19930136 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
March 10, 1993
Action ID. 199301326 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions) (? ?n
LI ?
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways,'.' I 7 1993
ATTN: L. Jack Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch ?.J
Post Office Box 25201 WETL^,'M GROUP
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 WATER QUALITY SECTIC d ?
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your application of February 12, 1993, for Department of the
Army authorization to discharge fill material within waters of the United
States, causing impacts to 1.6 acres of palustrine wetlands, adjacent to, and
above headwaters of, Penders Mill Run, for the construction of an interchange
at U.S. 64 bypass and S.R. 1207, southwest of Tarboro, Edgecombe County, North
Carolina (State Project Number 8.T29051; TIP Project R-0509GA).
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.61 published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section.10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively has a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
[phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
Certification prior to starting work.
-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
aleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
I'M/r. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
c -I
-1103
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, OLDG.
v yid - ?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
I- Ae e -7 atfcz k:.

f , %^^,,
WL J
V •?? w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMES U. HUNT. JIL DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 12, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
5
1
?3
F, -
17jETLAt1DS GROUP
VAT E R QUALITY SECTIUZ4
Subject: Edgecombe County, US 64, Proposed Interchange at SR
1207; State Project Number 8.T290501; Federal Aid
Number NH-64(1); T.I.P. Number R-0509GA
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
" sinc re? r 1
_F, T. wniij It, P.I:.
A? tai]L Pt?:ln. u? r,
Planning and Environmental Branch
(-?113 ?-36

BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Raleigh Field
John Dorney, DEHNR
John Parker, DEHNR
Kelly Barger, P.E.
Don Morton, P.E.,
A.L. Hankins, P.E.
John L. Smith, Jr.
Tom Shearin, P.E.,
C.A. Gardner, Jr.,
Missy Dickens, P&E
Davis Moore, P&E
Office
DEM
DCM/Permit Coordinator
Program Development Branch
Highway Design
Hydraulics
P.E., Structure Design
Roadway Design
P.E., Division 4 Engineer

US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
C?Zl
Date L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
! / 9
Date Nich as Graf, P. E.
Fcit Division Administrator, FH14A
US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning & Environmental Branch By:

