19950928 Ver 1_Complete File_19950901

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AT.R?FA •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
p H N F?
A, Preston Howard, Jr„ P,E„ Director
April 2, 1996
Nash County
DEM Project # 95928
TIP # U-2111
State Project No. 9.8043124
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Frank Vick
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in a total of 0.86 acres of wetlands or waters (0.14 acres
permanently) for the purpose of improving NC 43/48 from US 64 Bypass to US 301 Business, as you described
in your application dated 28 August 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 2732 and 2727. These certifications allow you to use
Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and 33 when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers. This Certification
replaces one issued to DOT on 6 November 1995.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listedin the attached certification. Weep holes shall not be installed in the
new bridge in accordance with the draft "Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Catch
Basins" being developed by DEM and DOT. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project.
If, you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicat:ory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Si rely,
E.
Attachment R.ton I r.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Gordon Cashin; NC DOT
95928.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paler
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
142
Tj.` w\

'pu FROM. " REF. NO. OR RO M, BLDG.
1\?
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BL G.
ACTION
?; NOTE AND FILE El 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
E] TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: - `?
oa
oJ
RECEIVE[
MAR 2 2 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES V -
Cif, r,nu - ? /

r
RECEIVED
1 n
•@?• MAR 2 2 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETf JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 20, 1996
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Nash County - Improvements to NC 43/48 from US 64 Bypass to US 301
Business; T.I.P. No. U-2111; State Project No. 9.8043124; DEM
Project #95928; DOA Action ID. 199301974
The North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted a permit -
application for the referenced project on August 28, 1995. A minor change in
the proposed construction methodology has since been made. The original
temporary causeway design involved placement of a single rip-rap work pad
during construction of the south end of the new bridge. This work pad will
require a total of 0.68 acres of temporary fill in open water and wetlands.
The new design includes an additional work pad on the north end of the new
bridge. The footprint of this structure will fall within an additional 0.04
acre of wetlands and open water, for a project total of 0.72 acre of
temporary fill in jurisdictional areas. The majority of the northern work
pad will be placed in uplands. All other bridge and road dimensions remain
unchanged. This minor revision will not alter the permanent 0.14 acre
wetland fill area required for construction. Revised permit drawings are
attached.
NCDOT maintains its commitment made in the previous application to
restore the temporary impact area to its original contour and surface
texture. Prior to construction, reference elevations will be taken in both
temporary fill areas before the causeways are added. Following construction,
all causeway material will be removed.. The work pads may be in place for up

March 20, 1996
Page 2 '
to eighteen months. The temporary impact areas are expected to recover
naturally, since the topsoil and seed source will not be removed. NCDOT does
not propose any additional plantings in either area.
Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If you have
any questions, please contact Cyndi Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
attachment
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Archie Hankins, P. E, Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
APPLICATION.FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
I33 CFR 3251 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
se aching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
: --nments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information0perations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1203, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Discfosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
_ 1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLET
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLIGAN71______
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE tan agent is not required)
Planninq & Environmental Branch H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence ---
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this.application and
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) State Project No. 9.8043124 (U-2111) NC 43/48 (Falls Road)
and one-wav pair from US 64 Bvpass to US 301 Business. New bridqe over the Tar River.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN tit apprcable! 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS tit appdcabiel
Tar River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Rockv Mount
Nash NC
COUNTY STATE
' 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,. IF KNOWN, iseeinsrructionsi
Project is Just south of US 64 and NC 43/48 interchange.
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Exit US 64 East at NC 43/48 (Falls Road). Proposed northbound lanes are along existinq
Falls Road. Proposed southbound lanes invollle extension of Peachtree Street and
crossinq the Tar River at new location.
CEZ
ENG FORM 4345. Feb 94 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent:
18. 'Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all leatures)
Project requires a new 12-span bridqe across the Tar River (Length = 6291; width = 331).
A temporary rip rap causeway and work pads will be necessary to provide construction
access for the bridge.
19. Project Purpose !Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Purpose is to provide a one-way pair of streets between US 64 and Franklin/Church Streets.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Work causeway/pads will require•placement of temporary fill in wetlands. Southern bridqe
end bent and roadway approach requires placement of permanent fill in wetlands.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Permanent earth and rip rap fill below ordinary hiqh water = 370 c.y. Temporary rip rap
fill below ordinary hiqh water = 3890 c.v.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled isee;nstructions)
Permanent fill in wetlands = 0.14 acre (338 c.y.)
Temporary fill in wetlands = 0.7?,acre-(3890 c.v.)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attachment.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
U.S.GP0:1994.520.478182018
j 25871 ?,,,, -
R E N < , + Lasker anU
1 L,bena A a !ez Cope d 7
1 43 b . / Anbe t8 ® Hal+lai !I oodlan mo ,F° 0 45
O,i,,.,k Geor¢e,? /H E ` ) T/ F
Cfeet, ! 3+ R 5 + it 35 / S AF Harrells 11
-ton t .. M,- aini Joh a * hoskle 561
A+co(a Sr «?°.1 ElhnkleyvHle 561 'j 9 ? 6 !
Elryamown 561 / J 2 10
Inez + /561 ! ai S 3 5 ! Tillery ! i R+ch SOUare _ 5 ? I ! _ _ - 8 •', T
Heathswile
Essen ?® 13
Iz5 S / - - -•' Powellsville •-p
rt 6 Hollister 5 7 'i ial 561 S 'S Aulander
1 Coleran 3 3Z
H A I X NcvA 42 C0:
g Rox el !p
Wooo ro woos 4 5 Jf, 5 Spring Hill 1 7 42 ' Connantsa li3 °CHOW,
uva `5 '?-? ! ut i;SP Kelford 1-;4.. G{1
161 ! / Glenv,ew Enfield In ?S Burden ti 6 R kI
a r
/ 7 Aventon alha If a
Scotland Neck Mount Gould
1 i ,?, 1_ *• Le lon- A b i `Hancoc 9 4$ 44 ille p C ,Askewv,lle Ashland
13 .l ak elS 13 125 g ra
SE/ CaslaUa 7 3 5 ? Wh Rosneath: P my
Gold Rock 4 a B A ?E R T I Edenho
lushce / \l\ ` Drew Midway .
Bal!I!^_o,0 43- 'ii -Cahaba?
i
58 Red Oak 1 5'? Ell S Law,ence 6 HODeooa De it
`Sal / 0 Oortch.i: ?? 5 115 W* \ MNrY .- -1_
N----A- -S, i Rocky Mount 5-__..
Leggett
Soeed Oak Giy !f Qwtsna •` ? ;2
SprIn¢ Momeye i F 1 S 5 + sn,ra5d Grabtown Maci,
Hooe ! +. 42 311 "on 3
1
St A. ! ! v 3P r CSa y y6dA , . 1 r i U J? 1! + Woodard +
l?? + , 0 7 ,. T `- ea" !0 Ha Sell est_o
Pnncen He Gold Pomt *?, /^lj/ 3 *L
:A 3 ice/ Tarboro 41 a . ?1 I+g .o
5 , ha sDur ..5?. 1 II 3 Everet Willjams lon raen Plymout
43 2 al 3 ?t ?! o J/
S 5 Slanhooe amesvdl + 5 WA
Coneto tsa Robersonville ?=
SdI Cw",., ? I
265 i ?:vom / S / Elm City (jJU Pineloos armele
' wn 2 1 42 • 5 Bethel ! 1 M A R T cs N r 5 gg
i ?! -aQ ' S$ 8 C eek 3` 5 2 \ g Bear Grass 16 Hut son/ 32 tS
Will anks IN i t _ y,
ai e. a. f _ I 39
26- Maccles held' Cn so / 1 111
i g Rock AlT )I( ,,r ?iStokes i 18
xkhOr rdge Sl. V W11 n /Falktan r +I _Pike RoaC
IsSroa?s !- ?t 1 l/ i A l 1
. e, /2 g I M' S S O 3 A fountain Bruce 3 'i ouse`
'g \ 3 u5m o} Santoa 8 b' ?joaay lit 43 yn 9Pactolus 1 010 Ford ct""
i S 8 z v A
t 2 130. t.. C 9 lackCree 9 6 3 2 7 S (j lS et'Zi). rn T?'pt( y P+neEOw
'? S 6d l.L. EII(1? •} ?.r,•',.p g I ?
g?t? Stantons Dur NS 12! ?~?' ell Art! * I ?S Acre Terra
Q? 222 ; A! •., W,alst nburg rarmyl _.'_5,,1)8 ?4 impso, -r Washington , 32 Celli
Z(
5 .p! F 6 ^\, - •`^•?; - Grrr island.F '"r`••
5 Fremont + 9 33 Yeatesviue
t / J // Eureka ;p i :5s I_; 1`!Ji P 1 I T T 6 , Y°"y ^ 3 9 o s 99
Pinkney ll/! n: I SS 1= Wmtervdle y R Sr
Lgzie- ! II Chobowmit
B'K + 2` 3 Black Jack
}evel fit oo. ?C.,.. f
/ ..? 92 p „h. 1
gwJle` l C 1 F C? Nountree G

11, a Rocky Mount e
1AU tT Municipal h
. \` Airport
.7
!L2
salE Of csR RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
IS NASH-FOGECOMe COUNrY W1e

r 2a0 -FU 1.071
i
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH CO. 9.8043124 (U-2111)
ROCKY MOUNT NC 43-48 (FALLS
RD.) ONE WAY PAIR FROM US
64 BYPASS TO US 301 BUS.
SHEET I OF 7 SEPT. 94
9.1 VISED 3-l44--SE,
i POI .9•.
Y
W o
-Q
``? J= Ala
yW
N 3 $ ?` '
V U( w
I?
2
O
le ? c
72 Z5
3i
Q-
Z s
?? 1T
V1 y 9 ?
a o?
72
F-7.,
N' ?W
d
?n s
.. 0 `Y
w I-
o
Z -
? •su
tL
o w
v. ?
/
61
9

T?

cn C? ? N ?
?
? 9 o c0?a M

74 ,- . -LL ?.
r ?
N Z ? ?zM I ?

U ® E--
^^0° V

W

W
F

?" Cx7

0
z
N 2 4 3
a
??
z

LL- ?- o

cL

? L
^
_ ? I p
": r 4
I
aI 1 h
_ ` 1 oa _ r
? y4 ?)
z b
- cA 4 m i
?_ u 1
1 'at
J '
- 1 c?•
i
too '• I o °' ?'
'fa 1L O ? E?• I ??;; a ?
!•- 4 ?
zx
I ? '? k a
• - j ? ? c ' ?pi ? H
_ ? ` W \ II' ? ? Z
O ?
4 !
C ? Z
R - o -j m ? too ;
0 W
p4
WV O' h J
- °dJo 2 p5• ? .
I by. 6? ?
? t• i
I ? er =? ,>= W
•• I 8a 4?
0
W I ??
I W
I toz `'
,/
V
z

9 3 F' 7Z) v.9 t

®
?
00
LL_
1U
M M
v j Z H V o V? ! I L1L

z ?

