The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutThe Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) defined "Categorical Exclusion" as a category of actions which do not individua Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form STIP Project No.U-2817 WBS Element 34868.1.1 Federal Project No.STP-1700(6) A. Project Description: NCDOT proposes to widen SR 1700 (Old Tar Road/Evans Street) to a multi-lane facility in Pitt County. The proposed roadway improvements begin in Winterville at the intersection of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) and SR 1711 (Cooper Street/Worthington Road) and end in Greenville at the intersection of SR 1700 (Evans Street) and NC 43/US 264A (Greenville Boulevard), as shown on Figure 1. B. Description of Need and Purpose: The purpose of the proposed action is to increase capacity and improve traffic flow along Old Tar Road/Evans Street in the project area. These improvements are expected to increase safety along the roadway. The project will also provide continuous designated areas for cyclists and pedestrians, thereby improving safety and promoting this alternative means of travel. C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III D. Proposed Improvements: NCDOT proposes to widen SR 1700 (Old Tar Road/Evans Street) to a multi-lane facility. The proposed roadway improvements begin in Winterville at the intersection of SR 1700 (Old Tar Road) and SR 1711 (Cooper Street/Worthington Road) and end in Greenville at the intersection of SR 1700 (Evans Street) and NC 43/US 264A (Greenville Boulevard). The typical section for the proposed Old Tar Road/Evans Street best-fit widening is a four-lane divided section with curb and gutter comprised of: four 12-foot travel lanes, two 5-foot bike lanes, 23-foot median, 2.5-foot curb and gutter, and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. A 16-foot median is proposed for a section of Evans Street, just north of the Fire Tower Road intersection. The project would also realign Vernon White Road with Tabard Road. Turn lanes will be included at intersections where needed to provide an acceptable level of traffic service. Several alternatives were evaluated at the two major intersections along the project, Fire Tower Road and Greenville Boulevard. The NCDOT recommends Alternative C (U-turn design with partial left turns allowed) at the Fire Tower Road intersection, and Alternative D (conventional intersection widening with additional lanes and vehicle storage) at the Greenville Boulevard intersection. 1 E.Special Project Information: Preliminary Study Alternatives !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ -®£¤² ®¥ 4± ²¯®±³ ³¨® 4± µ¤« $¤¬ £ - ¦¤¬¤³ Travel Demand Management (TDM) involves programs to encourage travelers to use alternatives to driving alone, and, in some cases, to encourage travelers not to travel at all. A major purpose of TDM is to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road during peak travel periods when roads are most congested. These programs can include van/car pools, flexible work schedules, telecommuting programs, and park & ride lots. The proposed project does not include any TDM measures, most of which must be undertaken at the local government level or by the private sector. TDM improvements alone would not increase capacity or improve levels of service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2040 Design Year. Therefore, the TDM Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and is eliminated from further consideration. - ²² 4± ²¨³ The City of Greenville offers the Greenville Area Transit System (GREAT), which operates along six fixed routes. Route 1 runs north and south, including along Red Banks Road and Evans Street north of Greenville Boulevard. A Short Range Transit Development Plan (2013) identified the Evans Street corridor from Greenville Boulevard south to Fire Tower Road as the next service route. The East Carolina University Student Government Association also provides a bus service for university students, faculty, staff, and visitors. The 303/Blue route provides services to the shopping centers located at the intersection of Evans Street and Greenville Boulevard, but does not travel through the project corridor. Even with the additional routes the proposed mass transit improvements would not increase capacity or level of service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2040 Design Year. Therefore, the Mass Transit Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and is eliminated from further consideration. 4± ²¯®±³ ³¨® 3¸²³¤¬² - ¦¤¬¤³ Transportation Systems Management (TSM) involves modest physical and operational improvements to enhance traffic performance, safety, and management. These measures can include ramp lengthening, construction of auxiliary lanes, constructing new interchanges, improved signing and lane markings, and improved shoulder illumination. TSM improvements alone would not increase capacity or improve levels of service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2040 Design Year. Therefore, the TSM Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and is eliminated from further consideration. .¤¶ ,®¢ ³¨® !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ Given the amount of development along and near Old Tar Road/Evans Street, constructing a new facility would not be a cost-effective means of improving traffic flow or level of service. In addition, environmental impacts would be considerably greater if a 2 new facility were constructed. For these reasons, a new location alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and is eliminated from further consideration. No-B´¨«£ !