Mary \Alice Dickens
Project Planning Engineer
`%"111311111e, ft?
Cn?0fl-,
Qj i 1 on Stroud ? >n ' ??`•=?' : '' '•
ec Planning Unit Head
J f b
Lubin V. Prevatt P. E. Assistant Manager V,
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT ```???„t:???+?'?`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................. 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................. 1
A. General Description ................................... 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status .................. 1
C. Existing Conditions ................................... 2
D. Traffic Volumes . .............................. ..... 2
E. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 2
F. Accident Study ........................................ 4
G. Thoroughfare Plan ..................................... 4
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 4
A. Proposed Improvements ................................. 4
B. Drainage Structures ................................... 5
C. Estimated Costs ....................................... 5
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 5
A. Recommended Alternative ............................... 5
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative .............................. 5
V. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT............ 6
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment ................... 6
1. Land Use ......................................... 6
a. Existing Land Use...... ............... 6
b. Prime and Important Farmland ................ 6
2. Socioeconomic Impacts ............................ 6
a. Neighborhood Characteristics ................ 6
b. Economic Factors ............................ 6
C. Public Facilities ........................... 6
d. Relocations ................................. 7
e. Social Impacts .............................. 7
3. Historic and Cultural Resources .................. 7
a. Archaeological Resources .................... 7
.. b. Architectural/Historical Resources.......... 7
C. Section 4(f) Properties ..................... 7
B. Effects to the Natural Environment .................... 8
1. Biotic Communities ............................... 8
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 8
b. Aquatic Communities ......................... 11
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
2. Physical Resources ............................... 12
a. Soils ....................................... 12
b. Water Resources ............................. 13
C. Impacts to Water Resources .................. 13
d. Impacts to Floodplain ....................... 14
3. Waters of the United States ...................... 14
a. Summary of Impacts .......................... 15
b. Permits ... .................................. 15
C. Mitigat ion .................................. 16
4. Protected Species ................................ 16
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 16
b. State Protected Species ..................... 17
5. Traffic Noise and Air Quality .................... 18
VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 18
TABLES
Table 1 - Levels of Service....... ................... 3
Table 2 - Fauna Observed or Noted in Study Area....... 8
Table 3 - Plant Community Impacts ..................... 11
Table 4 - Soil Summary.. ... .............. .... .. 12
Table 5 - Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands.. 15
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species Listed in
Edgecombe County... ..... ........... 17
Table 7 - State Protected Species Listed in
Edgecombe County ....................... 17
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Interchange Configuration and 100-Year
Floodplain Limits
Figure 3 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4 - Current and Projected Traffic Values
Figure 5 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
"Waters of the United States".
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. It is
anticipated that the Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23
(Categorical Exclusions) will apply to this project. Final permit
decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of the United
States Corps of Engineers.
All standard procedures and measures wC1.6 mplemente to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximaacres o wetlands are
expected to be impacted by implementation roImpacts will
be minimized by utilizing Best Management Puring construction.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The subject project consists of constructing a diamond-type
interchange at the existing intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 west of
Tarboro in Edgecombe County (see Figure 1). The subject project is
included in the 1993-1999 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a portion of R-509 that has yet to be constructed. The TIP calls for
construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1993. The TIP funding for this
interchange is $3,600,000, all of which is for construction, since NCDOT
already owns the right of way (acquired under Project R-509).
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not
anticipated this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the
human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes
in route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The relocation of US 64 between Rocky Mount and Tarboro as a
four-lane divided facility (R-509) was completed in 1990, with the
exception of two interchanges (at SR 1207 and SR 1225). Right of way for
2
these interchanges was acquired with the right of way for R-509 with the
intent to construct the interchanges in the future. Currently, these
crossings exist as at-grade intersections. This project, by providing an
interchange at SR 1207, is one of two additional phases necessary to make
US 64 a fully controlled access facility, in accordance with the original
intent of the R-509 project. The proposed interchange at SR 1225
(R-509GB) is scheduled in the TIP for construction in Fiscal Year 1997.
C. Existing Conditions
US 64 in the project vicinity is a 4-lane divided facility with
12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot shoulders (2 feet paved and 8 feet grassed),
and a 46-foot grassed median. This segment of US 64, from Rocky Mount to
Tarboro, was completed in May of 1990 as a new location project. The
roadway has 330 feet of right of way width. The facility currently has
partial control of access, but will have full control of access upon the
completion of the interchanges at SR 1207 and SR 1225. The posted speed
limit is 55 miles per hour.
This segment of US 64 is part of the Federal-Aid Rural System, and it
is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial- Other in the Functional
Classification System. Other improvements planned for this roadway
include the interchange that is to be constructed at SR 1225 (R-509GB).
SR 1207 is a two-lane facility with a 20-foot pavement (10-foot
lanes) and 6-foot grassed shoulders south of US 64 and 4-foot grassed
shoulders north of US 64. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
The existing right of way width is 60 feet. SR 1207 is classified as a
Rural Minor Collector in the Functional Classification System and is not
part of the Federal-Aid System. There is no control of access along
SR 1207.
Photographs of the existing conditions in the project vicinity are
shown in Figure 5.
D. Traffic Volumes
The current average daily traffic utilizing US 64 in the project
vicinity is up to 10,200 vehicles per day, and it is projected that this
figure will increase to 20,400 vehicles per day by the year 2012.
Currently, up to 5,200 vehicles per day use SR 1207, and 10,100 vehicles
per day are expected to be using the facility in 2012. Figure 4 shows
current and projected (for the years 1992 and 2012) average daily traffic
volumes, turning movements, design hourly volume (DHV), and truck
percentages for the project area with the proposed interchange in place.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of
service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for
each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They
are given letter designations form A to F, with level of service A repre-
senting the best operation conditions and level of service F representing
the worst.
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed interchange to
determine the level of service (LOS) using the estimated peak hour traffic
demands for the years 1992 and 2012. Each ramp terminal was considered
twice for each year: once as a signalized intersection and once as an
unsignalized intersection. For the benefit of comparison, an analysis was
also performed for the at-grade unsignalized intersection of US 64 and SR
1207 as it now exists. Finally, an analysis was performed for each of the
four ramp junctions for 1992 and 2012 traffic volumes. The following
table presents the results of the capacity analyses.
TABLE 1
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing Unsignalized Intersection
Approach VPD (1992) LOS
SR 1207 5200 F
US 64 10200 A
Rama Terminals of Proposed Interchanae
Year Control LOS
1992 stop-sign D
signal B
2012 stop-sign F
signal B
Ramp Junctions of Proposed Interchange
Year Ramp LOS US 64 LOS
1992 B A
2012 C C
An unsignalized intersection analysis shows that SR 1207 currently is
operating at LOS F at its intersection with US 64. The ramp analyses show
that, upon completion of the interchange, US 64 will be operating at LOS A
and the ramps at LOS B. In the year 2012, both US 64 and the ramps will
be operating at LOS C. It is therefore concluded that the interchange
will greatly increase the efficiency of traffic flow.
4
Once the interchange is in place, both ramp terminals will operate at
LOS D under stop-sign control. The LOS drops to F under 2012 volumes.
However, if the junctions are signalized, the conditions improve to LOS B
for both 1992 and 2012 volumes. LOS D is marginally acceptable, and LOS F
is not acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that the ramp terminals
will operate at an acceptable level of service without signalization when
construction is completed. However, it is expected that signalization
will be required before the end of the design period.
F. Accident Stud
An intersection accident analysis was conducted for the subject
intersection for the time period from January 1, 1988 through March 3,
1992. Thirty-one accidents occurred during this period, one of which was
fatal. Of the 31 accidents, 28 (90%) were angle accidents, caused by
the failure of motorists to yield after stopping at the stop signs on SR
1207. The total accident rate for the existing intersection is 249.80
accidents per 100 million entering vehicles.
An interchange at this site is expected to reduce the large number of
angle accidents. By providing a grade separation, the interchange will
remove the conflict between through movements on US 64 and through
movements on SR 1207. The interchange ramps will remove the need for left
turning traffic to cross multiple lanes of traffic. The interchange
should therefore facilitate movement through this junction and increase
safety.
G. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed interchange is included in the 1980 Tarboro-Princeville
Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 3), which was adopted by the North Carolina
Board of Transportation in September, 1979.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Improvements
The project calls for constructing a diamond-type interchange at the
existing intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 west of Tarboro in Edgecombe
County (see Figure 2). This will involve the construction of the bridge
to carry SR 1207 over US 64 and the construction of the four ramps. The
cross-section of SR 1207 between the ramp junctions is to be three 12-foot
lanes (including a center left-turn lane) with 4-foot paved shoulders
(44-foot pavement width). The bridge, which will be 194 feet long, will
have 48 feet of clear roadway width and a minimum vertical clearance of
16.5 feet over US 64. North of the intersection with the westbound ramps
and south of the intersection with the eastbound ramps the cross-section
of SR 1207 will taper to a 28-foot pavement width (two 12-foot lanes with
2-foot paved shoulders) and then to a 20-foot cross-section (two 10-foot
lanes) to tie in with the existing cross-section. The ramp terminals will
be stop-sign controlled.
J
B. Drainaae Structures
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the three existing 48-inch
diameter pipes that convey Hart's Mill Run (also known as Pender Mill Run)
have been determined to be adequate. It is therefore recommended that
these pipes be retained and extended under the proposed northwest ramp. A
separate multiple pipe structure (not connected to the existing 48-inch
pipes) under the northwest ramp is not recommended, as it would be a
safety hazard (for clear recovery) and would be more expensive to
construct. A box culvert is also not recommended, as it would also be
more costly to construct than the pipe extension alternative. At the
southwest ramp crossing, the discharge is slightly less, and three 42-inch
diameter pipes are recommended. A box culvert was considered, but is not
recommended, as it would be more costly to construct. Several
constraints, including minimization of fill in wetland areas, vertical
alignment restrictions, and the need for adequate roadway fill depth over
drainage structures provide further justification to warrant the
recommendation of multiple pipe drainage structures instead of box
culverts.
C. Estimated Costs
The proposed interchange is estimated to cost $3,000,000, all of
which is for construction. This is $600,000 less than the TIP funding
(see Section II.A.). No right of way cost is included, since all right of
way was purchased previously.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to build a full diamond interchange
that will carry SR 1207 over US 64. Right of way is already owned for the
proposed interchange. This alternative conforms to the concept of the
fully controlled access facility that was intended when US 64 was designed
and constructed.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
US 64 was planned and constructed to be a fully controlled access
facility. The "do nothing" alternative would not allow full
implementation of this freeway concept. In addition, conflicts between
through traffic on US 64 and SR 1207 would not be eliminated. For these
reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
6
V. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The immediate vicinity of the subject project is rural and
undeveloped. The proposed interchange, which replaces the
existing at-grade intersection, is not likely to affect the
existing land uses or development patterns in its vicinity.
b. Prime and Important Farmland
The proposed interchange will be constructed within the
existing right of way. Because that land had been previously
committed to non-agricultural uses, no consideration of farmland
impacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act is required.
2. Socioeconomic Impacts
a. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Edgecombe County.
Edgecombe County is located in the eastern section of the state
and is bounded by Martin, Pitt, Wilson, Nash, and Halifax
Counties.
The intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 is situated between
the cities of Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and Princeville in a rural
and sparsely populated environment.
Based on the 1990 census report, Edgecombe County has a
total population of 56,558. Rocky Mount has a population of
48,997, Tarboro has a population of 11,037, and Princeville has
a population of 1,652.
b. Economic Factors
The proposed interchange will provide improved access to
and from the various businesses and industries in the area,
thereby decreasing some of the transportation cost.
According to the North Carolina Employment Security
Commission, Edgecombe County had a total labor force of 31,180
during the month of July, 1992. Out of this total number,
28,780 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemploy-
ment total of 2,400 or 7.7 percent.
C. Public Facilities
This proposed action will not adversely impact any public
facilities.
7
d. Relocations
The proposed project will not require the relocation of
3.
farms, residences, or businesses.
e. Social Impacts
The proposed project will not disrupt social cohesion, and
it will not interfere with public facilities and services.
Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Archaeological Resources
The subject interchange will affect relatively little land
that has not already been altered by previous activity. No new
archaeological sites were found in a field survey conducted by
the NCDOT archaeological staff.
Since the project as currently planned will have no effects
on any archaeological sites that are on or are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places, no further
archaeological work is recommended. There are no visible
remains or features that would be appropriate for public display
and interpretation, and the prehistoric remains discussed in
this study area would not warrant preservation in place as a
public exhibit.
b. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given
an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project
was reviewed in the field. No properties over fifty years old
were found that are listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Paces within the APE, no
further compliance with Section 106 is required.
C. Section 4(f) Properties
No buildings, structures, objects, districts, or sites
located in the area of potential effect of the project are
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. There will be no use of land from
8
publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl
refuges. In conclusion, no Section 4(f) lands will be affected
by the project.
B. Effects to the Natural Environment
The project is located west of Tarboro in Edgecombe County., which
lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The study area is
located in a rural setting. Forested and disturbed areas are present
throughout the study area. The area supports a gently sloping topography.
Elevation is approximately 30' above sea level. A tributary of Harts Mill
Creek crosses the project.
1. Biotic Communities
Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by the
proposed construction. Limited descriptions of flora and fauna which
are likely to occur in each community are presented below.
Common and scientific names are provided for each species
listed; in subsequent references to the same organism, only the
common name is given. The following is a list of fauna that were
visually observed or tracks noted in the study area.
Table 2. Fauna Observed or Noted in the Study Area
common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
white-tail deer Odocoileus virginianus
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five biotic communities were identified in the study area:
Disturbed Upland, Pine Dominated Upland, Pine/Hardwood Upland,
Palustrine Hardwood Wetland, and Disturbed Wetland communities.
The following is a description of each community.
Disturbed
The Disturbed community supports both upland and wetland
areas, depending on proximity to drainages. Dominant vegetation
has been recently disturbed by road construction and stream
rechannelization activities in these areas.
Disturbed communities located in upland areas are found
adjacent to US 64, SR 1207, and in clearings located in the
northwest and southeast quadrants. The northwest quadrant
supports an irregularly shaped disturbed community which is
located adjacent to the Loblolly Pine Forest described below.
This community is maintained (mowed) in low growing condition
and is dominated by grasses such as broom sedge (Andropogon
