5 17. WNW -2 * -53.3 22.9 .5 18. NW -1 -22.9 22.9 .5 19. NNW -2 -22.9 53.3 .5 20. NNW -3 -22.9 83.8 .5 JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2010 MODEL RESULTS REMARKS [n search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration; only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 RECB REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC20 MAX 7.2 8.7 10.2 10.3 9.8 8.3 8.5 11.3 9.7 7.0 6.4 7.9 10.1 10.5 8.7 7.8 7.8 12.4 9.8 7.6 DEGR. * 216 232 188 223 246 305 322 282 332 338 34 51 12 42 72 117 136 101 140 159 _ J THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 1S 12.40 PPM AT 101 DEGREES FROM REC18. TABLE A3 CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 5 JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2025 SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES ------------------------------- ~ VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM LINK VARIABLES -------------- LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * X1 Y1 X2 1. US 264 - EB App. * -304.8 -7.3 .0 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 * -14.6 .0 -245.1 3. US 264 - EB D -14.6 -9.1 -76.7 4. US 264 - EB Depart. .0 -7.3 304.8 5. US 264 - WB App. * 304.8 7.3 .0 b. US 264 - WB Lt 0 * 14.6 .0 259.9 7. US 264 - WB 0 14.6 9.1 88.0 8. US 264 - WB Depar .0 7.3 -304.8 9. Airport - NB App. * 5.5 -304.8 7.3 10. Airport - NB Lt 0 * 3.7 -14.6 5.1 11. Airport - NB 0 * 9.1 -14.6 8.4 12. Airport - NB Depart.* 7.3 .0 5.5 13. Airport - SB App. * -5.5 304.8 -7.3 14. Airport - SB LT 0 * .0 14.6 -4.4 15. Airport - SB ~ * -9.1 14.6 -8.6 16. Airport - SB Depart.* -7.3 .0 -5.5 J08: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS -------------------------------- LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE * LENGTH TIME LOST TIME * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) 2. US 264 - EB Lt 0 * 120 108 2.0 3. US 264 - EB 0 * 120 68 2.0 6. US 264 - WB Lt 0 120 102 2.0 7. US 264 - WB 0 120 62 2.0 10. Airport - NB Lt 0 * 120 110 2.0 11. Airport - NB 0 * 120 85 2.0 y 14. Airport - SB LT D * 120 105 2.0 15. Airport - SB 0 120 80 2.0 * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C DUEUE Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH) -7.3 305. 90. AG 1903. 15.8 .0 13.4 -5.8 * 231. 269. AG 1493. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.56 38.4 -8.8 62. 270. AG 1410. 100.0 .0 11.0 .82 10.3 -7.3 * 305. 90. AG 2387. 15.8 .0 13.4 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 2387. 15.8 .0 13.4 6.2 * 245. 89. AG 1410. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.32 40.9 8.7 * 73. 90. AG 1286. 100.0 .0 11.0 .88 12.2 7.3 * 305. 270. AG 1903. 15.8 .0 13.4 .0 * 305. 0. AG 1210. 15.8 .0 13.4 -240.1 * 225. 180. aG 760. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.75 37.6 -72.8 * 58. 181. AG 1762. 100.0 .0 11.0 .86 9.7 304.8 * 305. 360. AG 1320. 15.8 .0 13.4 .0 305. 180. AG 1320. 15.8 .0 13..4 246.1 * 232. 359. AG 1451. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.39 38.6 55.2 * 41. 1. AG 1659. 100.0 .0 11.0 .63 6.8 -304.8 * 305. 