?J V
O
?
- M ?

Lo

4

O aL ?' J
O ? v

J
3
z ?
dl w

LL- V ?.
?l
?. W p[ a
Z Q = O

O
5?
? ?

}Q
L
n
I ?

U
r ?
x
fw
?J
`may`
W
Q

J
fQ
r
L
0
v
J
E
72
0
_r
I
a
2
v
a
H
t.)4
i-
U
b
I LL)
.Q

z bi 1? 1
o

I ? 2

i $

I

Z

N N 0
r• 8

2I^
<t
n.
f
V

u

J s $
`? ,? CO
A
LL J

.3
i

4
3 ?
$ 8 ..
b
9
M &?
??P c
? E
a -
m
W
r'd4
?, l"dul

s
? a

Q
v' H /
G s em

CID
i m
'

N Q
C-
L -

O? 1 µ ii
V ?O

?-
a?
?I
\ UJ
C
V "
V
?W
u
9m '?
Q
W b ? O
b W
O? N ??n yy
/
mm 0; C , /
WSW
CN

Q
z x g m z ?

.. o o
r oo ca te?
d- U- m c. a
W
O
`y 9 d cr

z - o
w
a >
;z U vov)
2) OL.
U :.,
z
?
I
G
t
U

V it
F
d Q V
W

O
ca

3
C7

D Q ,.
Z -Z ~
_j z
Q

H w
Z<Q- °

ti J? Q
z
t
0

w l
Z
Z
U
c
- al
0.
0,0
v
$ I L6 9 , ? I
Go W
-Z cy)
\fl
?I?W .? h ?N r, U v O
i '? E? m ? H L.w W
` W r ob• 1 ey h?
Ems'
a `• 1 ' ' ,
N \1J K ?.
zp W I `r V
i
% I E?' o, h a i V O
w 't E?' a i
d O W
EE• I y ? s ¢ l1?
8 a? z? ?3
Q L N by t` ? ?T ? ?--
1
'
4 a * II P _
a LLI W n
E ,
0
{ . -.) N CL
CO
_ 1 E`, yot ? J
E`•Da o 4 a J . .
N 1 ? v
4 a -? ? J
i ?, wI d
2
I Z oL ?'
? o o F-
I ti x 4? ?
i8 CZ 72

J ?

J ?

O

?i
l1. D
'Z
,
-
'
Q
3
dr ? O
Z J

_l

4` Z /1

QCi

-2
j OZ

?
O LAI
--
,
> \
3 , ?
v N
i

N

9
Fb
E-'

r
t?
9
Ey
z
?D
U M
mot'
0
?z
u
D ?
U
z
d
U
C.°
J " i
o
LV t
M
Z o a ?) Q
?m u
(-o >
v ?N
v
PROPERTY 0"W iER
-TAME AND ADDRESS
PARCEL NO. DWNER,S \ AtiiE ADDRESS
1 Rocky Mount Mills P.O. Box 1240
Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1240
2EVKF_D -2?-14--
.a,
•?Gira?.am•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 20, 1996
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GAP RETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nash County - Improvements to NC 43/48 from US 64 Bypass to US 301
Business; T.I.P. No. U-2111; State Project No. 9.8043124; DEM
Project #95928; DOA Action ID. 199301974
The North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted a permit -
application for the referenced project on August 28, 1995. A minor change in
the proposed construction methodology has since been made. The original
temporary causeway design involved placement of a single rip-rap work pad
during construction of the south end of the new bridge. This work pad will
require a total of 0.68 acres of temporary fill in open water and wetlands.
The new design includes an additional work pad on the north end of the new
bridge. The footprint of this structure will fall within an additional 0.04
acre of wetlands and open water, for a project total of 0.72 acre of
temporary fill in jurisdictional areas. The majority of the northern work
pad will be placed in uplands. All other bridge and road dimensions remain
unchanged. This minor revision will not alter the permanent 0.14 acre
wetland fill area required for construction. Revised permit drawings are
attached.
NCDOT maintains its commitment made in the previous application to
restore the temporary impact area to its original contour and surface
texture. Prior to construction, reference elevations will be taken in both
temporary fill areas before the causeways are added. Following construction,
all causeway material will be removed. The work pads may be in place for up

s
March 20, 1996
Page 2
to eighteen months. The temporary impact areas are expected to recover
naturally, since the topsoil and seed source will not be removed. NCDOT does
not propose any additional plantings in either area.
Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If you have
any questions, please contact Cyndi Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
Sincerely,

H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
attachment
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DEM, W ater Quality Section
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E. , Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Archie Hankins, P. E, Hydraulics -
Mr. John Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E. , Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
f33 CFR 3251 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
sec(ching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
..mrnents regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
D53partment of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE_ 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE ton agent is not requiredi
Planninq & Environmental Branch H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleiqh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W /AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
1 1 . STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this.application and
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. '
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) State Project No. 9.8043124 (U-2111) NC 43/48 (Falls Road)
and one-wav pair from US 64 Bvoass to US 301 Business. New bridqe over the Tar River.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN afappiicable)
Tar River
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Rocky Mount
Nash NC
COUNTY STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS Inapplicable/
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,. IF KNOWN, isee instructional
Project is Just south of US 64 and NC 43/48 interchange.
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Exit US 64 East at NC 43/48 (Falls Road). Proposed northbound lanes are alonq existinq
Falls Road. Proposed southbound lanes involk* extension of Peachtree Street and
crossinq the Tar River at new location.
CECW-
ENG FORM 4345. Feb 94 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent:
i B. 'Nature of Activity (Description of project, inaude am features)
Project requires a new 12-span bridqe across the Tar River (Length = 629; width = 331).
A temporary rip rap causeway and work pads will be necessary to provide construction
access for the bridqe.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Purpose is to provide a one-way pair of streets between US 64 and Franklin/Church Streets.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Work causeway/pads will require-placement of temporary fill in wetlands. Southern bridqe
end bent and roadway approach requires placement of permanent fill in wetlands.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Permanent earth and rip rap fill below ordinary high water = 370 c.y. Temporary rip rap
fill below ordinary hiqh water = 3890 c.y.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled tseeinsrrucrions)
Permanent fill in wetlands = 0.14 acre (338 c.y.)
Temporary fill in wetlands = 0,7?,acre-(3890 c.y.)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attachment.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ' DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
"Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
U.S.GPO:1994.520.478!82018
t? R R E N rr 4+ + Lasker ] 25E? enola+?t r/Cotlee s
2 43 a. Ache 40 Halit Rpj1.,A'. George /H 5 E s ] T/, F Q 45
Creek m r + 5 + yr 3S Harrells ll - i
-,on F ..r«.,.? tt ? ? amt Jon e7 ?cAhoskie SEI
' Arcola Bnnkleyvdle 56i p 9 ? 6
561 1 2 Id E
Inez 4 J Brya to...
561 + • + ' RicA SOUare 5 1 4
Essex Heatlisvrlle Tillery i _ _ _ 2 - _ _ _ _- - :•?+l] P T
2Holbster 5 1 .1 12k S yEi Sbi 5 JOE 5 Aulander owelisnColeram 3p 'Z
it s -
H A L I r' F X NCYA
( dz y
Ringwood / RoxoDeI iv ??l
4 5 Spring Hill t -Connantsa Ju CH ix,
Crud Wood `6 + 6 Keiford 4Z I
Yj e I
f / Glenviewaat Enfield Id Sp Burden !I 6 R k oe
pl r f An rN p-
} alhalla
Scotland Neck E M
rento ount Gould ?.?
N 9 44 + ?, 4 Lt. rl en C1. ?ke-ille 2 tHancoc
a d8 ` _ 6 C f AsMand
56 / Castaha 43 S ?Whilakers !J Ilk P Tyra B E ?E^ T I c ?' f y
Ros neathr E B Edenh
Gold Rock i t Orew +
I m O.',3 aL'abort \ 6 HoD ood ?6e " ..ahaba Midway z .
Red Oak
?lus / 513 J 5 ?* 5 ?6 :, Lawrence` 07 R * ? I-'' Meu !/?`_
Shc ace w,gngc, ! --
oatcnezr gI2s +
s` N,q_ a er Rocky Mount L s it ----Hill 6
/ 1-S i. CRRe 6 4..12 4
Mome 9 Speed OakCrty Qwtsna 45
G(ablodn % .2 J Mack
Spring Ye ; 1 ?? 1 5 h 112 -h
?nrr
2 .? 5 l gbe d .n
Hdpe _ . _ , ...F._L., - EA, C, B E
4tiasnv,ue? r ,i « \ 4 42 amliton 3 l'3o'e
lNA . +" ya./6dA `' J + 3? tt r Woodard +
?, v CT CSa c spar .' 3 10 44 Ha sell o ^ WesiG
4 > tE. .! 3 ' v Pnntevdlp ' 'ii r \?:
23 3 +Tar6oro jj 4z E Gold ttS. i49 O 1 r
6 + 1.I,? / ba sour dT 1?52 l ? I' I_•. J EveretSs /bWil11art1510n rden rout
s Stanhope - G 33 P ^ 1]4 J 1 ?? 1 amesvdi :)p
*
6 vi 64 5 W A
b 1 S Coneto Tsx Robersonyille ?- /
sat c ,,, Ja - -?.
D°a°• 6 1 ` O arm It
a Z5t ' 6w,.°m ©? Elm Gtr j; wn Pmetops 2 t 42 • s 8etnd 1 M A RI T cs N r 5 99
4 s 589 J? C e e k 31 6 2 3?? _ E Bear Grass 16 - Hmson/ 2 /S
are 4 ?+ J -?wH anks lz+ ° mow ] l3 _ 3C 32
2 Macclesfield Cnsp / f e / ` ?"' ul I 6 y
g Rock Ali Ns `, - + ` err J?stokes 16 _ .
ickhor(t rdee n ?Falkl3n r IJ l/y l ( ` ? ^\ / • 15 Pike Roa •'
4SSSroaa5 4. . ?. y !1 12 2 `i
i
J2 .6 I 5 Q ) Vountain Bruce 3 ?l ouse ? ?
J icama•' S Sarato a 6 c Toddy !tl 43 `1 9Pa1tolu; 1 Old For
E \t X01 t5i'' GSy l \\ 5 2 5 9 OrYfpr ? Pmetow c Nw
2 1 • 48lack Creep 5 9 Nb / a 264 S r I' 'TILL t11 t+ \ 2f.••' b 1 S Terra
yn.
:.. ?2 - °s ,,• p Stantonsbur 12!'. ">_y.' ell it tf u? * I Acre
en <'S!ij
i Waist burg Farmvl rrpson H '; W....aa?s,hington+ o. 32 Cera
222 s R 6 + Gr, eslan0 v.yv 9 33 Ytatesrdle
l Fremont " ]
nm s Eureka iE,i ?iA'P I T s ' u n o s
i b
Pinkney 1l14 b'«: Il I U:neT' t n Cnocowmi y
Wmternfie ?,? R $if
ilevel ql E.• R" i ;(1 2 r 3 Black lack ..?°.r<C.q..
eYrlle` r C R . > J .F ountree / (/ \. 92 a„h•
ii'i': •:hy.... ? ? '
i y + '•'''• J? is /
4LQr ?'T<6a.' L o .rs4! y7i TO t£GGET1?
1512 -Or- .1i .1.1
.30 43
f21 ? !.T? 4a , i
1541 a Rocky Mount
h` .62 fAU ?r MuniciPdJ ,j<FN173aSaE Of CS.i
\ AifPOrt IS NASN _ EOGECOMEE COUNTY UNE AO RIGHT Or WAY
\?d
71
S