virginicus), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), and fescue (Festuca
sp.).
The southeast quadrant supports a disturbed upland
community dominated by a different plant assemblage. This
community, adjacent to US 64, is more recently disturbed than
the community described above and supports a dense stand of
shrub sized plants such as cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
sweetgum, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), river birch (Betula
nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). Farther south loblolly pine,
sweetgum, broom sedge, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana) are dominant. Honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) is the predominant vine.
One drainage, located in the northwest quadrant which
parallels US 64, supports a recently disturbed wetland
community. The wetland disturbed community supports common
cattail (Typha latifolia), river birch, rush (Juncus sp.),
knotweed (Polygonum punctatum), privet, and black willow.
Fauna that is likely to inhabit open, disturbed upland
areas lacking a canopy include mammals such as eastern mole
(Scalo us aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), red fox (Vul es fulva), white-tailed deer
(Odocoil s virginianus), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Avian fauna anticipated to frequent this community include
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis). One reptile likely to be found in this community
is the black racer (Coluber constrictor). Amphibians typical in
the Disturbed wetland community include three-lined salamander
(Eurycea guttolineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and
southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala).
Loblolly Pine Forest
The Loblolly Pine Forest is located in the northwest
quadrant and supports a dense, solid stand of immature loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) with scattered tulip poplar, black cherry
(Prunus serotina), and black willow. Very little light
penetrates the canopy. The understory is absent. The herbaceous
layer is sparse; goldenrod (Solidago sp.), winged sumac (Rhus
co ap llina), pokeweed (Phytolac?ca americana), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),
and sericea (Lespedeza cuneata) plants are typical. Silverling
is observed (Baccharis halimifolia) at the border between this
community and the Disturbed community.
The community supports very little cover for animal species
but provides a food source for certain organisms. Animal
species likely to be observed in this community include the
10
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), 'and-white-tailed deer. Amphibians and reptiles
likely to be found in this community include Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus).
Pine/Hardwood
The northeast-quadrant supports a well-developed mixed
hardwood and pine dominated community. Loblolly pine, sweetgum
(Liquidambar st raciflua), southern red oak ( uercus falcata),
and water oak uercus nigra) give rise to a mature canopy.
Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) is an understory species that
reaches canopy height. Beneath the canopy, at eye level, is an
open area with scattered wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), water
oak, dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), American holly (Ilex
o aca), and catbrier vine (Smilax bona-nox). Muscadine grape
vine (Vitis rotundifolia) is scattered along the ground.
The Pine/Hardwood community supports adequate cover and
foraging habitat for wildlife. Mammalian fauna anticipated in
the community include opossum, eastern mole, and gray squirrel.
Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer); five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and
scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangu um) are the anticipated
amphibians and reptiles likely to be found in this community.
Typical avian fauna that may be seen include bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), common crow, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), hairy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and barred owl (Strix varia).
Palustrine Hardwood Forest
The Palustrine Hardwood Forest is located adjacent to the
tributary that flows through the southwest quadrant. This
wetland community is supported by a variety of hardwoods. Red
maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum, and loblolly pine are the dominant canopy species.
The canopy supports several large loblolly pine trees. The
shrub layer varies in density and supports solid stands of
sweetpepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), cane, sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), and privet. The herbaceous layer is sparse and
supports netted chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), sensitive
fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
and microstegium (Microstegium vimineum).
Mammalian wildlife likely to occur in this community
include woodchuck (Marmota monmax), beaver (Castor canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
white-tailed deer. The marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), Fowler's toad,
green treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. versicolor), spring
11
peeper, green frog (Rana clamitans) , pickerel frog (Rana
alustris), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), snapping
turtle, Florida tooter (Chrysemys floridana), spotted turtle
(Clemmys uttata), ground skink, and ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus) are common amphibians and reptiles in the study area.
Common crow, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
black vulture (Coragyps atratus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides
villosus), and barred owl (Strix varia) are common avian fauna
likely to be found in this community.
b. Aquatic Communities
Several unnamed tributaries cross the study area in the
northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants. Inhabitants of
the stream and ditches include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), raccoon (Procyon lotor), lesser siren amphibian (Siren
intermedia), and the following fishes: shiners (Notropis sp.),
pirate perch (A hredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia hol rookii), flier (Centrarchus macropterus),
bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), sunfish (Le omis
sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp.).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed interchange will impact the
Disturbed, Loblolly Pine Forest, Pine/Hardwood Forest, and
Palustrine Hardwood Forest communities. Plant community impacts
are presented in Table 3. These estimates are preliminary and
may change.
Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts (acres)
QUADRANT
PLANT COMMUNITY NE SE NW SW TOTALS
Disturbed Upland - 4.3 3.2 - 7.5
Disturbed Wetland - - 0.2 - 0.2
Loblolly Pine Forest - - 1.4 - 1.4
Pine/Hardwood 4.3 - - 3.4 7.7
Palustrine Hardwood Forest - - - 1.4 1.4
TOTALS 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.8 18.2
12
The direct impact from construction is loss of vegetation
and wildlife habitat. Removal of vegetation will be minimized,
especially in the forested communities, since they may support a
variety of wildlife. Construction may decrease utilization of
forested areas such as the Loblolly Pine Forest, Pine/Hardwood
community, and the Palustrine Hardwood Forest for foraging,
cover and food. Interchange construction is proposed. over a
wide area which may create a barrier to certain migrating
organisms and lead to changes in species diversity and community
dynamics, As a result, organisms may be displaced and
distribution patterns may change.
In addition, efforts will be made to minimize erosion to
the Hart Mill Creek tributary. Sedimentation from erosion may
impact filter feeders and nonmobile organisms in the tributary
by deposition of soil material.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Edgecombe County
Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1979). Five soil
mapping units are located in the study area (see Table 4).
Table 4 Soil Summary, Edgecombe County
SYMBOL NAME SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
AuB Autryville loamy sand 0-6% Non-Hydric
JS Johnston soils - Hydric
NoB Norfolk loamy sand 2-6% Non-Hydric
Ra Rains fine sandy loam - Hydric
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6% Non-Hydric
The,most common soil units in the study area are Norfolk
loamy sand in upland areas and Johnston soils adjacent to Harts
Mill Creek drainage.
Norfolk loamy sand is a soil that formed in Coastal Plain
sediments and is well drained. This soil is located on low
ridges and side slopes. Johnston soils formed in fluvial
sediments and are very poorly drained. Johnston soils are
located on floodplains.
13
b. Water Resources
Water resource information was obtained from publications
of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The
project crosses the upper reaches of Harts Mill Run. The project
crosses this tributary in the northwest, southwest and southeast
quadrants. North and south of US 64 the creek is slow moving and
is approximately 10' wide. The bottom is composed of silt and
sand. A pool exists south of US 64. In the northwest quadrant
this tributary has been channelized judging from the
straightness of the creek and the soil mounds located above the
creek banks.
Upstream and downstream of the US 64 area the creek is
approximately 3'-4' wide and has a moderate flow. The bottom is
composed of silt and sand. In the southeast quadrant the creek
appears to have an intermittent flow, since the channel was dry
at the time of the field survey. The creek originates upstream
of the study area and flows into Harts Mill Run. Harts Mill Run
is a direct tributary of the Tar River. Harts Mill Run drains
into the Tar River over 5 miles downstream of the study area.
Best usage classification of Harts Mill Run and its unnamed
tributary is C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) (DEM, 1991). Best
usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program. This network
addresses long term trends in water quality by measuring the
taxa richness and the presence of organisms intolerable to water
quality changes. Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. BMAN surveys have been
conducted in the Tar River both upstream and downstream of Harts
Mill Run. The bioclassification of these samples was rated as
good-fair (upstream) and good (downstream).
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, or
waters classified WS-I or WS-II are located in the study area or
within 1 mile downstream. The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) provides a list of point-source
dischargers. There are no NPDES dischargers located within the
project vicinity.
C. Impacts to Water Resources
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction.
14
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation from vegetation removal.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from,,highway
runoff, construction, and toxic spills.
Recommendation:
- Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and
Sedimentation Control guidelines are to be required during
the construction phase of the project.
d. Impacts to Floodplain
Edgecombe County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Hart's Mill Run is not in the
detailed flood study for Edgecombe County. Figure 2 shows the
USGS quad topographic map for the project vicinity with the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain delineated. There
are no buildings in the project vicinity with floor elevations
below the 100-year flood level. The existing floodplain is
rural and wooded, containing some wetland areas. The proposed
improvements will not adversely affect the existing floodplain.
This section of Hart's Mill Run is above headwaters.
Erosion and siltation during construction will be
controlled through the installation and maintenance of standard
erosion control devices. Particular care will be exercised to
protect the environmentally sensitive wetland areas downstream
of the project. Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will
not be affected by this project.
3. Waters of the United States
USGS quadrant maps, the Edgecombe County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service), National Wetland Inventory Maps, and hydric
soils lists were utilized during in-house research to determine the
potential location of jurisdictional wetlands. A site visit was made
on October 29, 1992 to inventory natural resources and determine
wetland locations and boundaries.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities
in "Waters of,the US" based on the following laws: Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 USC 1344), and Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any
action that proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, and a federal permit is
required. Generally, "Waters of the US" are defined as navigable
waters, their tributaries, and associated wetlands and are subdivided
into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
15
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland
determinations are described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Provisions
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
a. Summary of Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the US are anticipated from proposed
construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts are
anticipated at the tributary crossings in the northwest and
southwest quadrants. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. The wetlands support a Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous dominated system (PF01) and Palustrine
Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved Deciduous dominated system (PSS1) as
defined by Cowardin (1979). Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands
will be filled as a result of the project. Table 5 summarizes
wetland impacts of the project.
Table 5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands (acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY NW QUADRANT SW QUADRANT
PF01 - 1.4
PSSI 0.2 -
Grand Total 1.6
b. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) for Categorical
Exclusions is expected to be applicable to the proposed
construction. This permit authorizes any activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole
or in part, by another federal agency or department where the
agency has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental
Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work,
-or discharge is Categorically Excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and the office of
the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the CE and concurs with that
determination.
16
The final permit decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources.
C. Mitigation
As noted above, the anticipated placement of fill into
Waters of the US is likely to be authorized under a Nationwide
Permit. Generally, no mitigation is required based upon an
interpretation of the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final decision
rests with the Corps of Engineers.
4. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to determine if any
protected species are located in the study area.
a. Federally Protected Species
One federally protected species is listed by the USFWS for
Edgecombe County as of October 27, 1992, the Tar River spiny
mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) (Endangered). A discussion of
this species follows.
The Tar River spiny mussel has always been endemic to the
Tar River drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring
Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to populations in Swift
Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The stream bottom must be
composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs
to be relatively silt-free. This mussel is known to rely on a
species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for
its larvae.
The Tar River spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60
millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior
to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other
valve; some have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is
pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young
specimens have an orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays,
and adults are darker with inconspicuous rays. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that
project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally.
17
According to John Alderman, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission Wildlife Biologist, the Tar River spiny
mussel occurs in streams greater than 20' wide. The study area
does not support streams of suitable size for the Tar River
spiny mussel. No impacts to the Tar River spiny mussel will
occur from proposed construction.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Edgecombe County (Table 6). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time, but their status
may be upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates the
potential for their occurrence (based on availability of
suitable habitat) in the study area.
Table 6. Federal Candidate species listed in Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2* Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata C2* Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2* Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa C2* Yes
*C2 (Candidate 2): A taxon indicating there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as endangered or threatened at this time.
b. State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate
species in Edgecombe County that are also state protected and
may occur, in the study area are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. State protected species listed in Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaiamasoni T*
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T*
*T (Threatened): Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
18
Though all or some of these species may be present in the
study area, no surveys were conducted since the species are not
federally protected.
5. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air. Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Edgecombe County has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this Project is located in an area where
the State Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not
apply to this project.
The project calls for the construction of an interchange at the
intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 with all construction within the
existing right-of-way limits. The project will not increase traffic
volumes, and no additional through travel lanes are planned. Also, no
receptors are located in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Hence, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be minor.
Noise levels in the immediate area could increase during
construction, but the increase will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 (highway traffic
noise) and 23 CFR 770 (air quality), and no additional reports are
required.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The construction of the proposed interchange at the US 64-SR 1207
intersection will benefit motorists by reducing the likelihood of
accidents and by improving general traffic flow. The interchange will
fulfill its part of the intended concept of full control of access along
US 64.
Based upon the findings of this report, the proposed improvements are
not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. It
is therefore concluded that the proposed project will have an overall
positive effect on the surrounding area.
MAD/plr