180. AG 1210. 15.8 .0 13.4 RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2025 APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr) 330 -1600 309.20 1 3 1573 1600 309.20 1 3 490 1600 309.20 1 3 1897 1600 309.20 1 3 138 1600 309.20 1 3 1072 1600 309.20 1 3 407 1600 309.20 1 3 913 1600 309.20 1 3 TABLE A3 (Cont'd) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ------------------ * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z 1. NNE 3 22.9 83.8 .5 2. NNE -2 * 22.9 :'53.3 .5 3. NE -1 * 22.9 22.9 .5 4. ENE -2 * 53.3 22.9 .5 5. ENE -3 83.8 22.9 .5 6. ESE -3 * 83.8 -22.9 .5 7. ESE -2 * 53.3 -22.9 .5 8. SE -1 22.9 -22.9 .5 9. SSE -2 * 22.9 -53.3 .5 10. SSE -3 * 22.9 -83.8 ,.5 11. SSU -3 -22.9 -83.8 .5 * 12. SSU -2 -22.9 -53.3 .5 * 13. Su -1 -22.9 -22.9 .5 * 14. uSU -2 -53.3 -22.9 .5~ 15. usw -3 -83.8 -22.9 .5 16. uNU -3 -83.8 22.9 .5 17. uNU -2 -53.3 22.9 .5 18. Nu -1 -22.9 22.9 .5 19. NNW -2 * -22.9 53.3 .5 20. NNU -3 -22.9 83.8 .5 * JOB: U-3823: Airport Blvd, Wilson County RUN: Airport Road/US 264 - Year 2025 MODEL RESULTS REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration; .only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. UIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. PAGE 6 • WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)' REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS RECb REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC20 MAx 8.4 9.7 11.6 11.0 10.9 9.0 9.3 12.6 10.9 10.5 8.0 8.7 12.5 11.5 11.2 8.7 8.7 13.5 12.1 9.1 DEGR. * 211 235 189 221 230 307 322 279 311 338 40 54 13 43 6Z 130 147 99 119 161 J THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION [S 13.50 PPM AT 99 DEGREES FROM REC18. Figure N1 Project Location 8~ Ambient Measurement Sites SR1158 (Airport Blvd.) Widening, Wilson County, TIP # U-3823 End of Project ,' , 3z~ i ,u ~, Setup #1 _` ,~ ~~ _, ~ . ~ _ ` '~D . q. ~' 1_5g - ,y~,r~ S 1 ".: ~ ~ EHn. ,~ •+ j~ 11 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~~ - 1 ------ ----- 1 1 sti 4. 2 2 i „~ ,,~, N --------- - 1 Begin Project \, , ,\ ~_ ' ~ .. .1 , ~ 1 3E. y 1 1 - ~ 1 1 ~- I I--1 \.^. ~ 4c ~ - - - - - 1 ~ ' _' ~G ~____ G2 •, ~ __--' 1 1 I I I I ~ V I I I I v / I I ~ I 7 +E 1)f Illlfl Ir C,, ' 9~: North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways 9 . Project Development & Analysis Branch 4f p~ ~r or Inuls,o Wilson County SR 1158 Widening From NC 42 to US 264 TIP # U-3823 TABLE Nl HEARIlIG: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY 140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff p~ Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD 130 - Firecrackers 120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer Hockey crowd Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD 110 - Textile loom _ 100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor Power lawn mower, newspaper press Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD 90 - D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal C Average factory, vacuum cleaner I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD B 70 - E Quiet typewriter L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner _ S Quiet automobile Normal wnversatioq average office QUIET Household refrigerator Quiet office VERY QUIET 40 - _ Average home 30 Dripping faucet Whisper at 1.Sm away 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING Wtusper JUST AUDIBLE 10 - -________-- -- ----_ __----- _ 0 ~ THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R Hanford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.) J TABLE N2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA) Activity Category (h) Descri tion of Activi Cate ory A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet aze of extraordinary significance (Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation azeas, playgrounds, active sports areas, (Exterior) pazks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, librazies, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories (Exterior) A or B above. D - Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL- INCREASE HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA) Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise in Le (h) Levels to Future Noise Levels < 50 >= 15 >= 50 >= 10 Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy. There is no Table N3 a O zw ~~ ~°z U_ w F'' M N 00 M ~t 0. H 0 U 0 3 .~ -o 3 ~~ "~ O ~. ~. ~..i 00 w ^a ,Q a o~ ~ ~ r ~: ~ ~c o~ t~ oo ' ° ~` > U ~ z + + + + + + + + + + + M l~ ~O ~D 00 ~O ~ V' M ~.^. ~ ~D V1 ~O M I~ ~p ~O M [~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~' a W ~_ z ~ A w w F~ U D x ~; ~ a. Q 3 ~ ~ ~- ca rx o v; V1 a 0 c c a 0 vi 00 a 0 vi ~--~ a 0 vi M a o o ~--i a c o .-r a o vi ~ a 0 vi C x 0 o to x 0 0 ~ A r, .~ r. ,~ r.. a O a U w o S = _ = = _ = = = _ = ~ a z l~4 U W a C/] o ~" 0 ~ ~ .-. o ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ .~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~n ~ V ~ Q C7 a' O N o o z 3 n X ~ ~ ~ W ~ v >- a °' 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0.1 Ra W W Gq L1~ ~ GO GO GU W w U ~ ~ W ~ .~ P~ O 00 ~ 'C ~ o ~ v°' d 'L7 ~ 'O ~ b ~ b N b ~ b ~ b 0 O a Q a a rx i rx a c~ a r~ v rx i rx ~ rx a r~ ~ rx a x ~ v~ W .--i N M ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 O~ ~ .-r U 0 .-: 00 ~; ~ cC 00 3 ~ o ° ., 00 ~ •a o :; wx ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~ 3 w ~ ~N U y ~ ~ C h ~ O b ~ ~'" W bo R ~ C ~ o U a ~ ~~ U l~ a~i oc°. ~, ~~ U ~ M N ~' i., T ~ ~ ~ ..+ ~ ~ O A, ,b ~ ~ O . O ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 a~i a~i D A a~ a~ ti a ~~ zw ww ~~ ~°z U rr H M N 00 M a O Q U ~~ ~o ~3 O ,.~ z .~ 0.7 O 00 w '-a W ~ .v~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~n er er U ~ z + + + + + + + + + + + ~ o Q~ ~. ~ ~D V1 ~ M ~ .--~ ~ M ~ M ~ O~ ~J M ~ O~ ~ V ~ ~ a ~C M `O ¢ ~ w z ~. A w H U ~-- ~ .l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O, ~ ~ rx ,.a w a rx x ..a ..a .a a x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 ~ o ~ ~ ~ M o ~--i o ..r ~ V'1 ~ O o V7 0 .-. O U a A ~ ~ " ~ ~ - N a z ..