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ Under the No-Build Alternative, no transportation improvements would be made on Old Tar Road/ Evans Street in the project area beyond routine maintenance. This alternative assumes that future travel demand would be placed on existing roads. The No-Build Alternative does not improve traffic flow and level of service, or reduce conflicts between through and local traffic on Old Tar Road/Evans Street in the project area. The No-Build Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and is removed from further consideration. )¬¯±®µ¤ %·¨²³¨¦ & ¢¨«¨³¸ The Improve Existing Facility Alternative assumes that the Old Tar Road/Evans Street corridor between Cooper Street/Worthington Road and Greenville Boulevard will be widened to include two lanes and a bike lane in each direction, a 16 to 23-foot median, curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Improvements are also proposed at intersecting roads, including the intersections of Old Tar Road and Cooper Street/Worthington Road, Old Tar Road/Evans Street and Fire Tower Road, and Evans Street and Greenville Boulevard. With the proposed improvements in place, the traffic flow, capacity, and level of service for Design Year 2040 are all improved through the project area. The Improve Existing Facility Alternative will meet the Purpose and Need of the proposed project. The remainder of this section describes the proposed improvements associated with this alternative. Detailed Study Alternatives - ¨«¨¤ !«³¤± ³¨µ¤² The following alternatives were evaluated along the mainline of Old Tar Road/Evans Street and at the minor intersecting roads. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ ! Ȩ"¤²³-&¨³ȝ#®µ¤³¨® « )³¤±²¤¢³¨® 7¨£¤¨¦ȩ - Recommended The Best-Fit/Conventional intersection widening alternative consists of providing two additional lanes, bike lanes, median, curb and gutter, and sidewalks along Old Tar Road/Evans Street within the project limits. At the minor intersecting roads this alternative consists of providing adequate turn lanes, storage lengths, and signalization where needed. This widening alternative was developed to minimize impacts to environmental resources and development currently in place along Old Tar Road/Evans Street. )³¤±²¤¢³¨® !«³¤± ³¨µ¤² The following alternatives were evaluated at the major project intersections: Old Tar Road and Cooper Street, Old Tar Road/Evans Street and Fire Tower Road, and Evans Street and Greenville Boulevard. /«£ 4 ± 2® £ £ #®®¯¤± 3³±¤¤³ȝ7®±³§¨¦³® 2® £ Two alternatives were evaluated at this intersection: 3 !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ ! Ȩ#®µ¤³¨® « )³¤±²¤¢³¨® W¨£¤¨¦ȩ - Recommended This alternative is a conventional widening design that would add a left turn lane in all directions. A right turn lane from Old Tar Road to Cooper Street and a right turn lane from Worthington Road to Old Tar Road would also be added. The intersection would be signalized. NCDOT recommends Alternative A at this location because it provides an adequate level of service in the design year 2040, it is supported by the Town of Winterville, and it is most-preferred by the commenting public. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ !Ε Ȩ2®´£ ¡®´³ȩ This alternative involves the construction of a roundabout at the Old Tar Road and Cooper Street/Worthington Road intersection. While this alternative would provide adequate level of service if constructed as a two-lane roundabout, the Town of Winterville did not support this option and it was eliminated from further consideration. The Town submitted a Resolution, dated June 9, 2014, in support of Alternative A (Conventional Intersection Widening) at this location. /«£ 4 ± 2® £ȝ%µ ² 3³±¤¤³ £ &¨±¤ 4®¶¤± 2® £ Four alternatives were evaluated at this intersection: !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ ! Ȩ#®µ¤³¨® « )³¤±²¤¢³¨® 7¨£¤¨¦ȩ This alternative is a conventional widening design that would add turn lanes at the main intersection. This alternative would not provide an adequate level of service in the design year 2040 and was eliminated from further consideration. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ " Ȩ1´ £± ³ 2® £ȩ Alternative B consists of a quadrant roadway design that would connect Old Tar Road/Evans Street to Fire Tower Road by a new road in the northeast corner of the intersection. The quadrant road would intersect Old Tar Road/Evans Street across from South Hall Drive and would intersect Fire Tower Road across from Winding Branches Drive. Left turns would be restricted at the main intersection and turning traffic would be routed onto the new quadrant roadway. This alternative would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year. Alternative B was retained as a detailed study alternative and presented to the public at the November, 2016 Public Meeting. However, this alternative received very little support from the public, especially those living in the Paramore subdivision, and is not recommended. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ # Ȩ5-³´± $¤²¨¦ ¶¨³§ 0 ±³¨ « ,eft Turnsȩ - Recommended This alternative would involve the construction of new signalized U-turn bulb-outs on Fire Tower Road near Winding Branches Road and approximately 0.25 mile west of the Old Tar Road/Evans Street intersection. Left turns would be restricted from both directions of Fire Tower Road to Old Tar/Evans Street at the main intersection and accommodated at the new U-turn bulb-outs. Left turns from both directions of Old Tar Road/Evans Street onto Fire Tower Road would be permitted at the main intersection. Alternative C was retained as a detailed study alternative and presented to the public at the November, 2016 Public Meeting. Alternative C is recommended by NCDOT because it provides an adequate level of service in the design year and is preferred by a majority of the commenting public. 4 !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ $ Ȩ5-³´±² $¤²¨¦ ¶¨³§ .® ,¤¥³ 4´±²ȩ This alternative would involve the construction of new signalized U-turn bulb-outs on Fire Tower Road near Winding Branches Road and approximately 0.25 mile west of the Old Tar Road/Evans Street intersection. No left turns would be permitted at the main intersection. This alternative would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year. Alternative D was retained as a detailed study alternative and presented to the public at the November, 2016 Public Meeting. However, this alternative received very little support from the public or local officials and is not recommended. %µ ² 3³±¤¤³ £ '±¤¤µ¨««¤ "®´«¤µ ±£ Four alternatives were evaluated at this intersection: !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ ! Ȩ#®µ¤³¨® « )³¤±²¤¢³¨® 7¨£¤¨¦ȩ Alternative A at this intersection would be a conventional widening design that would add two dedicated right turn lanes from northbound Evans Street to eastbound Greenville Boulevard and one dedicated right turn lane from southbound Evans Street to westbound Greenville Boulevard. Two dedicated right turn lanes would also be added to eastbound Greenville Boulevard to southbound Evans Street. Two left turn lanes would be added from westbound Greenville Boulevard to southbound Evans Street. This alternative would not provide an adequate level of service in the design year 2040 and was eliminated from further consideration. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ " Ȩ1´ £± ³ 2® £ ¨ .®±³§¶¤²³ #®±¤±ȩ This alternative would prohibit left turns from Evans Street to Greenville Boulevard. A quadrant roadway would be built from the Martinsborough Road intersection at Evans Street, traveling through the Lynncroft Shopping Center and intersecting at Greenville Boulevard. Red Banks Road in the northeast quadrant of the intersection would also be used. This alternative would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year. However, this alternative received very little support from the public or local officials and is not recommended. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ "Ε Ȩ1´ £± ³ 2® £ ¨ .®±³§¤ ²³ #®±¤±ȩ This alternative is similar to Alternative B. However, a new quadrant roadway would be built only in the northeast quadrant of Evans Street and Greenville Boulevard. Left turns from Evans Street to Greenville Boulevard would be prohibited. While this alternative would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year, it received very little support from the public or local officials. Additionally, there was concern about adding an additional signal on Greenville Boulevard at the quadrant roads intersection. This alternative is not recommended. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ # Ȩ5-³´± $¤²¨¦ ¶¨³§ 0 ±³¨ « ,¤¥³ 4´±²ȩ This alternative would consist of adding a new U-turn bulb-out with a signal on Greenville Boulevard between the Evans Street/Greenville Boulevard intersection and Red Banks Road. Left turns from Evans Street onto Greenville Boulevard would be prohibited at the main intersection. Left turns from Greenville Boulevard onto Evans Street would be permitted at the main intersection. Alternative C was retained as a detailed study alternative and presented to the public at the November, 2016 Public Meeting. While this alternative would provide an adequate level of service in the design year and reduce left turn conflicts at the main intersection, it was not the alternative 5 preferred by the majority of the public or local officials. This alternative is not recommended. !«³¤± ³¨µ¤ $ Ȩ#®µ¤³¨® « )³¤±²¤¢³¨® 7¨£¤¨¦ ¶¨³§ !££¨³¨® « , ¤² £ 6¤§¨¢«¤ Storage) - Recommended Alternative D is similar to Alternative A except that along northbound Evans Street, Alternative D would provide additional lanes and vehicle storage so that the intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service in the design year. This alternative would provide for triple left turn lanes from westbound Greenville Boulevard onto southbound Evans Street as well as extend turn lanes and provide dual northbound right turn lanes. This alternative would operate at an acceptable level of service and was preferred by the majority of the commenting public during both the 2013 and 2016 public comment periods. Alternative D was also preferred by local officials in Greenville. NCDOT recommends Alternative D at this location. NCDOT Recommended Alternative NCDOT recommends Alternative A (Best-fit/Conventional Intersection Widening) alternative along the project mainline and at the minor intersecting roads. Alternative A (Conventional Intersection Widening) is recommended at the Old Tar Road/Evans Street and Cooper Street/Worthington Road intersection. Alternative C (U-turn Design with Partial Left Turns) is recommended at the Old Tar Road/Evans Street and Fire Tower Road intersection. Alternative D (Conventional Intersection Widening with Additional Lanes and Vehicle Storage) is recommended at the Evans Street and Greenville Boulevard intersection. Public Involvement Summary #¨³¨¹¤² )¥®±¬ ³¨® « 7®±ª²§®¯ – 3¤¯³¤¬¡¤± ΑΓǾ ΑΏΐΑ NCDOT conducted a Citizens Informational Workshop on September 24, 2012 at the Pitt County Shrine Club, 568 Irish Lane, in Winterville, North Carolina. The workshop was conducted in open-house format between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the project and give the public an opportunity to ask questions and offer feedback. Study area maps, representative typical sections, traffic animations, and general project information were on display. There was no formal presentation. After receiving a meeting handout and comment form, participants were able to look at displays, and speak with project representatives. A total of 87 community members registered their participation in the workshop. Meeting participants included residents, business owners, and local government employees and officials, and the media. Citizens had the opportunity to submit written comments and questions at the workshop or via mail or e-mail after the workshop. A total of 59 written comments were received during the comment period. Comments received from citizens were related to: Sidewalks/bicycle lanes Typical section width Property and business impacts Intersection design at Fire Tower Road and Greenville Boulevard 6 Traffic signals and noise walls. ,®¢ « /¥¥¨¢¨ «² -¤¤³¨¦ £ /¯¤ (®´²¤ 0´¡«¨¢ -¤¤³¨¦ – .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΒ NCDOT conducted a Local Officials Meeting and Open House Public Meeting on November 19, 2013 at the Pitt County Shrine Club. An invitation was mailed to local officials inviting them to attend the meeting, and a newsletter announcing the workshop was sent to citizens on the project mailing list. The purpose of these meetings was to provide information to, and receive feedback from, local officials and the public on the proposed project. Information presented included the projects study area, purpose and need, and preliminary alternatives. The Local Officials Meeting was held from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. Twenty-two (22) meeting participants registered their attendance. Participants included representatives from Pitt County, the City of Greenville, the Town of Winterville, the Greenville Urban Area MPO (GUAMPO), and the Lynndale Homeowners Association. A formal presentation was given and questions were answered as they arose. Attendees were able to look at project displays and speak one-on-one with NCDOT staff and the engineering team before and after the formal presentation. Attendees were provided meeting handouts and