19940016 Ver 1_Complete File_19940105

q~
L 4 L a-S - `~.{y. ~ ? sue„ 4~,, a T ~ ra *~a:. t~<;'. _ ~.-AZ ~
_ ~ p ~ S kl.~ 7w dx Yd1'L^N~ ~~'p*3O s e. u~ : ~ r~ ° ~P F~R
u 6.
r t~
S1 ~ ~v v
~Y
~s r~ ~ ~ G1 `"{"1!r'€~~~~~, ~cf. I ,h.• m yw'~}.^a'}. rp 'h - ~B xy... ~ _ _ mkp V
t. } . ~ ~ . ' ~tE i 4 "T Th L. ~ i ss k. r yo- , _ - A aft-,
~ ~ y r
4~ a~ i _ a
W - ~ w
.i , c .T
~ 1 - ~ ,~~'h* , Q,r
er
1 h.. s. s~ a t ) 'na. C&+ r 21 rt g.,. s i ¢ _ 1 k,a a ,,F~ ~ _ .:,'fi'x ' ~ -tr ~ ~g y
~k ~ ~ ~.!::r ~ 'wry;- ~ ae. i ~ VY
S ~ t7 a I I
- t. ~ "cFn ",~.n k ~ a ,w .
i~ Af, x u v 5 x'
3 1 a r~ z~ 1 1 f + T s
v ^ s
. t LL
n ` ± _ ` z,;: ~ ~ ~ ~ as .ear - ` ~ ~ ~ L w k"
_ ~
m k ~ -
y „e #v a .i.~',,;, ~.i .r` ~Fw`4X,' (Y ~A]1m S5 ilk ~.3 ~ 4M1 J~ I r4~,
i 5i., ~ ~ 'dom..,.. ~ ~ w'"""'~~ c '3,y~~`` ~ i^,. _ r^' 7 - I
,x 4 ~ n l + I s:
d ~ -
~ , , Y 9 ~ is
sa G ~ i F' ' ~ r ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ! 5
'
~ ~ ~ - . y
x _ ~ mes. , ~ . Y"'' ~ a - - Ye ~
m
,fit' ~ t 4 'ter Nwy:~, ~~'~A. V p
,s m k ~ Sri ^^Z ,x r~ a ~ t r 3.. '.~x F{v
k ~ ~ + .h~~, r, ~ ~ ~ r , y, St's z , ~ ~~b ~e~` ' r tic
r~ . x',9 Y :,ilCdu. R 4. , fi.,d'sa
S -3r _
P i I~ li Ili'!, ~ I I I

~
- ~0}~~
C/1 - ooi'£~
s1Y-+SaiuI ~noluo0 K9 Op+ZC
' .xli=,.I a(~~S
bb+~b _
66+6~
V1 J -
£i I £-21 'O ~I dLL - GO - ~5+6~ Q
(•Jt 6ZOIS0'9 '0 ~ .I.031'02id 3id.LS
• F"i - i37.\T `003210 30 H.L10S S3'III1[ XIS Oi i3'I.1II - 6ti}~£ v
Sc,+S£ 66+9£
N 1tOJ32I0 30 HL10S S3'IIi4 2103 Zi JAI 30 XOLLd00'I32I Q3SOd02Id N .~uo~ ~Q - -
~ - _ - 66+ti£ S~+V~
~ 2103 ~
cC
V't''Id ~1IIQt2~~ 3.LIS ~1IOLL~~LLII1I - 0 - d~j 9£+££ . ' '
~ - 66+£Z 98+tiZ 66+SZ SZ+LZr~00+8Z IO+SZ 60+6Z 06+6Z~ / - w
N Z6+6i 9~+IZ66+iZ 66+ZZ + OL+9I 00+8I 6L+8I _ _ ~ ,o'
+ 00+~I tiS+bi Lti SI ~ , - _ _ - - - - - o OO+OI Z8+OI 00 ZI - o
~ ~ p ~ o o a d
N e
N
D -
~ ? - o~ o
r P - ° ? - f~
n -
a J I G
~ o o°
~ _ -
~,a ~ ~ - Q~ - ? a~ o
1O w o 0 o e •
~m 0 . i ~ m
f ~ r--~ 1 i
.P ~ - _
a - CA J - _ ~ ~
J
- - e _ ~ - f D
V~ ~ _ _
i Q ? - - i Al ~ ,O _
F.,, . i 0 O
~6/ ~ _ O I ~ ~ ~ _ -
<
D
o i o~
I ~ 0
a a ~ ~z+z£ ~ o
a s _ ~ ~ -
- ~ o. oo+«~ O ~
i ~ - ~ ~ - .o c
a O
~ ~ 0 J r ~
~ o ~ a
a a ~ ~ - - 4 ~
4 A
• ~ _ ~ • = p •w ice` ' <
~ ~
~ 0 0 o ~
o o 0 _ a -
_ - a
0 4

o , - ,~Q. ~ Q _
~ o ~ O
~ _ ~ ~ d
~ , ~
~ ~ ° 4 o ~ O a
D a a I •Q a _
I 0 0 Q ~ o a.
0 ' ~ o
I Q d 4 • D
0 o` ~
c o o n, ~ -
l _ o ^ <
I
~ `
m m s rb'~ ~ ' ~ ~a
(u . . ;7
Vl 3 I

_ -
r.
i _'_._'__:-._r .-:-4 ~ ! f r r_, _ _;-Tr__7-_'T- . _ _ i , _ ~Z 1it _1 - - r 7 T 1 - ~ i ;f _7 t _ 3 __y tf f i t 1 p - I f fi" 7 iY , t . r i F ? 1
1 ~ _ ~ r i ~ _
r _ ~
f ~ _ ~ } -
~ ~ ~ { ~

1
•
_ , ~ _ ~ i ~ - _ _ ,
.i- L ! ~<t __s _3__ ~ _ t i . 1. =-1.:.-1._.~_ L_ i _L t_ _ ~ s i s r_ 1 _ _._.i._ - - ti.._ _ .~-.__.r-.__.
i .r i
f
i
~
_ Y -
' ~ ~ a \ 1 ~
. - - - Q~~V~. ~v O - W _
D
D
r~ f ~ a ~ a o ~ o~
D ~ .o o -
0 ~ ~ ~ o
a
0 o a. p e
~ o o Q pQO a ppaoop o 0
o~
O c~ ~ o~ e
o~° i O`y ~<vP ~ 0 G; ~ o
v o ~
. Q~ `
o
c~, - o = Q o oo •o
. - , - - o 4
O Q ~ ~ Q d
_ ~ ~,~~v
~ \ c v 4
fl _ ~ Q O y~
0 1
- o - - \ -
' O ~ a~
~ _
~'31+00 - o ~ _
t~ ~ D
i. 32}21 V Q Q i
~ I e
d D I
~ ~ ~
i - ~ 01
` ~ / ~ o o, `...i ~
_ o• - - - ~ - ~ . _ - o -
_ p - - a _ - ~
- o - ~ ,
- • ~ n i
~ ~ I _ ~
O ~ _ ' ~ ' i t
r 4' • • !
. 4 a m ~ - -pQa ~mf - O
_ p _
oQ _ _ o ~0 D ~ - ~ T"l
- o D
~
. i~ p ~ - - d
D 1'~'~
oo ! •
o ~ N
D o v b
~ 1 ~
- +70 15+47 14+54 13+00 12+00 1C~'+82 10+00 18+79 18+00 16
i ' Zg+00_:27+25 25+99 24+g( 23+ - _ _ ~ 33+36 ~Q + 22+99 21+9921+46 19+92 X86 23 99 _ ~y ~
0
DiITIGATI011 SITE GR4DIIrG PLAN ~ i
c~ ,
3q+35 ~ - - 34+qq - _ _ FOR ~ ^ ,
- 36}yq 35+55 - DARE cor~~~ N
_ PROPOSED RELOCATIO'~ OF rC 12 FOUR 1IILES SOCfH OF OREGOr N
IIr'LET TO SIX DIILES 50L"IH OF OREGO\ L\ZET 'b
a 3+49 =
i ~ 39+53 STATE PROJECT ti 0.6.051029 ~
TIP h 0. R-3113 ~ - ~
3q+99 FEBRtiARI' L~'95
40}99 - 4~+0~ - Scale 1"=ltk:~'
6" Contour Intes.YLs
43+~~ -
Qq+04 -
rs _
0
o