+ CO U a~ W ..1 o p ~- O o er ~ a ~ ~ oo ~ r h o~ ~ o~ h a ~ s ~ h ~ V ~ a c N z 3 ~ p = _ = = = _ _ = = _ ~ ~ ~ W ~' v ,>" ~ O f3' i+ O W ~ Ga O C1 W f la , O C1 Q7 C~ W al 0 0 W Q Q W ~ o ~ ~ '0 c ~ ~ _ ~ ' o ~ v ~ c ~ c v ~ c v - c °' ~ a o ~ c c ~ ~ o c ~ c c~ ~ a z ~ aa _ c a a z a z ~ r c r W U - • N M e t ~n v 7 ~ 0 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ .- ~, ~ cC ~ 3 ~ 0 o •~ +. :3 ~~ G '"' 0 ~ '~» o~ w~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ G `~ U ~ ~ ~ O ,., ~ N .~ o ~" Lti ~° o~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ •° U c ~ N U l~ ~ ~ ~ O.. N h ~ 'o U ~ M v' N ~ ~ ~' ~ > Ci. r w, O Ge ~ .~ o ~~ a ~v a ~ ~ ~ D D J z M~ W M N 00 M i -~ F"'~ c O U ~, 0 .--i ....i bA C .~ N b b ~M W _~ 00 N .--~ ~ w O w o 0 F- F., U ~ a Z ~ ~ p ~ , p o 0 ~ O ¢ ~ U o . ~ ¢ cL U o 0 Q ~ U N o0 ~c ~c X 4 W U ~ ~ a W F" a ¢ 0 0 Q ~ ~ CC W ~ -o ~ ~ ~ o ~ z ~- ~ ~ Q ¢o~ ¢ . ~ ~ U p -mv o i ~ N c ~ ~ J o o ~ W N > ° ~ CO b o '_' ~ O `'' z a ~ ~ 0 h 00 ~ U a~ 'o ` a . w O ~ z 0 `° ed N ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O ~ ~ . ''' U ,~ ~ ' W p -o o 0~ ~.. ~ O g' C Q O ~ ... h ~ .= U ~z 3 c~ ~ o ~ ~ d y ^y~ O ~ a ~ O L 4. •r a w a~ O a~i := c ~ 4.+ U O ~ L Y a~+ N U O O w s ~ o w ~ a~i ~ ~, ~ ~' N ~ E v C A ~_ ~ 'v U i.. cC O ~ ~ %p O U O (]~ N "p 'fl [~ ~ ~ . -o o ~ oQ -- m ~~ O N ~ r ^- N M p,y/ N ~ a d ~" ~+ W ~ U Z U Q o W ~' ~ .~ mW~3 Hwz,-: CA ~ W ~ z Q N 3 ~ ~ ~ D w O H ~ W o 0 az~ ~pF Ca o 0 w o ~ ~ U 0. ~ Q ~ U o 0 Q ~ U ~ O N X F. w a ~ a1 `r' `^ w F- a ~ F- ¢ 0 0 Q cn m ~ ~ n ~ ~ U ~ ~°z ~° ~ ¢o~ ¢ H ~vo ~ ~ ~ o N t+1 n ~ o ~ N > W ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ M O o - .~.7 ~ N O h pp ~ U O ~O 0. c,... O ~ 0 ~ N U ~ LO ~" ~ ~ W D ~ a i -o 'o ~ a` m {~,. ~ O ~ C _ W Q o ~. «. 00 N V'1 t1 U ~z ~~ ~~ C -p ~, ~~ ~ a ~ o a N V.. O L L C ~ ~" U O O a~i s d U O y c: t .D O O O c~ ~ ~. N L ~ ~ d N U C R R ~ ~ U a. (~ O _N = ~ U O Q 0 07 N ~p 'D r ~ ~ . 'v ~_ o ~° o Q -m ~~ o~ N W F-+ M N 00 M --i O U O ~_ an C .~ b ..~ ~~ 'C O ..-~ 00 .-.~ w ~ a ~ ~ a U O~~`+ 0 0 ~ e: ~ U J W Q W W Q •~ W ~ :'-' O O E^ ~ U v~ =oz z ~ ~ C/1 N N O O W ~ 0 U z ~ ^~ b o 0 W N W .a ~. W ~ ~ o 0 _ O z 0 0 0 0 w [- W °~ o 0 ~ h O E- w U ~ o 0 0 II V -~ .~ ~ ~ . a~i 'o ~ a '~ Q w O V E--' ~ N F-, ~ ~ z ~~ o ~~ per,,, ~. .--. a~ ~ U ~ 0. W M M ~ W~ ~ ~] O b e. c w o .~ ... 00 N h ~ U ~z ~~ N z w a oa Q h w 0 >_ O 0 a~ a~ y N ~z ~ W U '~ C CO .a ~. ~~ .__ ~n L ~ ~ ~ ~I-. RS U >, s o ~ ~ ~ ~ .o 'O 'C 6~ ~ c c ~~ ~~ ~Q N M ~,,, N OMO Q~ i a_ w ~ ~ Q ~ (~ O ~c aJ U U Q ~ zzao w~~._ a ~ j O 3 hwz. a > .--. w 0~ ~ ~ Q o z _~ U ~ ~ L=, ~ .-. R~ F'' ~.,, W ~ _ F- ~ - U~ H N O O ¢ ~ U o ., ~ ~ W W W ~¢ z ~: o 0 ~~~ ~oz z ~ ~ W ~ o 0 W U z N ~ 0 N 0 0 W W ..a ~ W ~ ~ O O _ 0 p c o 0 W H w x °~ 0 F ~ ~ U ~ ~ w 0 o 0 n a ~o ~ ci "~ Q w O ~* ~ o c ~C N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O ~ F., a ri u ., ~ U ~ ~- W 0.1 ~,.., ~ o Q ~ ~ C W Q O ~... ._. 00 N ~ ~ U ~z N z W .~ Q w 0 E 0 0 a~ ~ N °' z W J C CO to E- C ,_ "' ' C ~ ~ ~ .. N '~ cC U T L O ~ >, ~ .O .i~ °~ ~ C C ~~ v~ ~~ ¢¢ N ~,