I
L[I
?lp±:1147
4s
-71
43 N.C. DEPT. OF,TRANSPORTATION
M1
48
b
O
s. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
3 = X_
Pa 4a p HASH CO. 9.8043127 (U-2111)
f6
as ?. Tn fti r
ROCKY MOUNT NC 43-48 (FALLS
r' RD.) ONE WAY PAIR FROM US
' 64 BYPASS TO US 301 BUS.
•? II
SHEET ( OF _ SEPT. 97
?.. fAU I
RE\/(5Ep 3-14-yb

04r
1 h G ---Q
+W
?i ?N c!8
?cl N
IN d -_
m
E
? ? LL1
v W
Z ;a
`- Z J 8
1 v
Q Q=.
N?
i. ra
L I g?
?.
w WC'
4
.a ?
LU I
0 i
LU
0
Z
!'dL

z .?

I

a ? ?
c
n C7 ,,
?, N 7 ?
x V M -z

,. N +LL
® z "• I
® .
?
z H MAO
M
z
?
I
W > U j
v oN (\
U ® w

L41

v__ - x
w

W
L~

?'- Cx7

Z x
C
?= 4
s CIS z

?o
N NQ o
z
?
J -
<

u- z

72 C/
W
? L
^^
?L
F }_
}
a3
1
?n
?o
11 ?i

Q

ii
tV'
9 3 H ? v? ?
V
- Z &-:) -
oa U Z L7 M
w ;Pa
`
? M
O
` t "( G.V j ? H V o V? 11 l1L
oe ?I C V :Z,5 ^
m
• 1 ?o.
U3
L i
Q 3 w LA--A -? c -
}
_ 0.-z QI ,ao` 1 a ear ? _ V
i Y i
(- _ '_vI
m a n M
i
00
_? z 3
- ? M W m I '
? aw m I t,o: - ? ? ?
J tg.
p i
{ nlw W H
w
y S NW V ' O? i LLJ
i LL Q Q.
U)
i5_ ? 19 ?' p O
Y Z Q '? f"
o? I uuyluauo?uumDi?u Imo ua loi ul u f alunN ? ? 77
s

z
u
f"
11?I
CyW
Vi
a
io
F•'
Z
0
V
J
O
0
l uU
t-
a
d
--u
Q
Ilu
H
LLY
r
^U
c
I Luj
f-
.o

11 ? 2

y g - W

z
N
0
i ?
?- Na
t4

• o ,
d p
. o
`4l

3
V
3 $
4 ? v

W
?.. P 4
Y
4
0

0
? s

3 w

n
\
y? Co
m

ti I.J
a -

a v? \
SW
? I

?
w

a

4 ?
/ a
O

a
N
SS
S?
z
.?

c- A ?-
z x ®M Z A
F o o
oo 0(3 cL?
d- m cz. o
W
d ?2m o
w ? U vo\A QL
U ?
z ? ? I
O

Q <C V
W
l!1
?
O p `n
L4
3
x

Z z ?-' x
17-
Q
?3 z
0
z L'
Z 0-

J
ti q
?4
z
o

Z
w l
L)C
Z

? o
c c:a

i
w
1 - z ?- o v?
z C7 cC?
w ? x ? nr, z O ??
s - I p69 : ? ? I ?n
w ? L'-
- W xe $?N? t e` a? ? ? Q 6' z O V?
.ten ? 8? D ? ?77• °' }s
>? g q
S? 'I- i ? r? 2 t +viq
W N V O6' I 9? 'b
a I ?q}
a r q 1 Imo/ - ? -
• W ; i
W I t o I ? U
I? 1 Dyy ^ J
1 E?' o f y q , V Q .
x ?
? E? t 4 z VJ
_ ? I e,! m , I - M fJ
I?_ ?3 ? ? Eo ?; cn c?
- Y O w I ? ? ? LPL
O? yy 9 ? 0 V1 u "_ l.T.
WO I ?I W
Q L ? I ?: PT
I sy t®? -f
L. i
Q. 0. W
li - ,? w
o<C co 4?. J = W I ?? ? 72 ? u
' o I o
a t ?I ? • - o c,., V
0
-? d N cl
t x
q G ?+ J
Y 1 v) ? } d
` ; m? t z n
i W I ?q' ?1
i Q
_ 1 got r Z 3
4 O z
? 1
'I>-
J
J, ?-
?

Q)

J
J }
?
?
LL ? ?

?` J

cz' V

Qo
\33
J
J
o

aL 77-
w cL
-
3 O

I
o;

z ?

C4

Q -Z)
? ?)
E
- 9 o c4 a°C ?
m O

CT. ?-?- CT'
O ti
o
? cn Z ? ?-- z ? kL1
Q ; GUa aN

Cl)
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
PARCEL NO. OWNER'S N tiLE ADDRESS
1 Rocky Mount Mills P.O. Box 1240
Rocky Mount, NC 27802-1240
TR?,};JT r::-r3 --'off;
07 j.-

kC^N:-'' it NT NC, C43-48 (" 7 n
54 BYF;•.SS '20 US )rij JU,..
fZEVKF-P -?-14-114-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
XT -
.0 00ft
ID F:
November 6, 1995
Nash County
DEM Project # 95928
TIP # U-2111
State Project No. 9.8043124
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Frank Vick
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh N.C. 27611 FILE COPY
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.82 acres of wetlands or waters (0.14 acres permanently)
for the purpose of improving NC 43/48 from US 64 Bypass to US 301 Business, as you described in your
application dated 28 August 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Numbers 2732 and 2727. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide
Permit Numbers 14 and 33 when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.. For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. Weep holes shall not be installed in the
new bridge in accordance with the draft "Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous Spill Catch
Basins" being developed by DEM and DOT. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
al-I
eston Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Stephanie Briggs 95928.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 28, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
-P. 0: Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
g59aR
IZ. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
SEP 01 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
,
SUBJECT: Nash County - Improvements to NC 43/48 from US 64 Bypass to US 301
Business; T.I.P. No. U-2111; State Project No. 9.8043124
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
NC 43/48 in Rocky Mount by providing four travel lanes from the US 64 Bypass
to US 301 Business. Currently, NC 43/48 consists of a two-way road (Falls
Road) from the US 64 Bypass to US 301 Business (Franklin Street). Falls Road
provides one southbound and one northbound travel lane. A two-way bridge
carries Falls Road across the Tar River just south of the US 64/Falls Road
interchange. A residential road (Peachtree Street) parallels Falls Road from
US 301 Business to a dead end at Spring Street. NCDOT proposes to construct
a new connector extending Peachtree Street from Spring Street to the US
64/Falls Road Interchange. NC 43/48 will then be reconfigured to operate as
one-way paired streets. Falls Road will be a two-lane one-way northbound
roadway and Peachtree Street will be a two-lane one-way southbound roadway.
Both roads will intersect Franklin Street to the south and merge at the US 64
Bypass to the north. The 0.5 mile Peachtree Street extension will cross the
Tar River, requiring a new bridge just west of the existing Falls Road
bridge. Following construction of the new bridge and connector, the existing
Falls Road bridge will be converted to carry one-way northbound traffic. No
improvements will be required for the existing bridge.
The new bridge will provide two southbound travel lanes and a sidewalk.
It will be 664 feet long and provide a clear deck width of 40 feet. The
bridge will provide 9 feet of clearance above ordinary high water.
The attached permit drawings illustrate wetland impacts to be associated
with the new bridge. A palustrine swamp forest system lies within the
footprint of the southern bridge touchdown. Construction of the bridge will
require 0.14 acre of permanent fill in this system, and no permanent fill in
Waters of the United States,. Please note that the new bridge, as proposed in