~ ~
~ a
~ ~ t..a .'~..J-•!_.1 rlt i .:4 ~_'1 _.f _d. 11_)_.f__1 __i _.1_j_--~ ° i_.F_-J._t 1 11-'1___L ~_i__i _L i__~ ~ _~__-_i__ 1 _ _t - ~ _1_ -~__..t .i_ t _ i. __t ~ 1 l--« f l--+ ,
- I i
~L' V
L ~
m ~ 1C3
Q
- ~~P ~v o ~ 1
~~o° -k
D p
~ ~ ~o
a a a ~ o~
' ~ ~ o _ I
.o 0 0
o 0
~ ~ Q .
o n .p ° o a
o o I pQooop
oC . O t~
Q • ~ ~ o ~
~ 0 G' p ~0
o~ ~~P
'J ~ a ~
.
o o = Q
p o O ° ~ O
O Q
Q ~ Q d O !
_ f ~ ~ r v. ~ ~ b _ - -
.a. - ~
D - v ~J
D ~
o~ r ~ O ~
0
d ~ j
_ ~ - c ~ ~
~ a o _ ! -
~"31+00 o Q ~ _
. o 32+2 Q' a~ ~ D ~
e
--~o ~ D e
d
0
~ - - - - D. • o ~ ~ 0~
~ , f . ~ ~
~ p T - _ L••I
L _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ o TM~
,I Z` ,
~
. O ~ , - ~ I _ ~ - ~
Q 1 e~ a
• a a m~ 1\
- p0a ~f - O
D V~
oa \ - - ~
_ o
D
_r~
- D - - O ~ ~
_ I ~ v ` N
- N o as ~
- ~ ~
" _ _ - _ - _ _ . , 14+ + 12+00 10+82 10+00
+ 18+00 16+70 15+47 54 13 00 +9921+46 19+92 18 79
/29+90 29+09 28+00.:27+25 25+99 24+86 z . 33}36 ~Q - 24+ 23+99 22+99 21 86 N
T 0 . AIITIGATIO~ SITE GR~DIl~G PLAN ~
3a+35 `I" F R ~ 0
3q+99 - - - ^ ,
36}9q 35+55 DARE cor~~~ N
_ PROPOSED RELOCATION OF rC 11 FOIE AIII,ES SOL~I'H OF OREGON N ,
0 3~+49 - - IIr'LET TO SIX AIILES SOI;TH OF OREGON L'~ZET b ~ i
- STATE PROJECT 50.6.051029 ~ '
= p 3q+53 TIP N0. R-3213 ~
39}99 FEBRLARl' L~95 u
\ 40-c99 - 42}~Q Scale 1"=1n'' 6" Contour Intrr~xls
43}Op
4q+00
_
_
4 A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES B. HUNT, )R
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 20, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Dear Sir:
Subject: Edgecombe County, Proposed Interchange at SR 1225
between Rocky Mount and Tarboro, Federal Aid
Project No. NH-64(1) State Project No. 8.T290501,
TIP No. R-0509GB, Corps Action ID. No. 199401137.
On December 28, 1993, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation requested that the subject project be
authorized under Nationwide Permit 23 (Categorical
Exclusion). The Categorical Exclusion document identified
6.7 acres of wetland impact associated with this project.
On January 25, 1994, correspondence from your office was
received indicating that because the project would cause
"greater than minimal impacts to the environment", the
project as was proposed could not be authorized under
Nationwide Permit 23. It was further stated that a modified
proposal which reduces wetland impacts could be submitted,
and that wetland impact reduction could be accomplished
through avoidance, minimization and/or compensatory
mitigation. The Departments avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation efforts are detailed below.
AVOIDANCE
No-Build Alternative
Wetlands could be fully avoided with the "no-build
alternative. However, this alternative would prevent US 64
from being the fully controlled access facility it was
planned and designed to be. The existence of one at-grade
intersection on what otherwise is a fully controlled access
facility is dangerous because drivers do not expect
interference from crossing traffic. Therefore, this
alternative would neither provide a safe alternative nor

fulfill the projects purpose.
Construction in Fewer Quadrants
Because wetlands exist in all four quadrants of the
existing intersection, modification of the proposed diamond-
type design to eliminate construction in one or more
quadrants would not avoid all wetland impacts.
Ramp Realignment in the Diamond Configuration
Realignment of the ramps to circumvent the wetlands is
not feasible because, according to the hydric soils maps for
the project area, the wetlands extend well beyond the
proposed construction limits.
Bridging
Bridging of all impacted wetlands is not feasible from a
cost perspective.
MINIMIZATION
While not considered to be active impact minimization,
the 6.7 acre impact listed in the environmental document has
been reduced to 4.0 acres by calculating impacts based on
actual construction footprint and not full right of way
limits.
Eliminating Construction in One Quadrant
Most of the wetland areas affected by this project lie
in the two northern quadrants (see enclosed figure). There
is no feasible design that would avoid construction in both
of the northern quadrants. However, the proposed design
could be modified to eliminate constructing in one of the
northern quadrants by constructing a ramp and loop in the
remaining northern quadrant. However, in the quadrant where
the ramp and loop are constructed, the construction limits
would extent further northward, thereby impacting more
wetlands in that quadrant. The wetlands saved by eliminating
construction in the "no-build" quadrant may not compensate
for the losses in the "build" quadrant. Therefore, it is not
certain that a modified diamond interchange design that
eliminates construction in one quadrant will result in a net
reduction in wetland impacts.
Reducing Fill Slopes
The current proposed design utilizes 4:1 cut/fill slopes
in several places because a 4:1 side slope is the steepest
slope allowable without use of guardrails. The use of 2:1
slopes would require guardrails, which would impair sight
distances at the ramp terminals, thereby posing a safety
hazard. However, there are three areas away from the ramp
terminals which are currently utilizing 4:1 fill slopes
through wetlands where NCDOT agrees to use 2:1 slopes with