comment sheets. The handouts included the information on the project development process, project description and purpose, intersection alternative descriptions, next steps, and project contacts. Additional handouts of the left turn concepts and traditional versus modern intersection design display boards were also provided. A variety of topics were discussed during the comment session, including: bike lane width, traffic signals, median design, turning movements, and traffic studies. The Open House Public Meeting was held from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. There was no formal presentation. After receiving a meeting handout and comment form, participants were able to look at displays of the proposed widening of Old Tar Road/Evans Street and intersection alternatives, speak with project representatives, and view traffic simulations. One hundred sixty-three (163) people registered their attendance at the meeting. Meeting participants included residents, business owners, local government employees and officials, and the media. Citizens had the opportunity to submit written comments and questions at the workshop or via mail and e-mail after the meeting. A total of 234 comments, not including local officials comments, were received. Many of the respondents identifying themselves as residents of a particular subdivision shared common concerns. Two versions of a petition were also received with a total of 659 signatures. The most frequent comments expressed by citizens were in regard to the following: Alternative preference, or opposition to all current alternatives Impacts to the South Hall subdivision brick wall Possible removal or relocation of the existing traffic signal at north South Hall Drive Opposition to a new quadrant road tying to Jack Place in Paramore Farms near Fire Tower Road 7 Opposition to routing traffic through the Lynncroft Shopping Center near Greenville Boulevard Access and safety concerns regarding the proposed median, the width of the median, median break locations, and the use of U-turns Proposed bike lanes Typical section width Potential noise impacts, drainage issues, and property value concerns Impacts to specific properties Local /¥¥¨¢¨ «² -¤¤³¨¦ £ /¯¤ (®´²¤ 0´¡«¨¢ -¤¤³¨¦ – November ΒǾ ΑΏΐΕ NCDOT conducted a Local Officials Meeting and Open House Public Meeting at the Pitt County Shrine Club on November 3, 2016. An invitation was mailed to local officials inviting them to attend the meeting, and a post card announcing the public meeting was sent to citizens on the project mailing list. The purpose of this meeting was to present the projects detailed study alternatives and gather feedback to aid in the selection of a preferred alternative. The Local Officials Meeting was held from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m., with a total of seventeen (17) representatives registering their attendance. Participants included representatives from Pitt County, the City of Greenville, GUAMPO, and the South Hall and Lynndale homeowners associations. A formal presentation was given and questions were answered as they arose. Attendees were able to look at project displays and speak with project representatives. Attendees were provided meeting handouts and comment sheets. The handouts included the information on the project development process, project description, proposed intersection alternatives, potential project impacts, next steps, and project contacts. One comment was received from a local official. The comment expressed support for the inclusion of sidewalks and bicycle facilities along the project corridor. The Open House Public Meeting took place from 4:00 7:00 p.m. A total of one hundred eighty-five (185) citizens registered their attendance at the meeting. There was no formal presentation. After receiving a meeting handout and comment form, participants were able to look at displays of the proposed intersection alternatives, speak with project representatives, and view traffic simulations. Citizens were also able to assess potential property impacts by viewing print-outs of the projects proposed right-of-way in relation to any properties of interest. Meeting participants included residents, business owners, local government employees and officials, and the media. Citizens had the opportunity to submit written comments and questions at the workshop or via mail and e-mail after the meeting. A total of 164 comments were received either at the meeting or during the subsequent comment period. The most frequent comments expressed by citizens were in regard to the following: Proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities Alternative preference, or opposition to all current alternatives 8 Opposition to any potential loss of the brick walls at the South Hall subdivision entrances Impacts to property owners in the South Hall neighborhood Access and safety concerns regarding the use of U-turns throughout the corridor Concern about the proposed median width Concern about home values, noise impacts, and privacy Impacts to specific properties 9 F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists: Type III ActionsYesNo If the proposed improvement is identified as a Type III Class of Action answer all questions. The Categorical Exclusionwill require FHWA approval. If anyquestions are marked “yes” then additional information will be required for those question in Section G. Does the project involve potential effectson species listed with the USFWSor 1 NMFS? 2Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the BGPA? Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any 3 reason, following appropriate public involvement? Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to 4 low-income and/or minority populations? Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements 5 or right of way acquisition? 6Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)? Is a project-level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required 7 based on the NCDOT community studies screening tool? Is a project level air quality Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis 8 required? 9Does the project impact anadromous fish? Does the project impact waters classified as ORW,HQW, Water Supply 10Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d)-listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or SAV? Does theproject impact waters of the United States in any of the designated 11 mountaintroutstreams? 