Y 1?r (ia .yyJ o?ifN''?{,? r. , r..i..? t

L T ? 'Kr
r - 41 t
}

•Gem/
1+.:? ILA A

:Pende II
n oC pel r- ,
1208
34

Y . ? l ll '
\ `Y Alr.
t `
+J. t r

IZ , II
f r' r iI r
rtl t ,
,,, Ir t?" '+ ? I I N
b _,;cV46?1I,VtrY;wIS?k ?{ ?r+l.r 1
•'- W
TO ROCKY MOB
1. ?.F

3 yr '? ;?t ?r
4 !
r. -1
X. ?i I.C 1??Tti.'+? t r ?j 1. t1 t?1•? ? ' .1• ? t
? a) 'f• J
S ? ?'Z ?? . ( Y ` ) ?t-? } Ilt ) ? \114
? ??y? r?r 71F r? y? r 'a
1 1
. afar t -i?'1^•r?ll ..., I t y ? ?„? K , P•
41 it?F CI L'?F ?+ ? Y. 1 r- s J' r
FENDER' S MILL RUNT.
Y? 1 S
l?j?j 1,`? 11111 J1?1'l. '} !•'y 1 4' . I i
a9 il', t 1 '9;
J P-_36
t' I
LEGEND
¦ - ¦ - ¦ - EXISTING US 64 BYPASS
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
,TT

1'= a d L
.10 !I #?; PROPOSED INTERCHANGE;
ask
q o
\??D TO TA
RJ37ft M ?
\l '
1.0
Lookout
I
I
? I
Tower
Z,¢ NOI('111 (.AROI,INA UI''I'AWIWIFN'I' 01
0 Tit,A\SI'Oli'1'r1'fION
=-' DIVISION ()I
I ll( I I1?':
F -' I'I,'\iNIN(; AM) ENVIICO.NMEN'I'AI,
?Gt-„ ?aratita? I;IlrlNi:l I
FLOODPLAIN MAP
US 64/SR 1207
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
EDGLCOMRE COUNTY
R-509 GA
I-IG. 2

?z. I tt L ,
I w
t
I• Ijl{{ II
i ?.? i I { {I I I? ?` I ! t M T O J `, SEf? <4i Y
{Il
ll?l?{tll I (? I
1!I? I{i{il?ll?{Ililll I { II{illl.t,l'1` I
Itill?l??{I
? ?I
II
i, t I? II t I
IIlUl1{I{lu
I
I
I h dS

L
x (? OZ°
- Oo] a t ?ll't;? i.
m a W{ i c'
I
'
'
• ¢a i
I???i°oII {t
fJ
pp
IIkrU?1'Illlilir .? r
;..
s
aa ! :{?
• ? rM4 0 .. i .111 !!
Q Z

r ' J 2
as o
O + .
?
tt
f' ? J
(L h

-Ij
I I I ? `
I \
ii d 9
9 ?
9
i
.
- ? i
i
a
CL • .:.