guardrails. The reduction of the fill slopes in these areas
should not significantly jeopardize the safety of the
interchange, and will lead to a 0.32 acre reduction in
wetland impacts.
The areas of fill slope reduction are as follows (see
enclosed figure)
Ramp A
The 4:1 slopes on Ramp A can be steepened to 2:1 from
right ramp station 12+00 to 18+00 and from left ramp station
11+00 to 20+00. The Department does not propose to steepen
the slopes from left ramp station 6+00 to 11+00 because the
same amount of wetlands are impacted by both the 2:1 and 4:1
side slopes.
Ramp B
No changes are proposed at this ramp since 2:1 side
slopes are already proposed through the wetland areas.
Ramp C
The 4:1 slopes on Ramp C can be steepened to 2:1 from
right ramp station 10+00 to 12+00. The Department does not
propose to steepen the slopes from.left ramp station 10+00
12+00 because there is only a minimal amount of wetland in
this area between the ramp and the mainline, and this area
likely to be of relatively low quality after the ramp is
constructed. Therefore, on the left side of Ramp C, the
Department does not believe that modifying the slopes is
justified when the small amount of wetlands that could be
saved by reducing side slopes are considered.
Ramp D
The Department
also does not
slopes on Ramp D can be justified
amount of wetlands in this area.
to
is
believe that modifying the
when considering the small
Minimization Efforts Already Undertaken
The project was designed to minimize the area within the
construction limits, and therefore minimize the area of
wetland impact. The ramp lengths, degree of horizontal and
vertical curvature, vertical clearance of the bridge over US
64, and other design parameters are already at, or very close
to, the minimum criteria allowable without compromising
motorist safety.
MITIGATION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes
to include the 3.68 acres of wetland impacts associated with
this project with those of the US 64 relocation between
Tarboro and Everetts (R-2111 and R-2112A). A preliminary
mitigation plan which details our mitigation efforts to date
is being provided to the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office for
their records.
With the provided information on avoidance, minimization
and mitigation in mind, The North Carolina Department of
Transportation requests that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
authorize this project under Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion). If you require any additional
information or wish to discuss this matter further, please
contact Mr. Doug Huggett at [phone].
Sincerely,
tt ?Qui n , PE
n anch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D.R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Missy Dickens, Planning and Environmental Branch
n
X m
m -I
m r
T D
\ z
O O
0
0
2
\
m m
m
I
M
z
v
s ;
D
-SC
n '
0?6 23 ,
1
S. C. 4. 50 t>' I I: I 1 I -?r?FY
I /? I I S 1 1 I x
I Is 11 1 i t
CS4F
F I I I
C. i ''' I I 1 1 O ,65-.
$ 86
? 1 I I 1 I V
.33
I r? 11 I I I
E5I , 1 'I 1 I I I .4 \\
1
S ?. ? / / M• N Lll y ? 1 ?
I III I ? E0.
/°?'/f / I r I 1 ?x
I
l,y?? / / i ?I I i \ 1
n I j { I \ i.,
7 / I ?n z
\ \
-Zola 2 \ # .' I I I. I I I
I I I zi I I \
`?' , "sy L I 12Q 2 I
/ !4Y ? I I I 1< 111 1 -.4 II: L .`
Ail .. 11.
'SY i l? i ? I `' I I I •1'!? ? 1
?`• / N
' I T:k s .hum
, ?'p i° L I I I V w
l a I ? ? I I I ? a
^?3 J2 ? - I 1 I I
4T
/ / O - m Ii I 1
3- -?zs ; O ( i i I z 1 .k
't5 i N ?' I 1 1 P \ y'' I
m
f 1. 1 ?j
o '^1 i,Jm ri
I/ p •I. 11 I I J o ?;
'6 ? ?•,?? /moo -? ?;? ?1
I I ?I I w° o ?'? CI I I NIS- -.?.. .
13
° g 1 V` i-
r,?O
?,A,y4
04
? • i 111/ I }v. / 1 I "
? ? / 11 I I I 1 71 I
? l//?, a 1•x',1 : j ?Iy' I i I I
/ 1 I- I
3 A.
la on
H l? i ,l, 11 I I 1 a? ?`• 1 ?
?H?? ? 1 ? IA I lil •?t?IYT` ?
Z
1 -l
m
y

o O
y
y yyy
ODO Z
Z
A0^S
mZ0 =z:O?
'z
z6z
Z
1'o
x

Inc ,
-i _
m
S

N
M :d m Z
Z>
< O
C NZ? x{ =V
m
o Z
A
Z
O i

T
z m 3

m

G)
o -
ro o
I I
>j I I ?/ i ' IIO
O 1?\ 'V ?xm ??.y I 11 I t•N4 1 /
\ ' , z-s I I v' I
4PP0 P' 'T- 1 Iy'^ `? I
/OtOS,
.5•T: 0 70???BEV. 1.@,. ?-. T .Llr i i^ I I'• ? }I, ^I Sr
.T 9+81.25 NP \ '1 11 ? I I. I 1:4• N 1
'? 1 I I I I ? ?II ar /
I I I I 1'- ry /
CS @+03.?r
1 1 I 1 I?
CS Tt2??p c\, 1 -, I HIV: ?,?:
X71 zl ' 1 I 1 ,
`1L4;1441 i? I ? ml , I ? I
/ 14.; 4441'0 I I 1 1 ? 1
/? tll?I`^0,.. I I I I I i 55p
1 I. I I I I i
S.C.-2'00.00
? l
O
a
N 1--o-11P,
mm
,•
0 t.A
n
s
D
z
z
O
_ 3I
D D
z 3
O
m m
//
Ln
ya
i.
_ In
I ?
? .A
0
!vq<N
UT
g CREEK
1.. v r
n
d1n91?1 ????? 1?N?dM
_-GOdaaCT 3?
1
D -?
v
D

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SKIP DAT ? /y J
TO: RE
I.
?O/. OR ROOM. BLDG
F. N
E I
/
(
OM: R¢{. NR QOM, BLDG.
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
ve
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
December 28, 1993 D
JAN - 5
District Engineer -?.?
Army Corps of Engineers WETLANrS Gt?Ol'PP . 0 . Box 18 9 0 WATER UALITY SECTION
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Edgecombe County, Proposed Interchange at SR 1225
between Rocky Mount and Tarboro, Federal Aid
Project No. NH-64(1) State Project No. 8.T290501,
TIP No. R-0509GB.
Attached for your information are three copies 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 2 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate reque ing affilindividual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationw111de Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A?(B-2'3) ssued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The pr visions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these r gulations will be
followed in the construction of the proje
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745
(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.

-4 f ,
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Ms. Cyndi Bell at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
B. (J. (?_ Quinn,,/ PE
Assi ant B nch Manager
Plannind and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D.R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Missy Dickens, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1225
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project No. 8.T290501
TIP No. R-509GB
qR
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
2 -o-s-t A &,f7 - PU Pi S
Date Nicholas L. Gra P.E.
?ivisiod Administrator, FHWA
US 64
Proposed Interchange at SR 1225
Between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
Edgecombe County
Federal Aid Project NH-64(1)
State Project No. 8.T290501
TIP No. R-509GB
9k
r
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning & Environmental Branch By:
Mary ice Dic ens
Project Planning Engineer
CA Ro
J. Wit on Stroud i
??•c'JE ASS i;? ?.2
41
Prof t Planning Unit Head
SLAL _
• 6 -; ; G =
4Lu f i n V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager ilk
??i???,;.••`?
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT ?'••,,,ssis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
M`!
r
w