August 28, 1995
• Page 2
the State Environmental Assessment, would have been 430 feet long and
required additional fill in wetlands. The bridge has been extended over 230
feet beyond the originally suggested length to increase hydraulic capacity
and reduce fill in wetlands. It is anticipated that the permanent wetland
impacts associated with this project may be authorized under Nationwide
Permit #14 for Minor Road Crossings, 33 CFR 330.5(3).
The new bridge cannot be constructed without the placement of a
temporary causeway in the wetland area to be bridged. Placement of a
temporary rip-rap causeway in 0.68 acre of wetlands and open water will be
required to provide construction access up to the Tar River. The causeway
will include areas within the footprint and adjacent to the new bridge. The
portion of the bridge spanning the Tar River will be constructed from barges.
Following construction, all rip-rap material in the wetlands will be removed,
and the area will be restored to its original contour. Overhead, profile and
cross-section drawings of the causeway are attached. It is anticipated that
this temporary fill in wetlands may be authorized under Nationwide Permit No.
33 for Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering. -
This project is discussed in a State Environmental Assessment approved
March 22, 1993. A State FONSI was approved July 8, 1994. The documents were
prepared in coordination with the appropriate federal and state environmental
review agencies. Copies of the EA are available upon request.
During the review process, several agencies expressed concern regarding
potential impacts to the Tar River Spiny Mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) . A
survey for this endangered species was conducted and it was determined that
no impacts to this species are expected to result from this project. Details
of this study are contained in the EA.
Application is hereby made for Department of the Army permit
authorization as required for such activities. By copy of this letter, we
also request 401 Water Quality Certification by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact Cyndi Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
Sincer y,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, DOA, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Archie Hankins, P. E, Hydraulics
Mr. John Parker, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. John Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites) s
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site,-including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special hquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected, special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time. periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do riot Ft o?,-.f shese criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES. ;
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may.
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beauforc, NC 28516
Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone] ,
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps. .
J
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit ft NWP 14 and NWP 33
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
'Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name:
North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
N. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County:
Nearest Town or City: Rocky Mount
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Business (Falls Road and Peachtree Street)
6. Name of Closest StreanvRiver:
7. River Basin:
Tar
Tar River
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS 11? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO '[X]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
0.14 ac (Permanent) and 0.68 ac (Temporary)
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.14 ac (permanent) & 0.68 (temporary)
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0.14 ac (p srm&e,-? L) A 0.68 (temporary)
Nash
NC 43/48 from U3 64 Bypass to US 301
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Construction of new connector extending
Peachtree St. frm Spring St. to US 64/Falls Rd. interchange and construction of bridge over the Tar River on
Peachtree St. Falls Rd. will be northbound and Peachtree St. will be southbound NC 43/48.
13. Purpose of proposed work: To improve public transportation.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
)
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X ] NO[
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) .regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which maybe affected by the proposed project? Have yob done, so? WS[X] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted.by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What island use of surrounding property? Rural/Urban
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A/1
Owner's Signature ate
l? R R E N d 1 ' s v? .., + Las er ) 253?i enola /6l Coheld
% Liberia 6 11 oodlan Unio t - - iiS 7 j
? 43 8. Aul'e Halifax ? k )
48 nk Ceorge H E T F F 0 45
•InCreek Roan .,.do<Mre / 9 5 1 `y? 35 ) s aint Joh p *Ahoskie 561 Harrells 'Itr'
5 Arcola 5?"°" I Bnnkleyvdl? 561 ) 9 Brya town 561 J 6 1 J 2 10 3 ,y
Inez r .,? / 1 Rrth Square, 5 1 1 / 13
r 56l 1 HeathSsvrile Y? Tillery 1 1
Essen
rt Hollister ] ^i /ai 56i 5 S Aulandu Powellsvifle
6 ? H A ?. i 6 F )( •? Ncv? ) 42 Coleram o; 31
Ringwood ? Rozobe, ) i3 10 pr'
d 5 $pnn Hill Connantsa 1
ern wood : , ul 6 E g 2 r ? Kel tore 42 1 '`CH W
ibl 1 / ` I Glenview nfield Id S 5 Burden II 6 R ky ocn
r Aventon J 17 E ' a halls f
1 \/? 6 . O Scotland Neck 3i
Mount Gould
N 9 1 1 ?_ * Le ton- 6 I b 2 \Ha cock
414, dle C`!r 0 t.ASkewvdle
/3 d8 , - Ashland
9
13 16.
56 Castaha s wnrtakers Is P mY.ra B E R T 4 h)
Gold Rock 3 -/y Rosdnealhr $ 6
Edenh
Just,ce.) QLj / d 5 Drew Midway •,,..,,,eL /
?, Battlebao 44 \ 6 Nobgood R??? ll Cahabs 5 I I7 2. 1
58 RedOak 3 L
+t 6 30l 5 awrence 1
Sal ) _ 10 2 CorI he 91 5 25 +w;"e.or Mcrry r: :
. _ _ _ 1 O Hill 1
N- Rocky Mount. -S-T --- ( , ?
1 42 / I 6 `?7 j
1
•i LeYYett 6 2 _/ I 1 1 << f
? 9 II SDeedOa5Crty Quitsna R, 45 ,ti%cl?
Spring MomeYe ; 1 ^ S ? fr. Branch Grabtov'n ? x'
Hobe N ? B E 5 1 Borr!elield i ' °rit!?1Mick
NA / asrrvdte 7 3 • 6dA / 42 amilton 3 - V C(Y/J 1
1 3 + 7 csx Hearts \ 3: , 44 )N t/ Woodard /
t?-\ 6 92 \ ,? fi 6, ease I Hs sell 9 esto
Il ) N
1 1® 8 ? ? Princeville 111 ) 15 aft ? ,_ 32
13 ; 6 + l arboro 42 5 Gold Point p - N9 O 3 5+
6 3 *\? ha sbur 43 258 7 v Ii I J Everelts lllam5ton rden PlymouE
5 6 Stanhope / 3 ?. 17i O 7 64 i amesvill I5 * WA:
6 Sat cw..r.> 0 ? 6 o Coneto tsz 6/ O Robersonville ? 5
°?•;? y Prnetops T N
264 , M ?,5 ? Elm City J wn 1 1 142 S ? Bethel arme\ M A R cs ? S 99 i
+ m•6®' Sea / C eek 3` 6 2 3 8 Bear Grass I Hinson 2 45 %
are * anks , IN ). 13 30 , 9 16 i
Sr nil m 16r Mac ieslr aid 3 Crisp e 7 a a 12 17i r 9 y,
i g Rock AU 5' Ns ,1 + ti . Stokes ti IB - - - - - -!
rckhor rdge 6 2 T II n ' /Falklan 11 k 15
?s 2 ? 2 b % 7 ( \ / • Pike Road
s roa /
42 6 S S 0 3 2 a r ?' Fountain Bruce 3 Ouse 30
1 7 us n!a'' 1 Sarato a 6 6 Toddy 125 43 9Pactolus 1 Old Ford I' C NA
/ 5f• p, 1 6 i g 5
* 264 6 °Plnetow
6 1 2 t 30l loeor< Mack Cree 9 6 l 1? 1 264 C.
orM+ C? Stantonsbur
1D 2 ' V
/53 5 k1. Fremont 6 I
PinkneY 111/ Arrxk EureM
1 I
? a,r6p1 < ,
?Sgvll?ev r
lszt ? ??t?
1-541

121 1 p ell Art 1 Ilyl + L 10 * . ?S Acre Terra
rarm i mi so.. NS ?? t Washington+ , 32 Cars 7
9 758 I3 53 A P, " I Tr eslandl 36 _ / un v 9 YealesOnue 6 9
0 Q r 1& 3
Lure 73 + Winterviile II CMcowinitY R
F_ 2 Blackjack f - Game a... 92 _?
Y _A afh_ .__+ _
.13' itr tIL! 97 To kEGGER
1512 is
s'•'• ? _ FAd -
• \a xo `
:^sr
n F?J _!•'"_ 'l i`ii''<::._ 'Y/ ,
Rocky Mount
Municipal r" `e
Airport OF csx RAAROAD F.IGKT OF WAY
•: IS HA6H - E)GEL OMBE CotMTY UHk
:•rJ / .•r.f§I

6 ^?e$ 75 T
- N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION"
$ </ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS f

"' °° NASH"CO 9-.8043124,(U-2111
)

ROCKY MOUNT NC 43-48 (FALLS
RD.) ONE WAY PAIR.FROM US !
64 BYPASS TO US 301 BUS. t
SHEET OF SEPT. 94

Np• GOW. r. Gw, ?
• ?* y aM -
<eMr•. G. } p. 1 41
i
wee, i M ? _ \ .. • .
N+
r.ryw a.l
• Nrwehrl -?
GIG r. s<a
i
e 114
1
. 1 ?. SRAM
1 !?
1
4
i ? Lit
• i ? 1 , ' , ROCKY MOUNT G.4.G
i MUNICIPAL
,?, ??``?? AIRPORT ?1er? !cs
a.w Iw
`` lam" ?F • Kawi ? / /?
.... ?`? (/''-'-''?) --- - r•'°°a•G i?aelm ti' S7/ ..auc ,wn
PROJECT LIMIT 43
40
h /W 1 ,
c NEW CONNECTOR l ; KK °` _? •.
ous
30,
•t 1 rwN• q? , 4l •• t w.•..•. r•0 ?.
14
+ ® 9tn? is • • , K? e ---.? - - ,<.
0 i
43
64 It
i ? <? l ?.: tit '?... •+ . .. 1 `'? ? ! j a,•, 1 - p Z -
R
F Y a.?.c
PROJECT LIMIT ? ?,t
! s4
o ? y•
!? „?O Vv
M ? o+4w.. •eG•, rR
s •? >R c.. oo Nro. a. a•.4., Nlll
•^ ! wtwa 1
?, • 1 ?, ,,,.? • 0 =tea.. *•e
f . /'°" .,
?Nw G6•• /?yR?w•??
.L
Ga - + . 44
f w
*-a
c:• ! t ?
it • ? i 1
I
/ a c u 0f ...
*- 64
KGr. 4: t•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
U-2111
FALLS ROAD - PEACHTREE STREET CONNECTOR
AND ONE - WAY PAIR
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
S tine f 1 f3 o-c 9
j 0 miles 0.5
I. i FIG. 1
re
i
i

U rn
r?? H a v
Ea .-? a cn c„ .
E-1 rk?
P; i - X: =D H
a i aoa? W
cn c7 <r ?, .-( w
N Cl) LY. Cl)
H W r'T K( Cf]
o c)a?
?O ) Ga ? z
V U O co F a O0 O
• .. H O? Z
E-1 co ::D
0., H O W Cn
(e O O a
U2
M
le ?l
-. .. ?.
-,
41
s.
Q
tic
O v ) ?, C?ll O
N t:?= l5k, a
/o.5;1o0 6
Q?l
Q
.C ? sue,
OI G -- cn .
i
w x =- W W.
VI V w
a w . + cn
E? ?i M a U3
z i
G a
o 0 z >i G
o E-+ a E-
E-4 -. z 3
s a co
a. 0 W U,
c>x ;: sa: M
C) a.
`J C R, x
a. x .fl cn
I
-Ri
Q. 3 4 7z
w z
kill
I ki.
Lam, _ z n:?• ..-.?. ?.. ? ? L! ?, ?? ?j
0 7'00
? cx 3 a 3
e
UJ
r
y?
z _
o
H r-I *•a •ci'
H rf r7 Cn m

H ?+ rJ rk? Cn
?E: E-4
o a v o oa w
w x w x w
co t7 v rsl T i m
z H v i o
x N M P4 M

H G. M FC
O a U w
[? o z
o z c0 .7.1 o W
o E-' ¢ E- o

• rn CO
0
a H owCO
.
G7 > C z ,d
Ca F-1 U O w
Cz ?? ?? H
• :L x ^ oa w
v Cn_ U w
?. o Q a' x
?. w a ? rn
v 1 7 IS f
/157'00 t e
! J
r.