01
? I I --la W'

SR
sec

t e,
I,
a
P H
• ?Q
/ W
U)
O
`I W
ON
W
a
411
ii
US 64
Intersection with SR 1247
• Edgecombe County
R-509GA
Estimated 1992/2012 ADT (Hundreds)
SR 1208
l
B
Fig. 4
SR 1207 TTST = 2%
27 DUAL = 5%
I
T
M Y
?. 9
US 64, LOOKING EAST TOWARD
SP 1207 INTERSECTION
I

SR 1207, LOCKING NORTH TOWARD
US 64 INTERSECTION
I
9
7
y
3
-u
1
SR 1207, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD
US 64 INTERSECTION
f
I I
FIG. 5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI
IAMI'S 11. 1 IUNT. III. SAM I IHN I
GUVIf0.NOli DIVISION OF -IIGFIWAYS Seciir.TAtzv
I'.O. MX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27011-5201
February 12, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Edgecombe County, US 64, Proposr-,d Interchange at SR
1207; State Project Number 18,.T21)0501; Federal Aid
Number NH-64(1); T.I.P. Number F.-0509GA
Attached for your information is a copy of the project:
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR -330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to thie project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need ad(lit.ional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sinc rel
0 Q11, 11, P. r".
A ' ' .- tall,t_ Man.lger ,
Planning and Environmental Branch
T- , ^l)
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Raleigh Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A. L . Hankins, P . E . , Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
C.A. Gardner, Jr., P.E., Division 4 Fngineer
Missy Dickens, P&E
Davis Moore, P&E

US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
l 2 -/X-172 2
Date L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
! /
Date Nich as Graf, P. E.
r6k Division Administrator, FHWA

US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning & Environmental Branch By:
V
ary lice Dickens
Project Planning Engineer
G
*71
0
/
J. TWi 1 on Stroud
Prbjec Planning Unit Head
??.