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. Stream Crossings ...................................... 2
E. Traffic Volumes ....................................... 2
F. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 3
G. Accident Analysis ..................................... 4
H. Thoroughfare Plan ..................................... 5
III. Description of Proposed Action ............................. 5
A. Proposed Improvements ................................. 5
B. Construction Detour .................................... 6
C. Drainage Structures ................................... 6
D. Estimated Costs ....................................... 6
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ........................ 6
A. Recommended Alternative ...............................
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative ..............................
V. Effects to the Environment .................................
A. Land Use ..............................................
1. Existing Land Use... ....................
2. Prime and Important Farmland .....................
B. Socioeconomic Impacts .................................
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .....................
2. Economic Factors .................................
3. Public Facilities ................................
4. Relocations ......................................
5. Social Impacts ...................................
C. Historic and Cultural Resources .......................
1. Archaeological Resources .........................
2. Architectural/Historical Resources ...............
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
D. Natural Resources ..................................... 9
1. Biotic Communities ............................... 9
r, a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 9
b. Aquatic Communities.. . .. .............. 13
» c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 13
2. Effects to Physical Resources .................... 15
a. Soils ....................................... 15
b. Water Resources.. ...................... 15
C. Flood Hazard Evaluation .................... 17
3. Jurisdictional Issues.... ...................... 17
a. Waters of the United States ................. 17
i. Summary of Impacts ..................... 17
ii. Permits ................................ 18
iii. Mitigation ............................. 19
b. Protected Species ........................... 19
i. Federally Protected Species............ 19
ii. Federal Candidate Species .............. 20
iii.. State Protected Species......... ..... 20
E. Traffic Noise and Air Quality .......................... 21
VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 21
TABLES
Table 1 - Levels of Service.. ....... ................... 3
Table 2 - Fauna Observed in the Study Area .... .... .. 9
Table 3 - Summary of Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts.. 14
Table 4 - Soil Summary.................... ...... ......... 15
Table 5 - Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands....... 18
' Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species Listed in Edgecombe
County.... ....... .............................. 20
Table 7 - State Protected Species Listed in Edgecombe
County ...........................................
21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Interchange Configuration
Figure 3 - Current and Projected Traffic Values
Figure 4 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
APPENDIX
SHPO Correspondence
t
W.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

A Section 401 General 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 Army Corps of Engineers. NCDOT will conduct the necessary
coordination with the Corps of Engineers regarding the required permit and
mitigation plans that may be required.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximately 6.7 acres of wetlands are
expected to be impacted by implementation of this project. Impacts will
be minimized by Best Management Practices.
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 1225 between
Rocky Mount and Tarboro in Edgecombe County (see Figure 1). This project
is included in the NCDOT 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as a portion of Project R-509 that has yet to be constructed. The
project is scheduled to be let in Fiscal Year 1994. The TIP funding for
this interchange_is estimated at $3,500,000, 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 (not
including the required easements, see Section III.A.) for these
interchanges was acquired with the right of way for R-509 with the
2
intent to construct the interchanges in the future. These crossings
remained as at-grade intersections at the completion of the initial
construction of Project R-509. The construction of the interchange at
SR 1207 (TIP Project R-509GA) is currently underway. Project R-509GA was
let in January, 1993 and is expected to be completed in December, 1993.
The subject project, R-509GB, by providing an interchange at SR 1225,
is the last remaining phase necessary to make US 64 a fully controlled
access facility in accordance with the original intent of the R-509
project.
C. Existing Conditions
US 64 in the project vicinity is a 4-lane divided facility with
12-foot 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 1225 and SR 1207. The posted speed
limit is 55 miles per hour. This segment of US 64 is part of the proposed
National Highway System, and it is classified as a Rural Principal
Arterial in the Functional Classification System.
SR 1225 is a two-lane facility with a 20-foot pavement (10-foot
lanes) and 4-foot grass shoulders. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per
hour. The existing right of way is 60 feet. SR 1225 is classified as a
Rural Minor Collector in the Functional Classification System. There is
no control of access along SR 1225.
Photographs of the existing conditions in the project vicinity are
shown in Figure 4.
D. Stream Crossings
Walnut Creek and an unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek pass under
US 64 in the vicinity of the proposed intersection. Walnut Creek is
currently conveyed under US 64 by a 66-inch concrete pipe west of SR 1225
and the tributary is conveyed by a 60-inch concrete pipe east of SR 1225.
Just downstream of where Walnut Creek crosses US 64, the creek passes
under SR 1225 through a 60-inch concrete pipe.
E. Traffic Volumes
The current average daily traffic utilizing US 64 in the project
vicinity is 11,200 vehicles per day, and it is projected that this figure
will increase to 22,200 vehicles per day by the year 2012. Currently,
2,400 vehicles per day use SR 1225, and 3,600 vehicles per day are
expected to be using the facility in 2012. Figure 3 shows current and
projected (years 1992 and 2012) average daily traffic volumes, turning
movements, design hourly volume (DHV), and percentages of trucks for this
project area with the proposed interchange in place.