12Does the project require a USACEIndividual Section 404 Permit? 13Will the project require an easement from a FERC licensed facility? Does the project include Section 106 of the NHPAeffects determination other 14than a no effect, including archaeological remains? Are there project commitments identified? 15Does the projectinvolve hazardous materials and landfills? Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) 16 elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart A? Isthe project in a CAMA county and substantially affectsthe coastal zone 17 and/or any AEC? 18Does the project require a USCGpermit? Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a 19 designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? 20Does the project involve CBRAresources? 10 Type III Actions (continued)YesNo Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. USFS, USFWS, etc.)or Tribal 21 Lands? 22Does the projectinvolve any changes in access control? Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or 23 community cohesiveness? 24Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? 25Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the MPO’sTIP(where applicable)? Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, TVA, Tribal Lands, 26 or other unique areas orspecial lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property? 27Does the project involve FEMA buyout propertiesunder the HMGP? 28Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by 29 the FPPA? Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that 30 effected the project decision? 11 G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F Q´¤²³¨® Β – S´¡²³ ³¨ « #®³±®µ¤±²¸ ®± 0´¡«¨¢ /¯¯®²¨³¨®Ȁ NCDOT has held two Local Officials Meetings and three Public Meetings for the proposed project. The most common concerns heard from citizens were in reference to property impacts from the proposed typical section, specifically the proposed median width and inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities. There were also concerns about some of the alternatives presented as well as the projects impact on the South Hall subdivision wall and general safety. Changes were made to the project plans after each public meeting to address citizens concerns as noted here. Following the second public meeting (November, 2013), two versions of a petition were received with a total of 659 signatures. Signees requested a commitment from NCDOT that the proposed project be limited to no more than four or five lanes, not impact the wall in front of the South Hall neighborhood, and not alter the current locations of signalized intersections along the corridor, and expressed concern for noise impacts and reduced accessibility. The petitions also request none of the project alternatives allow Jack Place to be used as a cut-through to Donald Drive within the Paramore Farms neighborhood. Additionally, there were several alternatives presented at the second public meeting that received very little public support. In order address citizens concerns during and directly following the second public meeting and petitions, the following revisions were made: -Only four through travel lanes are proposed along the length of the project, with turn lanes at necessary locations to maintain an adequate level of service. This is not a change in what was presented at the second public meeting, but was retained in order to address citizens concerns in the petition. -Preliminary designs do not indicate that any of the existing signals along the project corridor will be altered or removed, as requested by the citizens commenting at the second public hearing and on the petitions. -The proposed median width was reduced to 16 feet in the vicinity of the South Hall neighborhood in an effort to reduce impacts to the wall and neighborhood. Efforts will be made during final design to further minimize impacts to the wall in front of the South Hall neighborhood. -The connection from Jack Place to Donald Drive was removed as requested by citizens commenting at the second public meeting. -Alternative A2 at Cooper Street/Old Tar Road intersection and Alternatives A, B, and B2 at the Greenville Boulevard/Evans Street intersection were dropped from further consideration after the second public meeting because these alternatives received very little public support and did not offer any advantages over the remaining alternatives. Although Alternative A at Fire Tower/Evans Street received some public support, that alternative did not meet the purpose and need for the project and was also eliminated. -Noise analyses following the second public meeting indicated the need for several noise walls along the project, addressing a public concern at the public meeting. The noise wall locations will be further reviewed during the final design of the project. 12 At the third public meeting (November, 2016) and during the comment period, the most common citizens concerns were bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, impacts to the South Hall wall, general safety, and individual property impacts. The following revisions were made as a result of those comments: -In an effort to minimize property impacts, it was determined one of the proposed westbound through lanes along Greenville Boulevard at the Evans Street intersection will be eliminated. -The inclusion of bicycle lanes and pedestrian accommodations continued to be a concern for many of the commenting residents during and following the third public meeting. While there were 16 comments received in favor of providing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at the last public meeting, 72 commenters were not in support of including these provisions, citing property impacts and safety concerns. NCDOT has made every effort possible to reduce the projects footprint and impacts to properties along the road frontage during the preliminary design phase of the project. Additional minimization measures will be investigated during final design. However, NCDOT supports the City of Greenvilles commitment to provide multi- modal provisions along the project corridor. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are needed to help ensure the safety of all road users. The bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will remain as part of the recommended roadway improvements. -Impacts to the South Hall wall continued to be a concern for many of the commenting citizens during and following the third public meeting. In an effort to minimize impacts to the wall, the median width was reduced to 16 feet in the vicinity of the wall. This reduction in typical section width, however, does not guarantee that the wall will not be impacted to some degree. NCDOT will continue to investigate ways to minimize the project footprint in the vicinity of the South Hall subdivision and avoid impacts to the wall to the extent possible during final design. If impacts to the wall are unavoidable, NCDOT will re-construct impacted portions of the wall as possible. -The recommended alternatives (Alternative A at Cooper Street, Alternative C at Fire Tower Road, and Alternative D at Greenville Boulevard) received the most public support among the presented alternatives at the third public meeting. The third public meeting was the last NCDOT-sponsored public outreach during the NEPA development stage of the project. However, the City of Greenville continued to discuss the project at publicly-attended City Council meetings following the public meeting, with NCDOT representatives in attendance to present information and answer questions. The impacts to the South Hall wall and the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities were the main topics of conversation. After reviewing the project with NCDOT and listening to comments from the public, the Greenville City Council agreed to support the project with the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as the proposed typical section through the South Hall subdivision area, with the understanding that NCDOT will continue to investigate minimization efforts during final design. 1´¤²³¨® Δ – 3´¡²³ ³¨ « 2¤²¨£¤³¨ « ®± #®¬¬¤±¢¨ « $¨²¯« ¢¤¬¤³² The project will result in the displacement of 17 residences and 40 businesses. No special relocation services will be needed. Business services and suitable business sites will be available after project construction, per coordination with local realtors and review of the MLS service. The relocations will not cause a housing shortage and there will not be a 13 problem of available housing within financial means. Public housing will not be needed due to the project, and public housing will still be available. The Relocation Reports for the project indicate that 45 graves may need to be relocated due the project. The graves are associated with the private Hodges and Harrington cemeteries located along the west side of Old Tar Road across from the Cedar Street intersection. During final design, impacts to graves will be minimized to the extent possible. If impacts to graves are unavoidable, they will be removed and relocated according to applicable State laws and regulations. 1´¤²³¨® Ε – 3¤¢³¨® ΓȨ¥ȩ Determination There are two Section 4(f) properties in the vicinity of the project. 1.The Lakewood Pines Historic District is located along the west side of Evans Street, just north of Red Banks Road. The District is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and is therefore eligible for review within the terms of Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The project was reviewed by the NCDOT, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Office with regards to the projects potential impact on the District. Those agencies determined the recommended alternative would have No Adverse Effect on the Lakewood Pines Historic District. The following conditions are noted for the No Adverse Effect and De Minimis finding to remain valid as addressed in the Assessment of Effects Form (See Attached): Project limits reduced by 240 feet to keep construction outside (east) of historic district boundary, which is 15 feet (minimum) from (west of) back of berm. Permanent utility and drainage easements should fall within this 15-foot area. No relocation of existing power poles (wooden). East sidewalk at Overton Drive and offset lefts at Red Banks/Evans Street eliminated. Berm width on Evans Street reduced to 8 feet along historical boundary. Exclusive turn lanes reduced to 11 feet. FHWA has determined a De Minimis 4(f) impact for the Lake Pines Historic District due to the no adverse effect call by SHPO, NCDOT, and FHWA. 2.The WNCT-TV Station is located along the east side of Evans Street, south of Greenville Boulevard. The TV Station is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and is therefore eligible for review within the terms of Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The project was reviewed by the NCDOT, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Office with regards to the projects potential impact on the District. Those agencies determined that the recommended alternative would have No Adverse Effect on WNCT-TV Station. The following conditions are noted for the No Adverse Effect and De Minimis finding to remain valid as addressed in the Assessment of Effects Form (See Attached): Proposed construction extends east into property along Evans Street, requiring some new right-of-way (0.60 acres) and easement (0.63 acres), but impacting no buildings, structures, or other historical components. FHWA has determined a De Minimis 4(f) impact for the WNCT-TV Station historic property due to the no adverse effect call by SHPO, NCDOT, and FHWA. 1´¤²³¨® ΐΏ – )¬¯ ¢³¤£ 7 ³¤±² There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d)-listed streams, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) located within the project study area. The project study area is located within both the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins. 14 This project is expected to have only !