cv,
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environm ental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................. 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................. 1
A. General Description .. ... ............................
? 1
B. Project Status ..................
Historical Resume and 1
C. Existing Conditions ................................... 2
D. Traffic Volumes ....................................... 2
E. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 2
F. Accident Study ........................................ 4
G. Thoroughfare Plan ..................................... 4
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 4
A. Proposed Improvements ................................. 4
B. Drainage Structures ................................... 5
C. Estimated Costs ....................................... 5
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 5
A. Recommended Alternative ............................... 5
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative .............................. 5
V. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT............ 6
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment ................... 6
1. Land Use ......................................... 6
a. Existing Land Use ........................... 6
b. Prime and Important Farmland ................ 6
2. Socioeconomic Impacts ............................ 6
a. Neighborhood Characteristics ................ 6
b. Economic Factors ............................ 6
C. Public Facilities ........................... 6
d. Relocations ................................. 7
e. Social Impacts .............................. 7
3. Historic and Cultural Resources .................. 7
a. Archaeological Resources .................... 7
b. Architectural/Historical Resources.......... 7
C. Section 4(f) Properties ..................... 7
B. Effects to the Natural Environment .................... 8
1. Biotic Communities ............................... 8
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 8
b. Aquatic Communities ......................... 11
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
2. Physical Resources ............................... 12
a. Soils ....................................... 12
b. Water Resources ............................. 13
C. Impacts to Water Resources .................. 13
d. Impacts to Floodplain ....................... 14
3. Waters of the United States ...................... 14
a. Summary of Impacts .......................... 15
b. Permits ..................................... 15
C. Mitigation .................................. 16
4. Protected Species ................................ 16
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 16
b. State Protected Species ..................... 17
5. Traffic Noise and Air Quality .................... 18
VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 18
TABLES
Table 1 - Levels of Service ........................... 3
Table 2 - Fauna Observed or Noted in Study Area....... 8
Table 3 - Plant Community Impacts ..................... 11
Table 4 - Soil Summary ..... ...................... ... 12
Table 5 - Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands.. 15
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species Listed in
Edgecombe County........ . ........... 17
Table 7 - State Protected Species Listed in
Edgecombe County ....................... 17
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Interchange Configuration and 100-Year
Floodplain Limits
Figure 3 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4 - Current and Projected Traffic Values
Figure 5 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1207
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project 8.T290501
T.I.P. Project R-509GA
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
"Waters of the United States".
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. It is
anticipated that the Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23
(Categorical Exclusions) will apply to this project. Final permit
decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of the United
States Corps of Engineers.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands are
expected to be impacted by implementation of this project. Impacts will
be minimized by utilizing Best Management Practices during construction.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The subject project consists of constructing a diamond-type
interchange at the existing intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 west of
Tarboro in Edgecombe County (see Figure 1). The subject project is
included in the 1993-1999 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a portion of R-509 that has yet to be constructed. The TIP calls for
construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1993. The TIP funding for this
interchange is $3,600,000, all of which is for construction, since NCDOT
already owns the right of way (acquired under Project R-509).
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not
anticipated this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the
human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes
in route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The relocation of US 64 between Rocky Mount and Tarboro as a
four-lane divided facility (R-509) was completed in 1990, with the
exception of two interchanges (at SR 1207 and SR 1225). Right of way for
2
these interchanges was acquired with the right of way for R-509 with the
intent to construct the interchanges in the future. Currently, these
crossings exist as at-grade intersections. This project, by providing an
interchange at SR 1207, is one of two additional phases necessary to make
US 64 a fully controlled access facility, in accordance with the original
intent of the R-509 project. The proposed interchange at SR 1225
(R-509GB) is scheduled in the TIP for construction in Fiscal Year 1997.
C. Existing Conditions
US 64 in the project vicinity is a 4-lane divided facility with
12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot shoulders (2 feet paved and 8 feet grassed),
and a 46-foot grassed median. This segment of US 64, from Rocky Mount to
Tarboro, was completed in May of 1990 as a new location project. The
roadway has 330 feet of right of way width. The facility currently has
partial control of access, but will have full control of access upon the
completion of the interchanges at SR 1207 and SR 1225. The posted speed
limit is 55 miles per hour.
This segment of US 64 is part of the Federal-Aid Rural System, and it
is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial- Other in the Functional
Classification System. Other improvements planned for this roadway
include the interchange that is to be constructed at SR 1225 (R-509GB).
SR 1207 is a two-lane facility with a 20-foot pavement (10-foot
lanes) and 6-foot grassed shoulders south of US 64 and 4-foot grassed
shoulders north of US 64. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
The existing right of way width is 60 feet. SR 1207 is classified as a
Rural Minor Collector in the Functional Classification System and is not
part of the Federal-Aid System. There is no control of access along
SR 1207.
Photographs of the existing conditions in the project vicinity are
shown in Figure 5.
D. Traffic Volumes
The current average daily traffic utilizing US 64 in the project
vicinity is up to 10,200 vehicles per day, and it is projected that this
figure will increase to 20,400 vehicles per day by the year 2012.
Currently, up to 5,200 vehicles per day use SR 1207, and 10,100 vehicles
per day are expected to be using the facility in 2012. Figure 4 shows
current and projected (for the years 1992 and 2012) average daily traffic
volumes, turning movements, design hourly volume (DHV), and truck
percentages for the project area with the proposed interchange in place.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of
service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for
each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They
are given letter designations form A to F, with level of service A repre-
senting the best operation conditions and level of service F representing
the worst.
A capacity analysis was performed for the proposed interchange to
determine the level of service (LOS) using the estimated peak hour traffic
demands for the years 1992 and 2012. Each ramp terminal was considered
twice for each year: once as a signalized intersection and once as an
unsignalized intersection. For the benefit of comparison, an analysis was
also performed for the at-grade unsignalized intersection of US 64 and SR
1207 as it now exists. Finally, an analysis was performed for each of the
four ramp junctions for 1992 and 2012 traffic volumes. The following
table presents the results of the capacity analyses.
TABLE 1
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existinq Unsignalized Intersection
Approach VPD (1992) LOS
SR 1207 5200 F
US 64 10200 A
Ramo Terminals of Proposed Interchange
Year Control LOS
1992 stop-sign D
signal B
2012 stop-sign F
signal B
Ramp Junctions of Proposed Interchange
Year Ramp LOS US 64 LOS
1992 B A
2012 C C
An unsignalized intersection analysis shows that SR 1207 currently is
operating at LOS F at its intersection with US 64. The ramp analyses show
that, upon completion of the interchange, US 64 will be operating at LOS A
and the ramps at LOS B. In the year 2012, both US 64 and the ramps will
be operating at LOS C. It is therefore concluded that the interchange
will greatly increase the efficiency of traffic flow.
4
Once the interchange is in place, both ramp terminals will operate at
LOS D under stop-sign control. The LOS drops to F under 2012 volumes.
However, if the junctions are signalized, the conditions improve to LOS B
for both 1992 and 2012 volumes. LOS D is marginally acceptable, and LOS F
is not acceptable. Therefore, it is concluded that the ramp terminals
will operate at an acceptable level of service without signalization when
construction is completed. However, it is expected that signa.lization
will be required before the end of the design period,
F. Accident Study
An intersection accident analysis was conducted for the subject
intersection for the time period from January 1, 1988 through March 3,
1992. Thirty-one accidents occurred during this period, one of which was
fatal. Of the 31 accidents, 28 (90%) were angle accidents, caused by
the failure of motorists to yield after stopping at the stop signs on SR
1207. The total accident rate for the existing intersection is 249.80
accidents per 100 million entering vehicles.
An interchange at this site is expected to reduce the large number of
angle accidents. By providing a grade separation, the interchange will
remove the conflict between through movements on US 64 and through
movements on SR 1207. The interchange ramps will remove the need for left
turning traffic to cross multiple lanes of traffic. The interchange
should therefore facilitate movement through this junction and increase
safety.
G. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed interchange is included in the 1980 Tarboro-Princeville
Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 3), which was adopted by the North Carolina
Board of Transportation in September, 1979.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Improvements
The project calls for constructing a diamond-type interchange at the
existing intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 west of Tarboro in Edgecombe
County (see Figure 2). This will involve the construction of the bridge
to carry SR 1207 over US 64 and the construction of the four ramps. The
cross-section of SR 1207 between the ramp junctions is to be three 12-foot
lanes (including a center left-turn lane) with 4-foot paved shoulders
(44-foot pavement width). The bridge, which will be 194 feet long, will
have 48 feet of clear roadway width and a minimum vertical clearance of
16.5 feet over US 64. North of the intersection with the westbound ramps
and south of the intersection with the eastbound ramps the cross-section
of SR 1207 will taper to a 28-foot pavement width (two 12-foot lanes with
2-foot paved shoulders) and then to a 20-foot cross-section (two 10-foot
lanes) to tie in with the existing cross-section. The ramp terminals will
be stop-sign controlled.
B. Drainage Structures
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the three existing 48-inch
diameter pipes that convey Hart's Mill Run (also known as Pender Mill Run)
have been determined to be adequate. It is therefore recommended that
these pipes be retained and extended under the proposed northwest ramp. A
separate multiple pipe structure (not connected to the existing 48-inch
pipes) under the northwest ramp is not recommended, as it would be a
safety hazard (for clear recovery) and would be more expensive to
construct. A box culvert is also not recommended, as it would also be
more costly to construct than the pipe extension alternative. At the
southwest ramp crossing, the discharge is slightly less, and three 42-inch
diameter pipes are recommended. A box culvert was considered, but is not
recommended, as it would be more costly to construct. Several
constraints, including minimization of fill in wetland areas, vertical
alignment restrictions, and the need for adequate roadway fill depth over
drainage structures provide further justification to warrant the
recommendation of multiple pipe drainage structures instead of box
culverts.
C. Estimated Costs
The proposed interchange is estimated to cost $3,000,000, all of
which is for construction. This is $600,000 less than the TIP funding
(see Section II.A.). No right of way cost is included, since all right of
way was purchased previously.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to build a full diamond interchange
that will carry SR 1207 over US 64. Right of way is already owned for the
proposed interchange. This alternative conforms to the concept of the
fully controlled access facility that was intended when US 64 was designed
and constructed.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
US 64 was planned and constructed to be a fully controlled access
facility. The "do nothing" alternative would not allow full
implementation of this freeway concept. In addition, conflicts between
through traffic on US 64 and SR 1207 would not be eliminated. For these
reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
6
V. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The immediate vicinity of the subject project is rural and
undeveloped. The proposed interchange, which replaces the
existing at-grade intersection, is not likely to affect the
existing land uses or development patterns in its vicinity.
b. Prime and Important Farmland
The proposed interchange will be constructed within the
existing right of way. Because that land had been previously
committed to non-agricultural uses, no consideration of farmland
impacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act is required.
2. Socioeconomic Impacts
a. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Edgecombe County.
Edgecombe County is located in the eastern section of the state
and is bounded by Martin, Pitt, Wilson, Nash, and Halifax
Counties.
The intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 is situated between
the cities of Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and Princeville in a rural
and sparsely populated environment.
Based on the 1990 census report, Edgecombe County has a
total population of 56,558. Rocky Mount has a population of
48,997, Tarboro has a population of 11,037, and Princeville has
a population of 1,652.
b. Economic Factors
The proposed interchange will provide improved access to
and from the various businesses and industries in the area,
thereby decreasing some of the transportation cost.
According to the North Carolina Employment Security
Commission, Edgecombe County had a total labor force of 31,180
during the month of July, 1992. Out of this total number,
28,780 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemploy-
ment total of 2,400 or 7.7 percent.
C. Public Facilities
This proposed action will not adversely impact any public
facilities.
7
d. Relocations
The proposed project will not require the relocation of
farms, residences, or businesses.
e. Social Impacts
The proposed project will not disrupt social cohesion, and
it will not interfere with public facilities and services.
3. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Archaeological Resources
The subject interchange will affect relatively little land
that has not already been altered by previous activity. No new
archaeological sites were found in a field survey conducted by
the NCDOT archaeological staff.
Since the project as currently planned will have no effects
on any archaeological sites that are on or are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places, no further
archaeological work is recommended. There are no visible
remains or features that would be appropriate for public display
and interpretation, and the prehistoric remains discussed in
this study area would not warrant preservation in place as a
public exhibit.
b. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given
an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project
was reviewed in the field. No properties over fifty years old
were found that are listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Paces within the APE, no
further compliance with Section 106 is required.
C. Section 4(f) Properties
No buildings, structures, objects, districts, or sites
located in the area of potential effect of the project are
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. There will be no use of land from
8
publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl
refuges. In conclusion, no Section 4(f) lands will be affected
by the project.
B. Effects to the Natural Environment
The project is located west of Tarboro in Edgecombe County., which
lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The study area is
located in a rural setting. Forested and disturbed areas are present
throughout the study area. The area supports a gently sloping topography.
Elevation is approximately 30' above sea level. A tributary of Harts Mill
Creek crosses the project.
1. Biotic Communities
Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by the
proposed construction. Limited descriptions of flora and fauna which
are likely to occur in each community are presented below.
Common and scientific names are provided for each species
listed; in subsequent references to the same organism, only the
common name is given. The following is a list of fauna that were
visually observed or tracks noted in the study area.
Table 2. Fauna Observed or Noted in the Study Area
common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
white-tail deer Odocoileus virginianus
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five biotic communities were identified in the study area:
Disturbed Upland, Pine Dominated Upland, Pine/Hardwood Upland,
Palustrine Hardwood Wetland, and Disturbed Wetland communities.
The following is a description of each community.
Disturbed
The Disturbed community supports both upland and wetland
areas, depending on proximity to drainages. Dominant vegetation
has been recently disturbed by road construction and stream
rechannelization activities in these areas.
Disturbed communities located in upland areas are found
adjacent to US 64, SR 1207, and in clearings located in the
northwest and southeast quadrants. The northwest quadrant
supports an irregularly shaped disturbed community which is
located adjacent to the Loblolly Pine Forest described below.
9
This community is maintained (mowed) in low growing condition
and is dominated by grasses such as broom sedge (Andropogon
virginicus), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), and fescue (Festuca
sp.).