3
F. 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 from 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, using estimated peak hour demands, was performed
for the existing unsignalized intersection for 1992 volumes, the ramp
junctions of the proposed interchange for 1992 and 2012 volumes, and the
ramp terminals under unsignalized and signalized scenarios for 1992 and
2012 volumes. Table 1 presents the results of the capacity analyses.
TABLE 1
LEVELS W SERVICE
Existing Unsi nalized Intersection
(1992 Traffic Volumes
Movement LOS
NB (SR 1225 Left F
NB (SR 1225) Through E
NB (SR 1225) Right A
SB (SR 1225) Left E
SB (SR 1225) Through E
SB (SR 1225) Right A
EB (US 64) Left A
WB (US 64) Left A
Rams Junctions of Proposed Interchange
Ramp LOS
Year Junction Ramp US 64
1992 EB On B A
EB Off B A
WB On B A
WB Off A A
2012 EB On C C
EB Off C C
WB On C C
WB Off B C
4
Ramp Terminals of Proposed Interchanae
Stop-si gn Control
Ramp LOS
Terminal Movement 1992 2012
WB WB Left A D
WB Right A A
NB Left A A
EB EB Left A C
EB Right A A
SB Left A A
Signalized Control
Ramp LOS
Terminal 1992 2012
WB A A
EB A A
An unsignalized intersection analysis shows that although SR 1225
right-turning traffic is currently operating at LOS A, through and
left-turning traffic on SR 1225 is operating at levels of service E and F
(see Table 1). The ramp junction analyses show that, upon completion of
the interchange, US 64 will be operating at LOS A and three of the four
ramps will be operating at LOS B, while one (the westbound off ramp) will
be operating at LOS A. In the year 2012, US 64 and three ramps will be
operating at LOS C; the westbound off ramp is anticipated to be operating
at LOS B. Therefore, according to the Highway Capacity analysis, an
interchange will greatly increase the efficiency of traffic flow.
Once the interchange is in place, all movements of both ramp
terminals are expected to operate at LOS A under stop-sign control. Under
2012 volumes, the LOS drops to D for westbound left-turns and to C for
eastbound left-turns. However, if signalized, the terminals would be
expected to operate at LOS A for both 1992 and 2012 volumes. The
anticipated capacity conditions at the ramp terminals under stop-sign
control are acceptable for the design period. Nevertheless, signalization
remains an option if deteriorating capacity conditions in the future
necessitate it.
G. Accident Analvsis
An intersection accident analysis was conducted for the subject
intersection for the time period from June 1, 1990 through July 31, 1993.
Nine accidents occurred during this period, none of which were fatal. Of
the 9 accidents, 8 (89%) were accidents caused by failure to yield at the
stop signs on SR 1225. The total accident rate is 1.90 accidents per 100
million entering vehicles (acc/100mev).
An interchange at this site is expected to reduce the accidents
caused by failure to yield at stop signs. By providing a grade
separation, the interchange will remove the conflict between through
movements on US 64 and through movements on SR 1225. Although the
interchange will replace this one conflict point with six conflict points
(two ramp terminals and four ramp junctions), each of these six conflict
points will be carrying lower traffic volumes travelling at lower speeds.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the six conflict points provided by the
interchange will be less hazardous than the one conflict point at the
existing at-grade intersection. Also, 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.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
The subject project is not included in an existing thoroughfare plan
since currently there is no adopted thoroughfare plan for Edgecombe
County. However, in the thoroughfare planning report for Edgecombe County
that is in the process of being prepared, the subject interchange is
mentioned as a programmed TIP project.
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 1225 between Rocky Mount and Tarboro
in Edgecombe County (see Figure 2). This will involve the construction of
a bridge to carry SR 1225 over US 64 and the construction of four ramps.
The cross-section of SR 1225 between the ramp terminals will consist of
three 12-foot lanes with 12-foot shoulders (4 feet paved). The bridge
over US 64 will have 48 feet of clear roadway width (three 12-foot travel
lanes with a 6-foot lateral clearance on each side). The bridge, which
will be 239 feet long, will have a minimum vertical clearance of 16.5
feet. North of the intersection with the westbound ramps and south of the
intersection with the eastbound ramps the cross-section of SR 1225 will
taper to a 32-foot pavement width (two 12-foot lanes with 4-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.
Although right of way for the subject project was purchased under TIP
Project No. R-509, temporary construction easements need to be acquired
for erosion control measures in the northeast and northwest quadrants of
the interchange.
6
B. Construction Detour
No on-site temporary detour will
rather, traffic will be detoured along
accessing US 64 from SR 1225 will be
SR 1207.
C. Drainage Structures
be built as a part of this project;
existing routes. Traffic currently
routed to US 64 via US 64-A and
Walnut Creek and an unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek pass under
US 64 in the vicinity of the proposed interchange. The confluence of the
two streams is just north (downstream) of the project. Walnut Creek is
currently conveyed under US 64 by a 66-inch concrete pipe, and the
tributary is conveyed under US 64 by a 60-inch concrete pipe. Based on
preliminary hydraulic analysis, these pipes appear to be hydraulically
adequate, and it is recommended that they be retained. A detailed
assessment of hydraulic adequacy and structural integrity of the existing
structures will be made during final hydraulic design. Just downstream of
where US 64 crosses Walnut Creek, there is a 60-inch pipe to convey the
creek under SR 1225. This existing pipe is undersized,-and it is located
where the proposed northern interchange ramps will intersect SR 1225;
therefore, the existing pipe will be replaced with a 66-inch pipe at a
location just south of the existing crossing location on SR 1225. This
will require a minor channel change through the interchange (see
Figure 2). This proposed rechannelization may change as hydraulic design
is finalized. NCDOT will conduct the necessary coordination with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding any stream change. Five
additional hydraulic structures, all pipes with a diameter of 66 inches or
smaller, will be constructed to convey water under the interchange.
D. Estimated Costs
The proposed interchange's estimated cost of $3,500,000, all of which
is for construction, is the same as the 1994-2000 TIP cost (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 1225 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 implementa-
tion of this freeway concept. In addition, conflicts between through
traffic on US 64 and SR 1225 would not be eliminated. For these reasons,
this alternative is not recommended.
V. EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
A. ' Land Use
1. 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.
2. 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.
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
1. 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 1225 is situated near 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.
2. Economic Factors
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 unemployment total of 2,400 or 7.7
percent.
8
3. Public Facilities
This proposed action will not adversely impact any public
facilities.
4. Relocations
The proposed project will not require the relocation of farms,
residences, or businesses.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed project will not disrupt social cohesion, and it
will not interfere with public facilities and services.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
The NCDOT archaeological staff have prepared a report
documenting the findings of an archaeological survey which was
conducted in order to locate and evaluate archaeological resources
within the project area in accordance with FHWA procedures for
compliance with historic preservation legislation. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with the results of
the survey which are summarized in the subsequent paragraph (see the--=
SHPO concurrence letter on page A-1 of the Appendix).
The subject interchange will affect relatively little land that
has not already been altered by previous activity. No new
archaeological sites were found in the survey. 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 or the prehistoric
preservation in place as a public exhibit. Therefore, Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act-(Federal-Aid Highway Act as
amended) will not apply to this project.
2. 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
Nationalti Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
HistoricPreservation be given an opportunity to comment.
9
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project was
reviewed by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. There are no
buildings standing within the APE; therefore, no properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places exist inside
the APE. The SHPO has concurred with this finding (see page A-2 of
the Appendix).
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further
compliance with Section 106 is required.
D. Natural Resources
The project is located in a rural setting between Tarboro and Rocky
Mount in Edgecombe County, which lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. Forested and disturbed parcels are present in the study area.
The area supports a gently sloping topography. Elevation is approximately
30 feet above mean sea level (ms]). The proposed interchange crosses
Walnut Creek.
1. Biotic Communities
A description of flora and fauna observed, as well as those
which are likely to occur in each community, is 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. Table 2 is a list of fauna visually observed (or spoor
evidence) noted in the study area.
Table 2. Fauna Observed in the Study Area
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME EVIDENCE
common crow Corvus brach rh nchos visual
gray squirrel Sc u s Caro inensis visual
garden spider A
rgio a sp. visual
white-tail deer _
Odocoileus vir inianus spoor
crayfish Cambarus, Procam arus spp. visual
beaver Castor cana ensis dam
mourning dove Zenaida macroaura call
cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis call
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three biotic communities were identified in the study area:
Disturbed Upland, Pine/Hardwood Upland, and Palustrine Hardwood
Wetland communities. The following is a description of each
community.
10
Disturbed
Disturbed communities are located along road shoulders, and
in upland areas and adjacent to US 64 and SR 1225. Vegetation
growth is kept low from mowing. Dominant vegetation consists of