««®¶ ¡«¤ ¶¨³§ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® buffer impacts, due to the replacement of existing culverts and pipes with culverts and pipes and not bridges. Wetlands adjacent to the perennial UT to Fork Swamp (Stream SC) will likely be impacted along with the associated Neuse River buffers as a result of this proposed project. All stream segments subject to buffer rules within the project study area are located within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0233) mandates a 50-foot wide riparian buffer be maintained along areas adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin, including intermittent and perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries. Road crossings of these streams and other surface waters greater than 40 linear feet are allowable provided there are no practical alternatives pursuant to Item (8) of the Rule. Road crossings greater than 150 linear feet or one-third of an acre of riparian buffer are allowable with mitigation pursuant to both Item (8) and the Neuse River Basin Nutrient Management Strategy. Any jurisdictional stream, wetland, or riparian buffer impacts that occur as a result of a temporary on-site detour roadway will need to be restored following the conditions of the permit allowing such activity. Wetland impacts can be considered either permanent or temporary along on-site temporary detours depending largely upon the amount of soil compaction within the affected wetland area. The handling of temporary and permanent buffer impacts is based upon whether they lie within Zone 1 or Zone 2. Impacts within Zone 1, from top of bank to 30 feet landward on both sides of the channel, will be considered permanent because clearing activities are not allowed. Impacts within Zone 2, from 30 feet landward to 50 feet landward on both sides of the channel, will be considered temporary if the area is simply being cleared and replanted, and permanent if the area is being graded (NCDWR, 2004). To calculate Neuse River buffer impacts, slope stake limits for each design alternative were buffered by 25 feet. Using these limits, the project was determined to result in 1.54 acres of Zone 1 impacts and 1.05 acres of Zone 2 impacts, or a total of 2.59 acres. These impacts were calculated to be the same for all detailed study alternatives. 1´¤²³¨® ΐΓ – .(0! 3¤¢³¨® ΐΏΕ Determination The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 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 (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. NCDOT conducted a reconnaissance survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project in April 2014. One property and one district recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP were identified within the APE: the Lakewood Pines Historic District and the WNCT television station. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred the Lakewood Pines Historic District and the WNCT television station are eligible for listing in the NRHP in a memorandum dated June 22, 2015 (see attached letter) The two historic resources were reviewed by NCDOT, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Office with regards to the projects potential impact. Those agencies determined the recommended alternative would have No Adverse Effect on the two historic resources. See response to Question 6 above concerning the No Adverse Effect conditions for these two historic resources as well as the attached Assessment of Effects form. 15 1´¤²³¨® ΐΔ – ( ¹ ±£®´² - ³¤±¨ «² Based on a geotechnical report prepared by NCDOT in May 2012, eight sites were identified within the project limits which may presently or formerly contain petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs). No hazardous waste sites or landfills were noted. Three other geo- environmental concerns were identified within the project limits: two dry cleaning facilities and one superfund site. The superfund site is located at the Coastal Agro Business, an agricultural chemical manufacturer, located on the west side of Evans Street about 1 mile south of Greenville Boulevard. This superfund site is anticipated to present moderate geo- environmental impacts while all the other sites are anticipated to present low geo- environmental impacts. Soil and groundwater assessments will be conducted at each of the UST sites prior to right of way acquisition. 1´¤²³¨® ΐΕ – Impacted Floodplains Pitt County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. The preliminary hydraulics analysis for the proposed project determined there are three existing major stream crossings associated with the proposed project. The following is a summary of the flood hazard evaluation for each of the major stream crossings: Site 1 is an existing crossing of Fork Swamp under Evans Street. The stream crossing is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) detailed flood study area in a Special Flood Hazard Zone AE (base flood elevations determined). There is a published floodway at this site and a floodway modification may be required. Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis of this site, it is recommended that the existing dual 84-inch diameter corrugated metal pipes (CMP) be replaced with a single 12-foot by ten-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Site 2 is an existing crossing of an unnamed tributary to Fork Swamp under Old Tar Road. The stream is located within a FEMA detailed flood study area in a Special Flood Hazard Zone AE. There is a published floodway at this site and a floodway modification may be required. Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis of this site, it is recommended that the existing single 72-inch diameter CMP be replaced with a double barrel ten-foot by nine-foot RCBC. Site 3 is an existing crossing of an unnamed tributary to Fork Swamp under Old Tar Road. The stream crossing is located within a FEMA Flood Hazard Zone X (areas of 500- year flood, or areas of 100-year flood with average depth of less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile). Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis of this site, it is recommended that the existing 66-inch by 51-inch CMP arch be replaced with a single eight-foot by six-foot RCBC. In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMAs National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOTs Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated April 22, 2013, modified February 5, 2015), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams. Therefore, NCDOT Division 2 shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. Further detailed analysis will be required during final design to adequately address all of the impacts associated with the floodplain at each site. The project impacts approximately 3.7 acres of 100-year floodplain and floodway. There are no properties that have been acquired with FEMA funds in the project study area. 16 1´¤²³¨® ΑΗ – .#$/4 .