I
a

V i
a ?
0
0 0
a
z
x w•LLI
Q3 03
t
E
t
t
E
t
t
d
3
CQ
V

V ?

V?
t
2i
?f
v1 Q ?? ? / .
Q

?+1
D ` ti t
QI Q
.
i
/
/
/
Z
01,
A
0
w
0
M
I?s
If)
4
o W
H _q a
H -4 ?-7 rr] ct1
< cn 9 ?
H >I N U]
1:4 ,y 1 ::) H
:C N ix A W
c!] O ":M G., a-{ cri
7 H d' 1 Q
' ? x N M fy.. M
E- r-4 Kt C/3
O d Up04?
r=4 C>
?i O O OD O O
H rn z 3
H rn ::D U1
w H O w cn
w > o .z z ?
A H U O 111
A >4 >4 H
x x--w w
rj
cn U W
• ? o A ?r x
:' a z a Ix .fl ?n

tl?l
a.I a
.i
-r
C/O
°t •? U
O
o ?
8 ? $

Q a
4
a
e
a
aaag
40
a
F13
as
Q _ ®\ S
a?I
H .-1 a w
H . , a Us m
ACC
E 4. >4 C14
° C) a Om w.
c?1 Cx7 v dO' W
U) rt V2
Z H - •71 O
a .-{ -P H
E+ O a, U 04
iw O z
O z co >4 O w
:0 H E-1 O
H a% z ?3:
E-4 rn ::D m
w' 9 O Zz.? `
Q H U O P4
a > >i E-+
x x-,m w
U ? U [T7
z z a04 %-o ?.:
S _
co
- _ O ^ N
z >- 3
? oc
0
z a z ?
a o Ao
as
?. a
f? a a
- ? a
as
as
o ?
0
Q-
4

w

U
a

O U

. HH ?

W
W Y

O
p
SUMMARY
SHEET PERMANENT-
FILL IN
WETLANDS
(acres) TEMPORARY
FILL IN
WETLANDS
(acres) PERMANENT FILL
BELOW'ORDINARY
HIGH WATER (cy). TEMPORARY FILL
BELOW ORDINARY
HIGH WATER (cy)
3 0.14 0.67
4 0.002 0.01
- 7 - - 338.0 3270.0
Total 0.14 0.68 338.0 3270.0
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH.CO. 9.8043124 (U-2111)
ROCKY MOUNT NC 43=48 (FALLS.
RD.) ONE WAY PAIR FROM US
64 BYPASS TO US 301 BUS.
SHEET__9__OF SEPT. 94
PARCEL NO.
1
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS
Rocky Mount Mills P.0: Box 1240
Rocky Mount, NC 2780271240
4

... ; .. _ .. a3-70 i 3 FAX [phone]
SO%recycled/ '10% posi-consumer paper
r
??
c7:
:?
'.'7
??

6:
?? i
?...
;-
c-,
'v
-*;

?r w .a
r, ?- --+

- l
?
+ ?, f

cn
?
O _
:n -? .=.
--? U H
?; U ?..?
? f ? -U
?. ! !, /,
'"r ?:
? o 0
H H U U
=r.: W
ti
,-i ?
V
--?' T ( 7
H ? -*'
c/a :.? 0..
? ? ?

NC 43-48
Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair
From US 301 Bus. (Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass
Rocky Mount, Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043124
T.I.P. Project No. U-2111
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental-Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
•
NC 43-48
Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair
From US 301 Bus. (Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass
Rocky Mount, Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043124
T.I.P. Project No. U-2111
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By
)iies F. Bridg Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
O
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lu in V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
a CARO",
ESSIri:?.49
_ SEAL `
11282 r
?N
?I0 y