various turf grasses including crabgrass (Di itaria sp.) and
fescue (Festuca sp.). Sneezeweed (Helenium sp. was also
observed.
Immediately northeast of the interchange, south of Walnut
Creek, is a disturbed area that has been filled. Dominant
species include dog fennel (Eupaatorium ca illifolium), partridge
pea (Cassia fasicula_ta), sericea (Lespe e?za cuneata , broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicuss), and go e1 n (So?-go sp.).
Approximately 5-foot tall sweetgum and loblolly pine saplings
are present.
The Disturbed community is open and supports small mammals
such as the eastern mole (Scalo us a uaticus), which excavates
tunnels where it forages for arthworms, insects, and plant
material beneath the soil surface. Eastern cottontail
(Sylvilaqus floridanus) and hispid cotton rat (Si modoonn
his idus) are terrestrial inhabitants that predominantly consume
vegetative matter. The opossum (Didelphis virginiana) forages
on animal and plant matter.
Reptiles such as the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis)
and the black racer (Coluber constrictor) inhabit disturb e
areas where there is adequate cover. The Carolina anole
consumes small insects and spiders and the black racer forages
on organisms such as insects, amphibians, and birds.
Avian fauna anticipated to frequent the Disturbed community
include common crow (Corvus brachvrhynchos) and red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis). The common crow scavenges dead animals as
w_67 _as insects and plant material. The red-tailed hawk preys
on small mammals.
Pine/Hardwood
The Pine/Hardwood community is located in all four
quadrants. Several areas in the subject project support stands
dominated by hardwoods, but generally, the study area supports
pine dominated stands interspersed with hardwood species. These
stands are immature (diameter at breast height (DBH) was less
than 4 inches in the north quadrants).
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) is the most common canopy
species in the study area. Short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata) was
encountered infrequently. Hardwood species fouun in of the
canopy and understory include sweetgum (Liquidambar
st?iraciflua), scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), and white oak
( uercus a ba). Additionally, ob olly pine is present. Stands
11
are moderately dense. Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) is
present but uncommon. A small stand dominated by tip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum is located adjacent to
US 64. One very large willow oak (Q_ p hellos) that towers above
the other vegetation is present in the northwest quadrant.
Mid-canopy species, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and
sourwood (Ox yde_ndrum arboreum) are scattered wTt n this
community. Dangl_eberry Ga ussacia frondosa) is a very common
shrub species and predominates the s rF uE der; winged sumac
(Rhus cop?allina) and silverling (Baccharis halimifolia) are less
common. Vines such as catbrier (Smi ax bona-nox an cow itch
(Campsis radicans) are common in moderate densities. The
herbaceous-ayer is very sparse; scattered occurrences of ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium lat nueron) and erigeron (__E__r__igger??on sp.)
were observed. A creeping, ow growing perennial, idge
berry, (Chimaphila maculata) is present. Cane (Arundinaria
gigantea) is dominant and very dense adjacent to a drainages.
The southeast and southwest quadrants show evidence of
recent disturbance. The Mixed Hardwood/Pine community in the
southwest quadrant is dominated.primarily by a young canopy of
southern red oak (Q. falcata) and water oak (Q_ nniigrraa). Low
bush blueberry (Vacciniu sp.), ), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
sassafras (Sassa rasa idum), and wax myrtle (M r ci ceriTe-ra)
are typical - surb species present. The Mixed Hardwood/Pine
community comprises the majority of this quadrant.,
The Pine/Hardwood community supports adequate cover and
foraging opportunities for wildlife. Mammalian fauna such as the
white footed mouse (Peromyscus leuco us_) consumes available
nuts, berries, seeds, insects, and other animal material. The
gray squirrel, another common species, is a tree climber that
forages primarily on plant material; however, its adaptive
capabilities enable it to vary its diet according to what is
available. The omnipresent opossum is likely to inhabit this
community in addition to the Disturbed community, where there is
adequate food. The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus)
is a browser that forages on available vegetation. It prefers
areas that are interspersed between forested tracts and
disturbed sites.
The slimy salamander (Plethodon gluti?nosus) is an amphibian
that burrows under ground cover such as stones, and leaf
litter. In addition, the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), another
small amphibian, may also inhabit the litter a? yer of this
community. Reptiles such as the five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) utilizes logs, rocks, and other matter for breeding
and cover.
Typical avian fauna that may be seen include bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus), common crow, red-tailed hawk, turkey
vu t-ure (Cathartes aura), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus),
and barred owl ( i varia).
12
Palustrine Hardwood Forest
The Palustrine Hardwood Forest is located in the floodplain
of Walnut Creek and its tributaries. The Palustrine Hardwood
Forest community is dominated by several hardwood species. Red
maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and sweetgum
are dominant with lesser amounts of pumpkin ash (Fraxinus
profunda). Canopy coverage is dense and very little light
reaches the ground. Swollen tree trunks and multiple trunk
specimens are present. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) is scattered
adjacent to the creek banks. White bay (Magnolia vir iniana)
and American holly (Ilex opaca) were commonly encountered in the
shrub/understory layer.
The ground was covered by numerous black gum seedlings.
Herbaceous species observed include scattered populations of
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), cardinl-diLobelia cardinalis), notweed
Poonuum unctat?um), and royal fern (Osmunda re alis var.
spectabilis). Woolgrass (Scir us cyperinus)i is found in clumps
in the wettest areas. Dodder (Cuscuta sp.), a common parasitic
vine, was observed around other vegetation.
The floodplain in the northeast quadrant is disturbed
(abandoned bridge approachways are present) and supports a dense
stand (at eyelevel) of cane, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica). FartWer,east in the
same quadrant, the area supports a densely vegetated wetland
community dominated by black willow (Salix nigra), tulip poplar,
water oak, and willow oak. Stands 6-f cane are very dense in
this area. Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) is common at
ground level. Muscadine (Vitis rotun ifolia) and catbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia) vines are dense in a layers of this
community.
Permanent wildlife residents of this community are closely
associated with water. Mammalian species likely to occur
include beaver (a dam was noted during field surveys), muskrat
Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). These three
species consume available plant material; wever, the raccoon
also forages on crayfish and other invertebrates.
A variety of amphibians are likely to be found in the
Palustrine Hardwood Forest. Salamanders such as the marbled
salamander (Amb stoma opacum), southern dusky salamander
(Desmo nathus aenus , two and three-lined salamanders (Eurycea
bis ineata and E. uttolineata), dwarf salamander (E. -
quadridigitata), and mud salamander Pseudotriton montanus) may
be found under logs, in leaf litter, or along the stream bank.
Frogs and toads such as the Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei),
southern cricket frog (Acris ryllus), spring peeper (H la
crucifer), green frog (Rana c aml itans), pickerel frog Rana
pa ustris), and southern nTeopar frog (Rana sphenocephO-a)
inhabit stream edges, and many breed in wooded swamps.
13
The snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud
turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), Florida cooter (Chrysemys
floridana), and spotted- turtle (Clemmys ug ttata) are typical
reptiles that live in or near water. The mud snake (Farancia
abacura), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and
brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota) inhabit streams and
quiet waters, typica of the study area.
Avian fauna such the belted kingfisher (Me acer le alc on),
prothonotary warbler (Prontonotaria citrea), barre owl Strix
varia), great blue heron Ardea herd as), green heron
(Butorides striatus), and wood duck (Ai sponsa) are commonly
fou?n in communities such as the Palust it ne Hardwood Forest.
b. Aquatic Communities
Walnut Creek and its tributary are small and support slow
flowing water. Occasionally, water may flood into the
surrounding floodplain. Organisms that occur at Walnut Creek are
dependent on water for some part of their life cycle. The
following fish are documented (Menhenick, 1991) as occurring in
the Tar River downstream of the project: chain pickerel (Esox
niger), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner
(Notemi onus crysoleucas), eastern spry minnow (Hybognathus
reg?iu??s), shiners (Notro ii_s sp.), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
?oblon us), suckermouth redhorse, silver redhorse (Moxostoma
pappillosum and M. anisurum), pirate perch (A hre o erus
sayanus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia ho brookii ,
bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus -sunfish Lepomis
sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp. .
Many of the species likely to occur in the Palustrine
Hardwood Forest are common as well in the aquatic community. In
addition, a crustacean, the crayfish (Cambarus and Procambarus
spp.), was observed in Walnut Creek in t Fe study area.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact the Disturbed Upland,
Pine/Hardwood Upland, and Palustrine Hardwood Wetland
communities. Preliminary estimates of biotic community impacts
are presented in Table 3.
14
Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts
(Acres)
Quadrant Plant Community
DU PHU PHW TOTALS
NE 7.7 6.4 2.8 16.9
SE 5.0 4.9 1.2 11.1
NW 4.3 6.6 1.5 12.4
SW 4.0 12.3 1.2 17.5
TOTALS 21.0 30.2 It( 6.7 1) 57.9
DU Disturbed Upland
PHU Pine/Hardwood Upland
PHW Palustrine Hardwood Wetland
Note: Impacts were assumed to extend throughout quadrants from the
control of access line to US 64.
The direct impact from construction is loss of vegetation
and wildlife habitat. The contractor will be required to
minimize removal of vegetation, especially outside of proposed
fill/cut lines indicated on roadway-design plan sheets. Habitat
loss may result in decreased utilization of the interchange
interior and perimeter for foraging, cover, and food. In
addition, construction will create barriers to normal faunal