®¨²¤ 0®«¨¢¸ A Traffic Noise Report (VHB, 2017) was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the October 2016 NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy. The Traffic Noise Analysis utilized computer models created with the latest Federal Highway Administrations (FHWAs) Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5) to predict noise levels and define impacted receptors along the proposed new roadway project. A total of 881 identified receptor locations were examined, including land uses such as residences, restaurants, medical facilities, churches, and educational facilities for this analysis. Existing traffic noise levels were taken at six locations along the project corridor. Under the Design Year (2040) Build conditions, 178 receptors are expected to experience noise impacts. Of these receptor impacts, 167 are expected to be caused by predicted noise levels that will approach or exceed NCDOTs and FHWAs noise abatement criteria, 35 due to a substantial noise increase over existing conditions and 24 impacts will be caused by both conditions. Seven potential noise walls were investigated with one potential parallel barrier scenario: NW1 located along eastern side of Evans Street between Ashley Meadows Drive and Winterfield Drive NW2 located along the western side of Evans Street north of Vernon White Drive NW3 located along the eastern side of Evans Street near Meath Drive and Guiness Drive NW4 located along the eastern side of Evans Street between Jack Place and Donald Drive NW5 located along the western side of Evans Street near Shamrock Way NW6 located along the eastern side of Evans Street between White Oak Drive and Oak Towne Drive NW7 located along the western side of Evans Street near West Victoria Court and Sara Lane Each of the barriers individually analyzed proved to be both feasible and reasonable and are therefore recommended. However, after analyzing NW5 and NW6 in parallel, it was determined that the presence of NW6 would prevent NW5 from providing any benefits. Therefore, it is recommended that either NW5 or NW6 be constructed, but not both. These potential wall locations will be examined further during the final design of the project. 17 H. Project Commitments H¸£± ´«¨¢² 5¨³ &«®®£¯« ¨ - ¯¯¨¦ 0±®¦± ¬ #®®±£¨ ³¨® The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine the status of the project with regard to Agreement with FMP (dated April 22, 2013, modified February 5, 2015), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). $¨µ¨²¨® Α , £²¢ ¯¨¦ Efforts will be made during the final design to minimize any impacts to the landscape wall along Evans Street in front of the South Hall neighborhood. If the final design results in impacts to this wall, NCDOT will coordinate with appropriate stakeholders to rebuild this feature. $¨µ¨²¨® Α £ 0±®¦± ¬² - ¦¤¬¤³ /¥¥¨¢¤ - 3¨£¤¶ «ª² The project will include a five-foot bicycle lane and five-foot sidewalk on both sides of Evans Street/Old Tar Road). The construction of sidewalks will be dependent upon a cost-sharing and maintenance agreement with local governments. $¨µ¨²¨® Α !µ®¨£ ¢¤ ®¥ (®£¦¤² £ ( ±±¨¦³® #¤¬¤³¤±¨¤² Based on preliminary plans, up to 45 graves may be impacted by the proposed project. During final design, impacts to graves will be minimized to the extent possible. If impacts to graves are unavoidable, they will be removed and relocated according to applicable State laws and regulations. $¨µ¨²¨® Α - 3¤¢³¨® ΓȨ¥ȩ !µ®¨£ ¢¤ £ -¨¨¬¨¹ ³¨® The Lakewood Pines Historic District and WNCT-TV Station are NRHP-eligible properties located along Evans Street within the project area. The project was reviewed by the NCDOT, on these resources. The following conditions for the preferred alternative are noted for the No Adverse Effect finding to remain valid as addressed in the Assessment of Effects Form: Lakewood Pines Historic District: Project limits reduced by 240 feet to keep construction outside (east) of historic district boundary, which is 15 feet (minimum) from (west of) back of berm. Permanent utility and drainage easements should fall within this 15-foot area. No relocation of existing power poles (wooden). East sidewalk at Overton Drive and offset lefts at Red Banks/Evans Street eliminated. Berm width on Evans Street reduced to 8 feet along historical boundary. Exclusive turn lanes reduced to 11 feet. WNCT-TV Station: Proposed construction extends east into property along Evans Street, requiring some new right-of-way (0.60 acres) and easement (0.63 acres), but impacting no buildings, structures, or other historical components. FHWA has determined a De Minimis 4(f) impact for both the Lake Pines Historic District and WNCT-TV Station historic property due to the no adverse effect call by SHPO, NCDOT, and FHWA. The De Minimis determination is based on the conditions referenced above. $¨µ¨²¨® Α £ .®¨²¤ £ !¨± ! «¸²¨² '±®´¯ .®¨²¤ !¡ ³¤¬¤³ Seven potential noise wall locations have been identified through the project noise analysis. Those wall locations will be investigated further during the final design of the project. 18 Figure 1 Project Vicinity SR 1700 (Evans Street/Old Tar Road) from SR 1711 (Worthington Road) in Winterville to US 264A (Greenville Boulevard) in Greenville. Widen to Multi-Lanes. NCDOT STIP No. U-2817 Pitt County North Carolina Department of Transportation 43 Project Vicinity End Project 264 £ ¤ 11 Legend Study Area Roads Railroad Streams Greenville City Limits Winterville Town Limit Data Source: NCDOT, Pitt County, Begin Project and Greenville GIS Figure Date: 6/30/2017 01,7503,5007,000 £ Feet North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry June 22, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Vanessa Patrick Human Environment Unit NC Department of Transportation FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening of SR 1700 from SR 1711 in Winterville to US 264A/NC43 in Greenville, U-2817, Pitt County, ER 05-0843 Thank you for your memorandum of June 8, 2015, transmitting the above-referenced report. We concur with its National Register evaluations that: Lakewood Pines Historic District (PT2254) is eligible under Criteria A & C WNDT-TV Station (PT2074) is eligible under Criteria A & C Pinewood Forest (PT2064) is not eligible Lynndale (PT2077) is not eligible The proposed boundaries for the two eligible properties appear appropriate. in numerous points throughout the report. To avoid any future confusion, we request that the text be corrected and provided to us in both hard and electronic copies. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT mfurr@ncdot.gov Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599