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 1
II. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A. Section 106 Coordination 1
B. Wetland Mitigation and Best Management Practices 1
C. 401 Water Quality Certification 2
D. Relocation Assistance 2
III. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment 2
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
1. N.C. Department of Environmental Health, 2
and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Resources
2. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission 3
3. N.C. Department of Environmental Health, 4
Natural Resources-Division Environmental
Management
4. N.C. Department of Cultural Resources 4
5. U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish 5
and Wildlife Service)
C. Public Hearing and Other Comments 6
IV. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Bridge Work Required 9
B. Greenways 9
C. One-Way Pair Configuration g
V. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 10
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
on new location a connector tying Falls Road (NC 43-48) with Peachtree
Street. Falls Road and Peachtree Street will then be revised to operate
as one-way paired streets. The 0.5 mi. new connector will begin just
south of US 64 and extend to the present northern terminus of Peachtree
Street. The connector will cross the Tar River just west of existing
Falls Road. Total length of the Falls Road-Peachtree Street one-way pair
is 1.1 miles (see Figure 3 of the attached Environmental Assessment). The
project is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal
Year 1994 and construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1996.
The estimated cost in the 1995-2001 TIP is $2,860,000. The project is
currently estimated to cost $2,860,000 including $860,000 for right of way
acquisition and .$1,700,000 for construction. The project will be
constructed with state funds. The City of Rocky Mount will participate in
the right of way funding for the project in the amount of $300,000.
II. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A. Section 106 Coordination
NCDOT is currently coordinating agreement with the State Historic
Preservation Officer to conclude a Memorandum of Agreement on how effects
to the historic Rocky Mount Mills will be taken into account. The
Memorandum of Agreement will be completed prior to project construction.
Access to the Stonewall Historic Site will be maintained from both
travel directions along Falls Road.
B. Wetland Mitigation and Best Management Practices
NCDOT will mitigate for the project related loss of jurisdictional
wetland by the restoration and/or enhancement of a similar amount of
wetland. A complete mitigation plan will be developed in coordination
with the Corp of Engineers and other agencies during the 404 permit
process after the final project design is complete.
This project has been designed to keep unavoidable wetlands impacts
to a minimum. NCDOT Best Management Practices will be implemented and
properly maintained throughout project construction.
C. 401 Water Quality Certification
NCDOT will apply for an individual 401 Water Quality Certification
from the Division of Environmental Management.
F-2
D. Relocation Assistance
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federal assisted construction projects unless or until
comparable housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within
a reasonable period of time prior to displacement.
III. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
An Environmental Assessment was completed for this project on
March 22, 1993. Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the
federal, state, and local agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes
those agencies who responded with written comments. Substantive comments
are discussed in the following section and copies of the agencies letters
are included in this document.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Region L Council of Governments
Nash County Commissioners
City of Rocky Mount
and Natural Resources
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
State and Local Agencies
Local review of this project through the North Carolina A-95
Clearinghouse provided the following comments:
N. C. Den
Division
rtment of Environmental.
Comment:
ources
Health, and Natural Resources
"N.C. Department of Transportation should do a detailed
comparison of Alternate 2 (One-way pair, new bridge across the Tar
River) with Alternate 1 (One-way pair, widen existing bridge). "The
benefits of Alternative 2 seems to outweigh the costs . . ..
1 - Eliminate the new Tar River Bridge
2 - Eliminate all impacts to Tar River wetlands
3 - Reduce relocation costs
4 - Reduce the destruction of trees"
F-3
Response:
Alternative 2 would involve extensive impacts to Rocky Mount
Mills, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Also, Alternative 2 would involve demolition of a portion or all of
the warehouse (western building) for the mill. The damages to Rocky
Mount Mills as a result of Alternative 2, were substantially more
than Alternative 1. Alternate 2 would also include a sharp
horizontal curve partially obscured by the mill building. From a
design standpoint Alternate 2 would be less desirable than
Alternate 1.
Comment:
"We also suggest that N.C. DOT look at the alternative of not
increasing the width of Peachtree Street initially."
Response:
Presently, much of Peachtree Street has a deteriorated pavement
condition with broken curb and gutter. Peachtree Street must be
upgraded to handle higher traffic volumes and truck traffic. It is
expected that even upgrading Peachtree Street at its current width
would involve the removal of trees. During preliminary design, NCDOT
explored the possibility of widening Peachtree Street asymmetrically
to the east side, which may involve less tree removal. NCDOT's
present design involves less impacts to trees than originally
anticipated. However, NCDOT will continue to try minimize impacts as
design is finalized.
.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"Anticipated wetland impacts
minimized by extending the span
wetlands adjacent to the river."
and floodway construction may be
of the bridge to avoid fill in
Response:
Lengthening the bridge would reduce wetland impacts and floodway
construction, but would greatly increase the project cost. Spanning
the river from wetland edge to wetland edge (900) feet would add
$1,000,000 to the project cost.
Comment:
"Mitigation of wetlands should be discussed in the FONSI and a
conceptual mitigation plan should be proposed at that time."
F-4
Response.-
Mitigation will be negotiated with the regulatory agencies
during the 404 Permit process. NCDOT will propose replacement habitat
in kind at a suitable location.
N.C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural
Resources-Division of Environmental Mana ement
Comment:
"An individual 401 Water Quality Certification will be required
for this project."
Response--
NCDOT will apply for a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Comment:
DEM should be included in wetland mitigation issues.
Response:
DEM will be included in wetland mitigation issues as a normal
part of the permitting process.
Comment:
"Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed for this
project due to the water supply classification, high truck traffic
and the high accident rate." '
Response:
NCDOT normally constructs hazardous spill detention basins for
projects located within water supply critical areas (112 to 1 mile of
a water supply intake). This project is downstream of the closest
water supply intake and not.within the critical area. For this reason
NCDOT does not recommend the use of hazardous spill detention basins.
However, this will be investigated and a final decision made during
final design.
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comments:
"Stonewall is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. It appears to be within the area of potential effect for the
project since access to the property will be affected by the proposed
connector. The design of NC 43-48 intersection with the connector
will enable us to determine the projects effect upon Stonewall."
F-5
Response:
NCDOT has submitted two alternative designs for access to the
Stonewall Historic Site. Based upon these designs, the State
Historic Preservation Office has concurred with NCDOT that the
project will have no effect upon Stonewall.
Comments:
"We request that access remain available (to Stonewall) during
construction activities."
Response:
NCDOT will keep access to the Stonewall Historic Site open
during construction.
Comments:
"We understand NCDOT will propose boundaries for the Rocky Mount
Mills Village Historic District."
Response:
NCDOT proposed boundaries for Rocky Mount Mills Village Historic
District. These boundaries were extended by the State Historic
Preservation Office. Afterwards, NCDOT concurred with the new
boundaries proposed by the State Historic Preservation Office.
Coordination is currently underway with the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding this project's effect on the Rocky
Mount Mills. This coordination will lead to a Memorandum of
Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding
NCOOT's consideration of effects to historic resources.
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
Comments:
"The service recommends that wetland impacts be reduced to the
maximum extent practicable and that unavoidable wetland impacts be
mitigated fully on a habitat value basis in accordance with the
Service's Mitigation Policy and the guidelines developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act."
Response:
Wetland impacts have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Alternatives which would affect less wetland have been
evaluated. These alternatives are not considered viable because they
either do not serve the purpose and need of the project or would
impact the historic Rocky Mount Mills. Lengthening the bridge across
the Tar River would greatly add to the cost of this project.
F-6
Comments:
"The Service request that the NCDOT develop and provide to the
service a specific wetland mitigation plan sufficient to fully
mitigate for fish and wildlife habitat values lost to project
construction, and a commitment to implement the plan.
Response:
Wetland Mitigation will be coordinated with the regulatory
agencies during the 404 Permit process. NCDOT will propose
replacement habitat in kind at a suitable location.
C. Public Hearing and Other Comments
A public hearing for this project was held on February 28, 1994
in the City Council Chambers in Rocky Mount. Approximately 75
citizens attended the hearing.
The following comments and questions are typical of those raised
by citizens at the public hearing:
Comment:
"My primary concern is the noise and general congestion that
will be an ever present problem to all of us."
Response:
While traffic volumes and noise will be increased along
Peachtree Street, traffic noise and existing congestion along Falls
Road will be reduced. This project will cause a substantial change to
the character of Peachtree Street. However, traffic volumes on
existing Falls Road are expected to exceed its capacity by 1997.
Overall, this project will reduce congestion and provide for safer
travel and more efficient traffic operations for the community as a
whole.
Comment:
"Many people see the 64 bypass and Church Street as a viable
alternative to the proposal presented by the Department. Could Falls
Road and Church Street operate as a one-way pair without impacting
Peachtree Street?"
Response:
Widening Church Street was studied by NCDOT in the Environmental
Assessment as an alternative to the proposed one-way pair. The added
distance required for vehicles to use Church Street would prevent
this from being a feasible option for relieving the congestion on
Falls Road. Even with improvements being made to Church Street, much
traffic is expected to continue using Falls Road.
F-7
Existing Falls Road and Church Street cannot function as a
one-way pair system because of the distance between these roadways.
Generally, one-way pair streets must have separation of no greater
than one city block.
Comment:
"Why are they (NCDOT) using more of the east side of Peachtree
Street."
Response:
Peachtree Street
(between Trevathan and
section south of Earl
NCDOT will attempt to
residences as possible
Comment:
will be widened asymmetrically to the east
Earl Street) to match the existing typical
Street. During the design of this project,
widen Peachtree Street so that the fewest
will be impacted.
"Other routes are available that would not result in property
loss, and disruption of people's lives, plus be far less expensive to
implement."
Response.
All the alternatives studied for this project involve some
acquisition of new right of way and some relocation of residences.
The recommended alternative was chosen because it provides the needed
transportation improvement to Falls Road, while minimizing effects to
the historic Rocky Mount Mills, other commercial development and
residential development. This alternative represents the best
balance between serving transportation need and minimizing impacts to
the community. The other alternatives studied would either not serve
the purpose of the project or would cause greater impacts to Rocky
Mount Mills, commercial development, and residential development.
Alternative selection was also based on the engineering benefits
of the recommended alternative. The recommended alternative provides
the best horizontal alignment and best level of service of all
alternatives considered.
Rocky Mount Area Chamber of Commerce
Comment:
"Falls Road represents an area of historical significance. All
possible steps should be taken to both preserve and enhance the
historical features."
Response:
NCDOT coordinates with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) regarding impacts to historical properties. In cases where
impacts cannot be avoided, steps are taken to minimize or mitigate
F-8
there effects. This project involves one property listed in the
National Register of Historic Places (Rocky Mount Mills).
Coordination is currently underway with SHPO to determine ways to
minimize any impacts to Rocky Mount Mills.
Comment:
"There appears to be no opportunity for in-bound Peachtree
Street traffic to turn left, or north, on Franklin Street making it
extremely difficult to access the Nash County Tax Office, the Nash
County Economic Development Commission, and other businesses situated
on the south end of Falls Road."
Response
Since Franklin Street is one-way headed south, there is no
opportunity to turn left from Peachtree Street. As currently
proposed, inbound traffic would reach the southern end of Falls Road
by a more indirect route. This would only apply to businesses
located on Falls Road south of Grace Street. Other businesses along
Falls Road will have more direct access because left turns are
permitted at all other Peachtree Street intersections.
To address the problem of access to this block of Falls Road,
NCDOT is currently reviewing the proposed configuration of the
one-way pair (see Revisions To The Environmental Assessment).
Comment:
"It is our observation from our location on the corner of Falls
Road and Grace Street that a significant number (if not the majority)
of accidents on Falls Road occur at the corner of Grace Street. If
this is the case, it would seem that perhaps a contributing factor to
the high number of accidents is not the traffic volume, but rather,
as a result of the signalling at that corner."
Response:
While a number of accidents occur at the Grace Street and Falls
Road intersection, this intersection accounts for only 25% of the
accidents on this section of Falls Road. Changing the signal at this
intersection may reduce the number of accidents, but it would not
address the accident problem on the remainder of Falls Road. The
proposed one-way pair will provide a safer facility and should lower
the accident rate.
The Falls Road/Grace Street traffic will be revised and
optimized as part of this project.
Comment:
"Have you considered the effect if NC 43 and NC 48 were
redirected onto US 64 East and US 301 Business South and away from
Falls Road?"
F-9
Response:
Redirecting NC 43 and NC 48 onto US 64 East would reduce some
traffic on Falls Road. However, the added distance required for
vehicles to use Church Street (US 301) would prevent this from being
a feasible option for relieving the congestion on Falls Road.
Rocky Mount Mills
Comment:
"We are concerned over the potential need for a stoplight on the
corner of Falls Road and Elm Street with the increase in traffic on
Elm Street that will be coming to and leaving our facility."
Response:
Due to low projected traffic volumes, a traffic signal at this
location is not recommended. The need for traffic signals can be
reevaluated after the project is implemented and the new traffic
characteristics established.
IV. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Bridge Work Required.
The original proposal in the
pedestrian accommodations included
bridge. This has been revised to
side of the bridge only.
State Environmental Assessment for
5' sidewalks on both sides of the new
provision of a 5' sidewalk on the west
B. Greenways
Consideration is currently
bicycle/pedestrian facility on the
would provide a means for greenway
bicycle/pedestrian conflicts with
below Peachtree Street was also co
being given to providing a 10-foot
new bridge across the Tar River. This
users to cross the river. To eliminate
Peachtree Street, a pedestrian culvert
nsidered.
The pedestrian culvert below Peachtree Street was eliminated because
of flooding concerns.
C. One-Way Pair Configuration
The original proposal in the State Environmental Assessment began
one-way traffic on Falls Road at Franklin Street (US 301 S.). This
configuration provides only indirect access to the block of Falls Road
between Franklin Street and Grace Street for southbound traffic. After
studying the configuration further, the design has been revised to begin
the start of one-way operation on Falls Road at Grace Street. This would
allow more direct access to the subject block of Falls Road.
F-10
V. FINDING ON NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state
and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the N.C.
Department of Transportation that the project will not have a significant
impact upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, an environmental
impact statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
JFB/plr
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
/ •
A
Division of Planning & Assessment
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary 1:3 E H N FzI
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys
State
FROM: Melba
Projel
r
Baggett
Clearinghouse
McGee ','?
:t Review Coordinator
RE: #93-0818 Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector, Rocky
Mount, Nash County
DATE: May 10, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the subject proposal. This department ask that
careful consideration be given to the attached suggestions provided
by our reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to work with our commenting divisions throughout the
planning stages of this project.
attachments
r
P O B 76
Clz? r?
i MAY ! U 19G?
WA 2 of, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equcl Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
A-1
? .w $TAIf o
N,y q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources-
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
April 28, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and one way
pair from US 301 to US 64 Bypass, Rocky Mount,
Nash County, U-2111, 9.8043124, CH 93-E-4220-
0818
We have received the State Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above project
from the State Clearinghouse and would like to comment.
Judging from the aerial photograph (Figure 3) in the EA, it appears that Stonewall--
which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on June 2, 1970--is
also within the area of potential effect for the project since access to the property
will be affected by the proposed connector. The design of the NC 43-48 (Falls
Road) intersection with the connector will enable us to determine the project's
effect upon Stonewall.
Also, we understand North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff
architectural historians will propose boundaries for the Rock Mount Mills Mill
Village Historic District. We look forward to reviewing the proposed boundaries
and the intersection design as well as consulting with NCDOT regarding the
project's effect upon both historic properties.
As indicated in the EA th
r
e project is subject to compliance with Section 106 since
the proposed connector will require approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for
a. Section 404 permit.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it-is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
109 East Joaes Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q30
A-2

L. J. Ward
April 28, 1993, Page 2
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.
DB:stw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Wayne Wright, Army Corps of Engineers
B. Church
T. Padgett
r

I
t
t
F
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor A
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED F= H rs%,J rp
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ?
April 29, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorneq?
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA NC 43-48 From US 301 to US 64
Nash County
State Project DOT No.9.8043124, TIP #U-2111
EHNR # 93-0818, DEM WO # 8998
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact approximately 4.3 acres of wetlands.
1 • An Individual 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project.
2. DEM should be included in wetland mitigation issues.
3. Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed for this project due to the
Water supply classification, high truck traffic, and the high accident rate.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc43-48.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
Monica Swihart
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r
A-4
1 ,
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources A4
James B. Hunt, Jr.; Governor AMI -oft
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
April 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlaeeachtree SUBJECT: Falls Road - Street Connector
Rocky Mount, Project No. 93-0818
We have reviewed this proposed project and we think that N.C.
Dept. of Transportation should do a detailed comparison of
Alternative 2, which involves building the new connector south of
the Tar River, with Alternative 1 (recommended), which has the
connector coming from north of the Tar River.
We do not think the analysis on pages 7 and 8 are sufficient
to judge the trade-offs between these two alternatives. The
benefits of Alternative 2 seems to out weigh the costs (see my
proposed location shown on attached figure):
1. Eliminate the new Tar River Bridge
2. Eliminate all impacts to Tar River wetlands
3. Reduce relocation costs
4. Reduce.the destruction of trees
We also suggest that N.C. DOT look at the alternative of notr
increasing the width of Peachtree Street initially. What level
of service would result? Then, if traffic levels do not increase
because of mass transit or other reasons, you will have saved the
cutting of many beautiful trees.
Attachment
cc: David Foster
John Morris
Jeff Bruton
P.O. Box 27687, Rcleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1011. post-consumer paper