movements and will lead to changes in species diversity and
community dynamics. As a result, organisms will be displaced
and distribution patterns will change.
The majority of wetland impacts are located in the
northwest and northeast quadrants where the study area crosses
Walnut Creek and the unnamed tributary. Efforts will be made to
minimize construction impacts in these quadrants.
In addition, sedimentation from erosion may impact filter
feeders and nonmobile organisms in the tributary by deposition
of soil material.
Approximately 500 feet of Walnut Creek will be piped
underneath the ramp in the northwest quadrant and under SR 1225.
15
2. Effects to Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
a. Soils
r Soils information was obtained from the Edgecombe County
Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1979). Five soil
mapping units are located in the study area. Mapping units are
stated in Table 4.
Table 4 . Soil Summary, Edgecombe County
SYMBOL MAP UNIT . SLOPE (%) CLASSIFICATION
GyD Gritney fine sandy loam 10-15 Non-Hydric
Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam - Hydric-Inclusions
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 map units in the study area are Wagram
loamy sand in upland areas and Rains fine sandy loam soils
adjacent to Walnut Creek. Wagram loamy sand is a soil that
formed in Coastal Plain sediments and is well drained. This
soil is located on broad upland areas. Rains soils formed in
Coastal Plain sediments and are poorly drained. Rains soils,are
located on broad interstream areas and shallow depressions.
b. Water Resources
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The
project crosses Walnut Creek and an unnamed tributary in all
four quadrants. Walnut Creek is approximately 4-7 feet wide and
approximately 5-10 inches deep. The unnamed tributary is
approximately 3-5 feet wide and drains into Walnut Creek in the
northeast quadrant. The substrate of both creeks is composed of
silt and sand. Walnut Creek has been disturbed in the northeast
quadrant; fill material has been placed south of the creek.
Walnut Creek originates less than one mile upstream of the study
area and drains into the Tar River over 3 miles downstream of
the subject project.
Best usage classification of Walnut Creek and its unnamed
tributary is WS-IV NSW (DEM, 1993). Best usage recommendations
for Water Supply (WS-IV) waters are defined as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly protected watersheds
16
and are suitable for all Class C uses. Best usage recommenda-
tions for Class C waters include aquatic propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a supplemental
classification which is defined as waters that require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. This network addresses long term trends in water
quality by measuring the taxa richness and the presence of
organisms intolerable to water quality changes. Two BMAN
surveys have been conducted in the Tar River, both downstream of
the subject project, where Walnut Creek drains into the Tar
River. The bioclassification of these samples was rated as
good-fair.
Neither High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters,
nor waters classified WS-I or WS- II are located in the study
area or within 1 mile downstream. No critical areas are
designated for WS-IV waters.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
(NPDES) is required for all point-source dischargers. There are
no NPDES dischargers located within the project vicinity.
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation from vegetation removal.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction, and toxic spills.
The following measures are recommended in order to minimize
the impacts stated above:
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be required during
the construction phase of the project.
Vegetated berms/swales will be used where possible to
minimize toxic discharge into streams.
Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts
made to control sediment runoff.
17
3.
C. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Edgecombe County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Walnut Creek and its unnamed
tributary in this area are not included in the detailed flood
study for Edgecombe County. 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 subject project will not encroach
significantly onto the existing floodplain per 23 CFR
650.105(q). The locations of these stream crossings are above
headwaters. Erosion and siltation will be controlled through
the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of
standard erosion control devices. Drainage patterns and
groundwater will not be affected by this project.
Jurisdictional Issues
a. Waters of the United States
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 Harbor 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; a federal permit is required for such
actions. Generally, "Waters of the US" is defined as navigable
waters, their tributaries, and associated wetlands and is
subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a 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).
i. Summary of Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the US are anticipated from
proposed construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts
are anticipated at Walnut Creek and a tributary of Walnut
Creek, where pipes are proposed.
18
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations
of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland
hydrology. The Palustrine Hardwood Wetland supports a
Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PF01) system
defined by Cowardin, et al. (1979). Table 5 summarizes
wetland impacts. These estimates are preliminary and may
change as additional design is performed. The wetland
areas impacted by the subject project are generally
represented by the undercut areas shown on Figure 2.
Table 5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Acres
PLT COM NE SE NW SW TOTAL
PF01 2.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 6.7
PLT COM Plant Community
PF01 Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous
ii. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to
be applicable for 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 that agency or
department 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 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 CE and concurs with that
determination.
The final permit decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers. NCDOT will conduct the necessary coordination
with the Corps of Engineers regarding the required permits
and the development of mitigation plans that may be
required.
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 (DEHNR).
19
iii. Mitigation
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 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency (1989). The final decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
b. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted, and it
was determined that no protected species are documented to occur
in the study area.
i. Federally Protected Species
One federally protected species is listed by the USFWS
for Edgecombe County as of May 13, 1993: the Tar River
spiny mussel (Elli tdio steinstansana). A discussion of
this species fo oll ws.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River spiny mussel) Federally
Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash,
and Pitt Counties
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 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; others 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.
20
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
According to John Alderman, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission Wildlife Biologist, the Tar River
spiny mussel occurs in streams greater than 20 feet wide.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has surveyed the
project vicinity for the Tar River spiny mussel and reports
that the study area does not support streams of suitable
size for the Tar River spiny mussel. As noted in Section
IV.D.2.b, Walnut Creek is less than 10 feet wide. No
impacts to the Tar River spiny mussel will occur from
proposed construction.
ii. Federal Candidate Species
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 El i d o lanceoFa ta
- C2 Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason C2 Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsi is ca it osa C2 Yes
C2 or Candidate 2: A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as endangered or threatened at this time.
iii. 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 Act (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 state
protected and may occur in the study area are presented in
Table 7.
21
Table 7. State Protected Species Listed in
Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Yellow lance Elli tio lanceolata T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni - T
Yellow lampmussel Lamp s 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.
Though all or some of these species may be present in
the study area, no surveys were conducted.
E. 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
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 the joint EPA/USDOT "Interim Conformity
Guidance", dated June 7, 1991 and FHWA supplemental guidance memoranda
dated July 27, 1992 and October 9, 1992 do not apply to this project.
The project calls for the construction of an interchange at the
intersection of US 64 and SR 1225 with all construction to be performed
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 of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Protection
Act, and no additional reports are required.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The construction of the proposed interchange at the US 64/SR 1225
intersection will benefit motorists by reducing the likelihood of
accidents and by improving general traffic flow. The interchange will
also fulfill the intended concept of full control of access along this
segment US 64. It is therefore concluded that the proposed project will
have an overall positive effect on the surrounding area.
22
Based upon the findings of this report, the proposed improvements are
not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
MAD/plr
mD
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SR 1225
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT R • 509GB
FIG. 1
1
I
i z
m
I .ii n 0
i Pl pp
i u+v -+<c ;v rrt>o o
t S -7?177 N N n N n :-"[1
WmWro N-Cn D
pq) WON OW W W dot
C:m CA 0 -0
P fiI ?+? N a CA CD O C-" O t0J1_ t0)D
! rn - 'CA O N S O
r •P W C7
co ?O.4 N
_I :
1,nu, rI
mZ
<c r D•v_
,ry! xlm N v. N
i tnl;c 4m W N N N
OIWO °+
=J iA p 8 Cn
nC NtoO 08N
-+° G
-in vp:O
I,tr AOO
jD?pOOW
??t-0
I OFD
1
N
I =
D
I r, II r
? o IIF 11''ll,1
`n
_FI
TT
l'I
• In I I
? I
ii
v
pp? p6c t 3
POT 382+80=
RP. "C" POT 0+00
.2+5-- 50
44+50
/ /
Uoo
I y,
/ 5 •i ?
11 't
?t 111111PI
.n ?n I ?t I
°? ?. I 1 II
r . I
I I
,t
-1 '• n o I
+, -?1 I
I1
1 ?
1?`1 I
.n
rl
m
y
T
r_