The southeast quadrant supports a disturbed upland
community dominated by a different plant assemblage. This
community, adjacent to US 64, is more recently disturbed than
the community described above and supports a dense stand of
shrub sized plants such as cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
sweetgum, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), river birch (Betula
ni ra), black willow (Salix nigra), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). Farther south loblolly pine,
sweetgum, broom sedge, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and pokeweed
(Phytolacca americans) are dominant. Honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) is the predominant vine.
One drainage, located in the northwest quadrant which
parallels US 64, supports a recently disturbed wetland
community. The wetland disturbed community supports common
cattail (T_ypha latifolia), river birch, rush (Juncus sp.),
knotweed (Polygonum punctatum), privet, and black willow.
Fauna that is likely to inhabit open, disturbed upland
areas lacking a canopy include mammals such as eastern mole
(Scalo us aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
f on anus), red fox (Vul ems fulva), white-tailed deer
(Odoi coifs virginianus) , and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Avian fauna anticipated to frequent this community include
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis). One reptile likely to be found in this community
is the black racer (Coluber constrictor). Amphibians typical in
the Disturbed wetland community include three-lined salamander
(Eurycea guttolineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and
southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala).
Loblolly Pine Forest
The Loblolly Pine Forest is located in the northwest
quadrant and supports a dense, solid stand of immature loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) with scattered tulip poplar, black cherry
(Prunus serotina), and black willow. Very little light
penetrates the canopy. The understory is absent. The herbaceous
layer is sparse; goldenrod (Solidago sp.), winged sumac (Rhus
copallina), pokeweed (Ph tolacca americana), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),
and sericea (Lespedeza cuneata) plants are typical. Silverling
,,is observed (Baccharis halimifolia) at the border between this
community and the Disturbed community.
The community supports very little cover for animal species
but provides a food source for certain organisms. Animal
species likely to be observed in this community include the
10
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and white-tailed deer. Amphibians and rept les
likely to be found in this community include Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhouse fl, spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus).
Pine/Hardwood
The northeast quadrant supports a well-developed mixed
hardwood and pine dominated community. Loblolly pine, sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak ( uercus falcata),
and water oak ( uercus nigra) give rise to a mature canopy.
Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) is an understory species that
reaches canopy height. Beneath the canopy, at eye level, is an
open area with scattered wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), water
oak, dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), American holly (Ilex
opaca), and catbrier vine (Smilax bona-nox). Muscadine grape
vine (Vitis rotundifolia) is scattered along the ground.
The Pine/Hardwood community supports adequate cover and
foraging habitat for wildlife. Mammalian fauna anticipated in
the community include opossum, eastern mole, and gray squirrel.
Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer); five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and
scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) are the anticipated
amphibians and reptiles likely to be found in this community.
Typical avian fauna that may be seen include bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), common crow, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), hairy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and barred owl (Strix varia).
Palustrine Hardwood Forest
The Palustrine Hardwood Forest is located adjacent to the
tributary that flows through the southwest quadrant. This
wetland community is supported by a variety of hardwoods. Red
maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum, and loblolly pine are the dominant canopy species.
The canopy supports several large loblolly pine trees. The
shrub layer varies in density and supports solid stands of
sweetpepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), cane, sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), and privet. The herbaceous layer is sparse and
supports netted chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), sensitive
fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
and microstegium (Microstegium vimineum).
Mammalian wildlife likely to occur in this community
include woodchuck (Marmota monmax), beaver (Castor canadensis),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
white-tailed deer. The marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), Fowler's toad,
green treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. versicolor), spring
11
peeper, green frog (Rana cIamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), snapping
turtle, Florida cooter (Chrysemys floridana), spotted turtle
(Clemmys utg tata), ground skink, and ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus) are common amphibians and reptiles in the study area.
Common crow, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
black vulture (Coragyps atratus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides
villosus), and barred owl (Strix varia) are common avian fauna
likely to be found in this community.
b. Aquatic Communities
Several unnamed tributaries cross the study area in the
northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants. Inhabitants of
the stream and ditches include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), raccoon (Procyon lotor), lesser siren amphibian (Siren
intermedia), and the following fishes: shiners (Notropis sp.),
pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrookii), flier (Centrarchus macropterus),
bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), sunfish (Lepomis
sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp.).
C. Summarv of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed interchange will impact the
Disturbed, Loblolly Pine Forest, Pine/Hardwood Forest, and
Palustrine Hardwood Forest communities. Plant community impacts
are presented in Table 3. These estimates are preliminary and
may change.
Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts (acres)
QUADRANT
PLANT COMMUNITY
Disturbed Upland
Disturbed Wetland
Loblolly Pine Forest
Pine/Hardwood
Palustrine Hardwood Forest
NE SE NW SW TOTALS
- 4.3 3.2 - 7.5
- - 0.2 - 0.2
- - 1.4 - 1.4
4.3 - - 3.4 7.7
- - - 1.4 1.4
TOTALS 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.8 18.2
12
The direct impact from construction is loss of vegetation
and wildlife habitat. Removal of vegetation will be minimized,
especially in the forested communities, since they may support a
variety of wildlife. Construction may decrease utilization of
forested areas such as the Loblolly Pine Forest, Pine/Hardwood
community, and the Palustrine Hardwood Forest for foraging,
cover and food. Interchange construction is proposed, over a
wide area which may create a barrier to certain migrating
organisms and lead to changes in species diversity and community
dynamics, As a result, organisms may be displaced and
distribution patterns may change.
In addition, efforts will be made to minimize erosion to
the Hart Mill Creek tributary. Sedimentation from erosion may
impact filter feeders and nonmobile organisms in the tributary
by deposition of soil material.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Edgecombe County
Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1979). Five soil
mapping units are located in the study area (see Table 4).
Table 4 Soil Summary, Edgecombe County
SYMBOL NAME SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
AuB Autryville loamy sand 0-6% Non-Hydric
JS Johnston soils - Hydric
NoB Norfolk loamy sand 2-6% Non-Hydric
Ra Rains fine sandy loam - Hydric
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6% Non-Hydric
The,most common soil units in the study area are Norfolk
loamy sand in upland areas and Johnston soils adjacent to Harts
Mill Creek drainage.
Norfolk loamy sand is a soil that formed in Coastal Plain
sediments and is well drained. This soil is located on low
ridges and side slopes. Johnston soils formed in fluvial
sediments and are very poorly drained. Johnston soils are
located on floodplains.
13
b. Water Resources
Water resource information was obtained from publications
of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The
project crosses the upper reaches of Harts Mill Run. The project
crosses this tributary in the northwest, southwest and southeast
quadrants. North and south of US 64 the creek is slow moving and
is approximately 10' wide. The bottom is composed of silt and
sand. A pool exists south of US 64. In the northwest quadrant
this tributary has been channelized judging from the
straightness of the creek and the soil mounds located above the
creek banks.
Upstream and downstream of the US 64 area the creek is
approximately 3'-4' wide and has a moderate flow. The bottom is
composed of silt and sand. In the southeast quadrant the creek
appears to have an intermittent flow, since the channel was dry
at the time of the field survey. The creek originates upstream
of the study area and flows into Harts Mill Run. Harts Mill Run
is a direct tributary of the Tar River. Harts Mill Run drains
into the Tar River over 5 miles downstream of the study area.
Best usage classification of Harts Mill Run and its unnamed
tributary is C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) (DEM, 1991). Best
usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program. This network
addresses long term trends in water quality by measuring the
taxa richness and the presence of organisms intolerable to water
quality changes. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. BMAN surveys have been
conducted in the Tar River both upstream and downstream of Harts
Mill Run. The bioclassification of these samples was rated as
good-fair (upstream) and good (downstream).
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, or
waters classified WS-I or WS-II are located in the study area or
within 1 mile downstream. The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) provides a list of point-source
dischargers. There are no NPDES dischargers located within the
project vicinity.
C. Impacts to Water Resources
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction.
14
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation from vegetation removal.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
Increased concentration of toxic compounds from,,highway
runoff, construction, and toxic spills.
Recommendation:
- Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and
Sedimentation Control guidelines are to be required during
the construction phase of the project.
d. Impacts to Floodplain
Edgecombe County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Hart's Mill Run is not in the
detailed flood study for Edgecombe County. Figure 2 shows the
USGS quad topographic map for the project vicinity with the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain delineated. There
are no buildings in the project vicinity with floor elevations
below the 100-year flood level. The existing floodplain is
rural and wooded, containing some wetland areas. The proposed
improvements will not adversely affect the existing floodplain.
This section of Hart's Mill Run is above headwaters.
Erosion and siltation during construction will be
controlled through the installation and maintenance of standard
erosion control devices. Particular care will be exercised to
protect the environmentally sensitive wetland areas downstream
of the project. Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will
not be affected by this project.
3. Waters of the United States
USGS quadrant maps, the Edgecombe County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service), National Wetland Inventory Maps, and hydric
soils lists were utilized during in-house research to determine the
potential location of jurisdictional wetlands. A site visit was made
on October 29, 1992 to inventory natural resources and determine
wetland locations and boundaries.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities
in "Waters of,the US" based on the following laws: Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 USC 1344), and Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any
action that proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, and a federal permit is
required. Generally, "Waters of the US" are defined as navigable
waters, their tributaries, and associated wetlands and are subdivided
into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
15
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland
determinations are described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Provisions
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
a. Summary of Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the US are anticipated from proposed
construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts are
anticipated at the tributary crossings in the northwest and
southwest quadrants. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. The wetlands support a Palustrine Forested
Broad-Leaved Deciduous dominated system (PF01) and Palustrine
Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved Deciduous dominated system (PSS1) as
defined by Cowardin (1979). Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands
will be filled as a result of the project. Table 5 summarizes
wetland impacts of the project.
Table 5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands (acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY NW QUADRANT SW QUADRANT
PFO1 - 1.4
PSS1 0.2 -
Grand Total 1.6
b. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) for Categorical
Exclusions is expected to be applicable to the proposed
construction. This permit authorizes any activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole
or in part, by another federal agency or department where the
agency has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental
Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work,
,or discharge is Categorically Excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and the office of
the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the CE and concurs with that
determination.
16
The final permit decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources.
c. Mitigation
As noted above, the anticipated placement of fill into
Waters of the US is likely to be authorized under a Nationwide
Permit. Generally, no mitigation is required based upon an
interpretation of the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final decision
rests with the Corps of Engineers.
4. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to determine if any
protected species are located in the study area.
a. Federally Protected Species
One federally protected species is listed by the USFWS for
Edgecombe County as of October 27, 1992, the Tar River spiny
mussel (Elli tio steinstansana) (Endangered). A discussion of
this species follows.
The Tar River spiny mussel has always been endemic to the
Tar River drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring
Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to populations in Swift
Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The stream bottom must be
composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs
to be relatively silt-free. This mussel is known to rely on a
species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for
its larvae.
The Tar River spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60
millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior
to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other
valve; some have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is
pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young
specimens have an orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays,
and adults are darker with inconspicuous rays. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that
project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally.
17
According to John Alderman, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission Wildlife Biologist, the Tar River spiny
mussel occurs in streams greater than 20' wide. The study area
does not support streams of suitable size for the Tar River
spiny mussel. No impacts to the Tar River spiny mussel will
occur from proposed construction.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Edgecombe County (Table 6). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time, but their status
may be upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates the
potential for their occurrence (based on availability of
suitable habitat) in the study area.
Table 6. Federal Candidate species listed in Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2* Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata C2* Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2* Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa C2* Yes
*C2 (Candidate 2): A taxon indicating there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as endangered or threatened at this time.
b. State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate
species in Edgecombe County that are also state protected and
may occur in the study area are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. State protected species listed in Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T*
Atlanti c pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T*
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T*
*T (Threatened): Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
18
Though all or some of these species may be present in the
study area, no surveys were conducted since the species are not
federally protected.
5. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air, Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Edgecombe County has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this Project is located in an area where
the State Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not
apply to this project.
The project calls for the construction of an interchange at the
intersection of US 64 and SR 1207 with all construction within the
existing right-of-way limits. The project will not increase traffic
volumes, and no additional through travel lanes are planned. Also, no
receptors are located in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Hence, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be minor.
Noise levels in the immediate area could increase during
construction, but the increase will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 (highway traffic
noise) and 23 CFR 770 (air quality), and no additional reports are
required.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The construction of the proposed interchange at the US 64-SR 1207
intersection will benefit motorists by reducing the likelihood of
accidents and by improving general traffic flow. The interchange will
fulfill its part of the intended concept of full control of access along
US 64.
Based upon the findings of this report, the proposed improvements are
not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. It
is therefore concluded that the proposed project will have an overall
positive effect on the surrounding area.
MAD/plr