A-5
.?j,Aa !k1j ?'Yt•`., 7??_ ,t. .2f/'i...?4•:i?`v-.?. ::-'??i":?rif.':a. ,;,•^i'?1?`•yl'y:.
rig
RJr' ?if'i•- S?j?. v,. .:
yFL.?" -z
N's
.wT. .. ;: l-.' (( ? y. _: v.. ? ?! :ti' ? ?'d::.7??? y"1'• 1 • ? ?- ?' ? ;,i?' i; "+u" •
.ky... ? • • '3:$ o- -.- ? : •' ...: ? ' rte' ? ., i, ?:l;r,;y . "?:i _
r• ••?? :t -J .. '" `''_:'.'.w?.;ts?..,?r?«-y+iT?rF•'.?.. .?,.t.: au:: ?.??+.'a ^Y'+•A},'S:. Ji=?•i •"' - ?• S'I
LN' f•'l' ?• ? _.G.. t y.. ?'.+••. _,•... ?y<? 111? .. ?'=• ;?
'• "O-off"61 ::. ! •", ) )• S? ??.? {• :. .Vn. ?,?ii• t
r }` '.????_ : t ..c:I `• ,s \ R.a . ? ? y????.:T,;.? i.. ?•• [V•:'?it_*...o'f<y :• f?pC??-, t?',,., ?yV .f?:,? r r•.
' i? ? t %'.i. i .y "• {• ?' •A, a •' t 7. ,. Sit; [`Y.?•.:t • .. ?? . r:
4N • ?" .. •' •.t 1. ?=• ?,,ti ?. .. Vim. .?? ....: ?_ ?? y ? , K?•
•'?-' `? t •.k-' w ... .?'?•?a 2 ` 't ' ?E ?• a e. Q?.'?" i?
{. '.??- ,_ ,il?i?.: ? . 3' < .? ?' _y ??•`1,•?? rye ?.??':?1•s+3T.•f.' ? ? `.
?,r., ..?: '.'t? •%1. ? :..\ ;. •: '.. Ott' C't'• i l ?.a 41
..? fit` :I:..'1'??ti . :c•, '?-? a'.,.:.r y -+. ,.
.T •' , 'fit `? . ?7'' C` ,?'? ... __ ... J , •: CYS i ?.•_ `' ?..• ?e'?C.:.
ti?'?•. *^'•? °? •? ?: _ ?ik l'•??.3:`:,??_.•? , Y•. •.•j, `t,?3k:+csii' ••' ?1 {:. ??, . t
Z-e
t
-+-^ • .. y `,. .`?- +, ('?'• •? J`. /??, ;;L'. \`e?\• !M• ?Z , •'j '• -ti .wv.• ' ?? 4A AVE
• _ .,tom ::;. •,.,
_ •??' _ -? .:y; ,;:? ROCKY MOUNT MILLS :G"3 ? _ ; ? ; : „?:• ?? xr ' `. t • •„ .?
'''i: ? ? ? *'.i`"? is `;: '• ?• -? ? •:: ,;;_"' .L ,,,, ?!
y4tis:?E ?:: ?' >' •? tr Y.w as '<b g.,ly??^'` `?=i
HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARIES V"-`'
le.
O
7r-•.? P? W t'•_
7. ZC
AXAN
U tn.
Or=
w' t _ •".?t.a ??: .y+:_, ` X. i-s _iy ?{„?" '? :fl7 ;y'*;?1?.. ?. C ? 1 Z C

w
e
z
J
w
T% •/I?/?iSlO.CXi".?' N
J

r
.J3 tip
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewin Office;
Raleigh Regional Office
Pro ect Number. Due Date.
?g - D8 /,* '75/-,D
--
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
..?.....ia .... ...x.1.......-A r.. H.n 0. ;-1 n(fira inrliratprl on the rpvprSp of the form-
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sewer system extensions, S sewer construction contracts (in-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 1110 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 day)s

? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
d after NPDES Repl
t f
ilit
r
nt
-
t
t
(NIA)
discharging into state surface waters. y
men
ac
y
g
a
e
rea
construct wastewater
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary N/A
i
(
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 nays)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement
NIA 60 days
(90 days)
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
? NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
? Comolex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatio
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
tlavs before bedmmn activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or oars must accomoanv the olan (30 davsi
t i
LJ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
lved
ections
r
in
Ins
i
ti
iti
l
fi
f 1 day
(NIA)
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils vo
.
ear
ng ac
v
e
ground c
es a
o
than
ve acres o
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is pianned.-
90.120 days
NIA)
Oil Relining Facilities
N/A
(
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

? Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer lo: prepare plans. 30 aays-
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage'or the total project cost will be required upon comotetion
P? L.
Continued on reverse
A-7
Project Review J
Project Number 9,Z-0818
Nash County
Existing water mains and public water supply wells may be
affected depending upon the location of the proposed project.
Appropriate water system officials should be contacted if
affected..
It-,• t ? I
William Barlow
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
-? APR ? 29 ice.. ?
A
.

A 8
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Heaith, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: May 6, 1993
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment (EA), NC 43-48 Falls-
Road-Peachtree Street Connector from US 301 Bus.
(Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass, Rocky Mount, Nash
County, North Carolina, TIP Project U-2111, SCH Project
No. 93-0818.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed project and possible impacts
on existing wildlife and fishery resources in the area. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC 25), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project involves construction of a new roadway connector
within the city of Rocky Mount involving approximately 4.3 acres
of wetland impact, primarily in the vicinity of the Tar River.
No federally protected species are known from the project area.
The Tar River is impounded downstream of the proposed
crossing, and a 430-foot bridge is proposed. Anticipated wetland
impacts and floodway constriction may be minimized by extending
the span of the bridge to avoid fill in wetlands adjacent to the
river. Mitigation of remaining wetland impacts should be
discussed in the upcoming Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), and a conceptual mitigation plan should be proposed at
that time.
Based on the description of impacts on fish and wildlife
resources described in the document,.and the commitment of the
NCDOT to mitigate for wetland loss associated with the project,
the NCWRC has no further modifying comment on this EA.
A-9
Memo Page 2 May 6, 1993
Concurrence with the anticipated FONSI will be contingent on the
L-iclusion of a conceptual mitigation proposal and a discussion of
wetland impact minimization at hydrologic crossings.
. Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to provide input to
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist

r
A-10
SM£NT OF T
QPP, ?:,-t?yF TA
tim United States Department of the Interior ",
Vl y 9 -
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?gRCH 3 Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 7, 1993
MA Y 10 1993

Mr. L.J.
Planning
Ward, Manager
and Environmental Branch 2
2 y
D1VISICV OF
HI

N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways GHWgyS
F
O
ME?P
Post Office Box 25201. N
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment for NC 43-48 Falls Road-
Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair From US 301
Bus.`(Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass (U-2111), State
Project No. 9.8043124, Rocky Mount, Nash County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your April 2, 1993 letter soliciting comments on
the subject document. This is the report of the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) and is submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667), and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to construct a new connector in Rocky Mount joining
Falls Road (NC 43-48) with Peachtree Street. The NCDOT explgred
four alternatives and selected Alternative 1 referred to as; One-
Way Pair, New Bridge Across Tar River. This preferred alternative
includes a long new alignment, the construction of a new bridge
spanning the Tar River just west of the existing Falls Road and
will impact both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the project
area.
The Service places considerable value on palustrine forested
wetlands such as the 4.3 acres of swamp forest which would be lost
under the proposed alternative. These habitats are of significant
value to resident and migratory wildlife as sites for feeding,
cover, nesting and juvenile rearing. They also perform essential
water quality functions such as pollution and sediment removal and
A-77
flood water retention. Therefore, the Service recommends that
wetland impacts be reduced to the maximum extent practicable and
that unavoidable wetland impacts be mitigated fully on a habitat
value basis in accordance with the Services Mitigation Policy
(Federal Register 46(15): 7644-7663), January 23, 1981) and the
404(b)(1) Guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Pending
field confirmation, the forested wetlands that would be impacted
are_ classified as Resource Category 2 habitat. The Service fs
mitigation goal for category 2,is no net loss of in-kind habitat
value.
The Service requests that the NCDOT develop and provide to the
Service a specific wetland mitigation plan sufficient to fully
mitigate for fish and wildlife habitat values lost to project
construction, and a commitment to implement the plan.
According to the subject document, biologists from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) conducted surveys
in the project area for the presence of the dwarf-wedged mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and the Tar River spiny mussel (Ellibtio
steinstansana) during the spring of 1992. The NCWRC found that
the study area does not support suitable habitat for these species
and mussels were not found in the study area. In addition, a site
visit conducted on October 6, 1992 by a NCDOT biologist concluded
that the study area does not support suitable habitat for the red-
cockaded woodpecker (2icoides borealis).
Based on the above information, the service concurs with your
findings that the proposed project is not likely to adversely
affect Federally-listed species. In view of this, we believe that
requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action may
affect listed species in a manner not previously considered: (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that maybe affected by the identified
action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to
contact us at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Tom Au purger
Acting Supervisor
1 .
A-12

North Carolina -
Department of Administ
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
May 11, 1993
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportation.
Program Development Branch 01
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1494
Dear Mr. Leggett:

MAY 17) 993
01VISIGy pF
?11GHWA`?S
RE: SCH File #93-E-4220-0818; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Construction of a Connector Between Falls Road and
Peachtree Street in Rocky Mount, NC TIP #U-2111
The above referenced environmental.information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature of
the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a
Finding of No Significant Impact to the State Clearinghouse for
compliance with the Act. The attached comment(s) should be
taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
JSL:jcf
Attachment
cc: Region G
a 150
`
Mpy 1 31993 ?
CT AN GEI AF-11-
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Sincerel-
Sincere
,
Katie G. Dorsett
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
I- 1-
A-73

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 15, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways,. +
Department of Tr nspoKtation /
•i ?) 1J
FROM: David Brook ? :J
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and one-way
pair, from US 301 Business to US 64 Bypass, Rocky
Mount, Nash County, State Project 9.8043124, U-
2111, ER 94-7518
Thank you for your letter of September 13, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the preliminary documentation provided to us to determine the
project's effect upon Stonewall, a property listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. Based upon the two alternate design plans for access to the
property, we concur that the undertaking. will have no effect upon Stonewall.
Since access to the property is important to its visibility, we request that access
remain available during construction activities.
We appreciate the North Carolina Department of Transportation's efforts to design
and ensure appropriate access to Stonewall.
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.
DB:slw
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
B. Church, NCDOT
c .1 P?
1100?
OCT 2 0! 1993
?d?d?iC?
Division CIAT , ? O History
Willi -mil&e• Jr., Direptor,
I
A-14
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources. AYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor c p
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
ID ?--? N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P. E., Director
April 29, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John DornePW
From: Eric Galamb e?
Subject: EA NC 43-48 From US 301 to US 64
Nash County
State Project DOT No.9.8043124, TIP #U-2111
EHNR # 93-0818, DEM WQ # 8998
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact approximately 4.3 acres of wetlands.
1. An Individual 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project.
2. DEM should be included in wetland mitigation issues.
3. Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed for this project due to the
water supply classification, high truck traffic, and the high accident rate.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc43-48.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
Monica Swihart
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
? ?Y 1 V ??L? ?c t Z T z'
13?? 4_z
bo71 ??
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: -
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII RIO Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries '
? Fayetteville Air ? Coastal Management W
ater Planning
Mooresville
?