UL

rIN
D :'I
;^

\to -4 r 1
I
m?
0 f
1
'
0U' c/
N o
N? (o0(n+

I pZ. MHIla1 LINr_ JnCC1 rvv. 0 m nay n
m, i
p ?• I .
(.n
1.
n N \? - fpm .w
o Olc?1 C, i' \dC)
0
+. ? !' ? ! ?? L` it ? / • --4 SR12?5- °
• NO it - ?? ?/ ?\
N N ?" 9? -- Via- - o ?S9Z?= . i?
a s .n CK` <m 7 n ?`? Y
?
MO y ? /. •> ?? j i' ? ?' /
o .? _ .. __ r t ;. •?> ?7 ?t?? ` 100 TTl ; pPEB
2p? $
•'6 M Z r C 1n ?. n?? u? it + t` 0
o v m
1-? ?- ( w O - .cn It)
rn .- ?\ n'1 n O Z
n
x y u+ I
10
D C
i { ! ?' - -? y\ Ra m, X20 3@? i
\ J
C 7 t^ vi? ° 3@
• 'i'D i FIV t cIC I !r• "' P 9
i??' O v C
T I
1
I tt
4
?I
l0 0)
"nt!IU O
!'1I T
IclC
Iar
!fir
1 ;E z
I"'m
I
I. m
I m:
I D
IMP
m
I J? I
11
? I
I
II
Jill
t
Izl
I
I?
I?
• I
I I
II
? III
I
I 1
I D
1°
rn (A
Ln
(p
11?
t?__p C0
vl
UI
rl
GIi?D
Z `4t

?1 ? W i
D
-0
1?
T O
?
O :u 1
I
c O
v I
'
U or, I
1 -1
I
N O

N

<cr'0 rDvp• I
N o
D
WWtn -W
OWmO + 'v

0) b ccnnm?ipm
0)
<
Cfl
OW o)
8
C)

0) co o
=
=

<a ;u
I>0D?
o on
U1 D
_'S I
WtnWN
p N aC .
i
t
t
.'
oOOcNOai
??UI0w
CII-NOOW ujc) PO
W
OOW < 9

• UI ))?It I:
W ?::

1-

1f1 I
CD
+c
t

ut z
m
I.
c?---Iro p :v i
_u
Iq -W -JWNN
X00o)Un ° NN
1
?
1 1

j
1
O?D N'
8 W + C 1
000 C-! W
ITN O•G,-4 D

I I

_ of OD
GI
li
'? Il
!
g. t

ccm-1rv>
0M

1
'I
a

L n 'I' M
r?C?11 ti
In
n Dm . z i
i.
p mo m i•
r -t r -1 °I
I
m -n MATCH LINE SHEET NO. 4
NZ
1 , *90.33
1 I 1 ?;
? ? •' 4? r,l 4 1 I ? 1
/ / ? ? n ? 1• ?I , ? I I ? ? z3.6p?
70 2
?$ rlv I aim I I f u
01
/I ?? i6 \ 1, t II Iz911 ''1 y mm N I 11m
_ 1 z ? , ? ? " Inm 1
mp ( y O I
00,0 -I ! • ?\? I I I I zl I ? • ? 1 L'`
y, y JCS' j'(a' A I : 1' vV 11 I . y L? ?" t o uop'ce?z 3
Fy 4IO N =12"; y?.I ,, l f vz I .'
FF? N?u ;, 19\ 1?1• /j???d21 I > /J y? Ip u' ''
? q_ ? I 1 I '
l?LIZ 1 I I I 1 / 1 I•'
x
a c I I
1. V I I I Aln
I ; 1 Dy y /0 ^I Sr
p•0 ?? n ll I IN 191 051 / 10+0?1 `Z ?..
orn
' =5;.ea RP O?EV. ? ?t \ i I' i 1 _l .'-]. Cx i I 1a I
N G :U
0
(C
N
U
Cl
TI
G)
N
1atTWN
W OI W
Ol ? W ?
N
c?<c?N?Dvpv
iJ
In
p(" WNNUra1\) D
p101W01 •W? ?0
OtNO?WpypOAOSW_ O
zj
tl0 ? &M
;o m
2
?m
-
n
v W ?'t:l HO
;
= W x
?zo
n0 t??x>0
-?
7o-Zn booms
mazy
O C `? y C=J

D
) 0 rn
W
Z z?
y ?
r O
cy!.
A f_1+
W 9
O
00 .Z
i
0
O
o
o ?aY•

I I
I
I
I I ,?
?
a
i?
I 1
I Ip
?
I /
I
I /
1 I
I - I
I
I 1
t N
1
1
I (J1
I I
I I
U1
a

I
11

1 $9
J
? H
l m
I 1
?
.? 1
? I I
zl
1
1

zrn
I f ?,
?
1 I z
'?
1
1
?
1
I
?
W
1 ;
1 I
I 1
I O
1
1 1
1 1
t
I
w- <c'Im r app D
b
:lu OWi0IW?ON'?Oo}I
m00$N
0(ii??-402 0?1 D
p 'o ONW
`•A
-1
cn<crD
u N N N
m
OMWNMr4
0OJWOp'F
p. OW
p0 L4
n 0o {o opv
n
N ? (A (n D
j O) ' +
W 'W-OOffu
u?cnr?r-?croP?o
z
Oo w? w`0 a0OVI? In
00 o I
0pCI)0 ONW000?* r
-Apo-to 0000-9:N
-? to cn
z z-Ni
D
00
;n NW
D VN
v
MCA
0,0
X
00
? L
1 W
G _{
N
o
N W

n
3
o
.
0
i

' F
r ui

N
i
I ?.

US 64
INTERSECTION WITH SR 1225
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
R - 509 G B
ESTIMATED 1992 / 2012 ADT (HUNDREDS)

SR - 1225 I
TTST 1 %
- 18 DUAL 5% O
DHV 10%
5 3 DIR 60%
9 5
k
;/P7 \16
7 11 112 12 7 102
?
US 64 222 20?f 11 204 US 64
12? ?.- 7
20 11
TTST 3% s s
DUAL 5% -'
DHV 10%
DIR 60% 7
11 4
6
I 24
36
SR - 1225
1
FIGURE 3
R-509GB
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
US 64, LOOKING EAST FROM
SR 1225
SR 1225, LOOKING NORTH
TOWARD US 64
SR 1225, LOOKING SOUTH
TOWARD US 64
rrrlmr n
•? P? Oy.
North Carolina Department of-Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 30, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological Survey Report for US 64 interchanges with
SR 1207 and 1225 between Rocky Mount and Tarboro,
Edgecombe County, Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-64(4), TIP
No. R-509 GA and GB, State Project Nos. 8.T290502 and
6.291008, ER 93-7789
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of November 23, 1992, and the accompanying archaeological survey
report.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion
D:
31 ED307
This site is not eligible due to its disturbed condition and the sparsity of cultural material.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
IJ Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street -
L4
H Z • y'. • Z .? j t
17. Z' I 1 1 w
i, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-1
D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 2, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue.
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 64 proposed interchange at SR 1225,
Edgecombe County, R-509GB
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director
On October 20, 1993, Historic Preservation Office staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation representatives to discuss the above project. We
reviewed the photographs of the one structure--a store--over fifty years of age in
the area of potential effect and believe this structure is not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. Thus, no historic properties are located in the area of
potential effect for the project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
lD av1 Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: A. F. Vick
Church

Preservation Officer
109 Fast lows Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A 2