1 ,?
?L
r x
r
it
.1
' ! J t
21 tr,x•?
¦ C e ^fl"L
1
S .'r\'.J ?l?,....r

TO '?-
\ CK Y MO

w,'F ' ? jx',` I I
Y
xPende Il ;?
?" pCl pel -
q .tww..
c ¦
?Y 1 J, 1208 r1y ,S?F

SR 1208'•.
Y ..)) 4 fT" 1itl
rr

1
y f ,'

,. ?.r• ,1.;4?f, ?'?1? III „??5,
fl i'ti?la n,?Y' ?r+??r.j If 1+?1t°1Ga.?t"..., f
LR,?i :.i"Y ? 1.c4? _/f, ,y ..•1 ?5 ! J A ,ti .. . ?/
c ??h
s
k
pr , 'u `4
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
'r r
r / r- l
'•,??I ??r >,y ?! ? c ? ?.? l 1.
•r????, -?U,S?6 -
?D TO TARB OOH ?"' ¦
00
1207 1 ?,.
rl .It I• ? ? \`\ i
PL NDER' S MILL RUN-
jF}ryl 120`) ,.?
Lookout ?:'
5 `?36 Towcr, ?
1000
LEGEND
¦ 1°°¦ m A ¦ - EXISTING US 64 BYPASS
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
100-YR FLOODPLAIN

NOR•111 C'AROI,INA UI:I'ARTMI:N'I' OF
TRANSI'OICFA•I'I0N
DIVISION ON II[(',II\V:%YS
I'I,:ANNINC. AM) EXVIRO:NMEIN'1'A1,
iMAN(II
FLOODPLAIN MAP
US 64/1SR 1207
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
EDGUCOMBE COUNTY
R-509 GA
FIG. 2
9` 1!I I ? illi11?11Illiilli . ? r I II ? I i Ilili?I??1illlullllllii ? ? I I ' ,? 5 .fi a` ?, ??? ? ? J
III?°o'IIItH!??Illlk>U°?'11111i?f•'o :..'?'???? ? ?;,? ?? H ova
[J4 O Z
I a 1
F 1 I ?
I i d d
i
1 ? ? I ?- ? I d
a ?
_ O 1 ? ? I ? yt :I
1 ? I
1
?? ? ??11 V 1 rJ
h __ - --I
? I
I i
a
i

a \ ! ?

° -----
, ------- -
vv
I
I; 'A I.
I 3
12a
$R
1
i

O J ?
? ?F
SS

CD z
a W

Q 7 Oil

414 yllw-,i
1 -r
s•C I.
C7
N
? W
o
\I a,
/J o
a
w
i
r
ill
II

US 64
Intersection with SR 1207
Edgecombe County
R-509GA
Estimated 1992/2012 ADT (Hundreds)
SR 1208
I
B
Fig. 4
SR 1207 TTST = 2%
27 DUAL = 5%

US 64, LOOKING EAST TOWARD
SR 1207 INTERSECTION

`?R 1,207, 1 0rl; T NC NORTH TOWARD
US) 64 1 N I I RSI_C 11 ON
1 I;
t ,a'Y? tt f1J; o ..
SR 1207, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD
US 64 INTERSECTION
FIG. 5