Raeigh Water

roundwater
t and Quality Engineer El Water Resources Environmental Health

EFrest dfe ?Solld Waste Management
Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington ecreational Consultant nd Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant .arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Others Environmental Manag nt
? Winston-Salem

?s S
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
1-1
;A
?0N
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Managet
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review '
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporate d by funding agencv (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
Ili-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has.not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
NC 43-48
Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair
From US 301 Bus. (Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass
Rocky Mount, Nash County
State Project No..9.8043124
T.I.P. Project No. U-2111

4
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
,0
APPROVED:
3-22-93 < `y. 2 ?
Date _F,,,L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 43-48
Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair
From US 381 Bus. (Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass
Rocky Mount, Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043124
T.I.P. Project No. U-2111

ti
State Environmental Assessment
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
M
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

SEAL
17282
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ..................................... 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General ... .................................... 1
B. Thoroughfare Plan .................................. 1
C. Traffic/Truck Volume ....... ............... 2
D. Facility Capacity (Level of Service) ................ 2
E. Accident Rate ...................................... 4
F. School Bus Use ...................................... 4
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Functional Classification .......................... 4
B. Length of Section Studied .......................... 4
C. Existing Typical Section ........................... 4
D. Right of Way ....................................... 5
E. Bridges ... ........ ...... . ... ............ 5
F. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control _ ........... 6
G. Speed Limits .:..................................... 6
H. Access Control ..................................... 6
I. Utilities ................................... 6
J. Project Terminals .................................. 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No-Build Alternative ................................ 7
B. Build Alternatives .................................. 7
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project .. .............................. 9
B. Design Speed Proposed .............................. 9
C. Typical Section ................................... 9
D. Alignment ......................................... 9
E. Right of Way ..................................... 10
F. Access Control. ........ ....... . ... .......... 10
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ......... 10
H. Railroad Work Required ............................. 10
I. Bridge Work Required ............................... 10
J. Parking ............................................ 11
K. Sidewalks ........................................ 11
L. Bicycles ........................................... 11
M. Speed Limits ....................................... 12
N. Cost Estimates ..................................... 12
0. Municipal Agreements ................................ 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Study Area Description .......................... 12
2. Study Methodology ............................... 12
3. Biotic Resources.. ............ ............. 13
3.1. Plant Communities .......................... 13
Uplands .................................... 13
Wetlands................................... 14
Summary of Plant Community Impacts......... 14
3.2. Wildlife Communities ....................... 15
Terrestrial Communities .................... 15
Aquatic Communities...... ..... ........ 15
Summary of Wildlife Community Impacts ...... 16
4. Physical Resources .............................. 16
4.1. Soils ...................................... 16
4.2. Water Resources... . ... ............ 17
Summary of Water Quality Impacts ........... 18
5. Jurisdictional Issues
5.1. Waters of the United States ................ 18
Summary of Impacts ......................... 19
Wetland Permits ............................ 19
Mitigation... ........................... 19
5.2. Protected Species... ................. 19
Federally Protected Species ................ 19
State Protected Species .................... 22
B. Cultural Resources .................................. 23
1. Archaeological Resources ........................ 23
2. Historic Architectural Resources ................ 23
C. Social Setting and Impacts .......................... 24
D. Relocation Impacts .................................. 25
E. Land Use . ............................... 27
F. Recreational Facilities
1. Parks ........................................... 28
2. Greenways ....................................... 28
G. Construction Impacts ................................ 28
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns........ 30
I. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis.... 31
J. Air Quality Analysis ................................ 39
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement ...... . .............. 41
K. Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways. 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Agency Coordination ................................. 41
B. Public Involvement .................................. 42
4 FIGURES
APPENDIX (Agency Correspondence)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 3 - Aerial Photo of Recommended Alternative
Figure 4a - Projected 1995/2015 Traffic Volumes
(Recommended Alternative)
Figure 0 - Projected 1995/2015 Traffic Volumes
(No-Build Alternative)
Figure 5 - Proposed Lane Configuration of Recommended
Alternative
Figure 6 - Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 7 - Alternatives
Figure 8 - 100=Year Floodplain and Regulatory
Floodway
Figure 9 - Wetland Limits
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table -1 - Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts 14
Table 2 = Soil Summary, Nash County 16
Table 3 - Federally Protected Species Listed for Nash
County 20
Table 4 - Federal Candidate Species Listed for Nash County 22
Table 5 - State Protected Species Listed for Nash County 22
Table 6 - Comparison of Typical Sounds 32
Table 7 - Noise Abatement Criteria 33
Table 8 - Ambient Noise Levels 35
Table 9 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary 36
Table 10 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary 37

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes to construct a new connector in Rocky Mount
tying Falls Road (NC 43-48) with Peachtree Street. Falls Road and
Peachtree Street will then be revised to operate as one-way paired
streets (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The 0.5 mile new connector will
cross the Tar River just west of existing Falls Road. Total length
of the Falls Road-Peachtree Street one-way pair is 1.1 miles. The
project is included in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in
Federal Fiscal Year 1994-95 and construction scheduled to begin in
Federal Fiscal Year 1995-96. The estimated cost in the 1993-1999 TIP
is $4,000,000. The project is currently estimated to cost
$2,859,500 including $1,159,500 for right of way acquisition and
$1,700,000 for construction. The project will be constructed with
state funds. The City of Rocky Mount will participate in the right of
way funding for the project in the amount of $300,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have the
positive effects of improving the safety and traffic handling
capacity of the Falls Road corridor. Traffic volumes are expected to
increase along Falls Road, exceeding its capacity by 1997. Falls
Road has experienced an accident rate nearly three-times that of
similar facilities in the state.
The project will also have adverse effects as summarized below. Six
residential relocatees are anticipated. Because the southbound
portion of the one-way pair will be directed to Peachtree Street, the
project will cause a change in the character of this residential
street. Widening Peachtree Street will cause the destruction of
large oak trees which currently border the street and will reduce the
yard frontage residents currently have. The project will take
property from the Rocky Mount Mills, a property listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. It is anticipated 4.3 acres of
wetland will be impacted by project construction; this will likely
require an individual 404 wetland permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Because the historic Rocky Mount Mills is located within
the permit area of the wetland crossing, NCDOT must comply with the
National Historic Preservation Act. Strict measures to avoid erosion
and siltation will be used to prevent impacts to the Tar River and
surrounding areas. It is anticipated a floodway modification will be
required due to the new bridge crossing a regulatory floodway. The
project will not impact any federally protected threatened or
endangered species. Noise levels will substantially increase,
especially along Peachtree Street, but noise abatement is not
considered reasonable or feasible. Air quality conditions in the
area will not be adversely effected. No hazardous waste sites or
underground storage tanks are known to exist in the project corridor.
3. Alternatives Considered - Four build alternatives have been
considered for this project:
Alternative 1 is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 is
described above in the Description of Action.
Alternative 2 involves construction of a one-way pair facility
similar to Alternative 1. However, the new connector would be
constructed south of the Tar River. Instead of building a new bridge,
the existing bridge across the Tar River would be widened to five
lanes.
Alternative 3 would improve traffic operations on Falls Road by
widening it to a five lane facility. No construction or change of
traffic operations would be required for Peachtree Street. Similar to
Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would widen the existing Falls Road
bridge across the Tar River rather than require construction of a new
bridge.
Alternative 4 was considered as an alternative to improvements
directly in the Falls Road corridor. Alternative 4 involves widening
Church Street. Church Street is a two lane facility which also has
interchange access with US 64 Bypass. Alternative 4 was studied to
determine if improvements to Church Street would "attract" more
vehicles to use the Church Street interchange rather than the Falls
Road interchange with US 64 Bypass.
Alternative 1 is recommended because it provides needed
transportation improvements to the Falls Road corridor while
minimizing effects to the historic Rocky Mount Mills. Other Build
Alternatives would either not serve the purpose of the project or
would cause greater impacts to the historic Rocky Mount Mills,
commercial development, and residential development.
The No-Build Alternative was considered, but rejected. The No-Build
Alternative would do nothing to solve the current congestion or
accommodate the increasing traffic volumes that are expected along
the Falls Road corridor. The high accident rate along. Falls Road
could be expected to worsen as traffic volumes increase.
4. Coordination - Several federal, state, and local agencies were
consulted during preparation of this environmental assessment. During
preparation of this report, comments were received from the
following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
N.C. Division of Water Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Nash County Schools
City of Rocky Mount
5. Permits and Other Actions Involving Federal and State Agencies -
NCDOT will apply for a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification from
the N. C. Division of Environmental Management because of anticipated
wetland impacts. NCDOT will coordinate a floodway modification with
the City of Rocky Mount. Coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Officer will be undertaken to reach agreement on how
effects to Rocky Mount Mills will be taken into account.
6. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the
proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting the following:
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
NC 43-48
Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector and One-Way Pair
From US 301 Bus. (Franklin Street) to US 64 Bypass
Rocky Mount, Nash County
U-2111
State Project No. 9.8043124
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
a new connector in Rocky Mount tying Falls Road (NC 43-48) with Peachtree
Street. Falls Road and Peachtree Street will then be revised to operate as
one-way paired streets (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The 0.5 mile new
connector will cross the Tar River just west of existing Falls Road. Total
length of the Falls Road-Peachtree Street one-way pair is 1.1 miles. The
project is included in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal
Year 1994-95 and construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
1995-96. The estimated cost in the 1993-1999 TIP is $4,000,000. The
project is currently estimated to cost $2,859,500 including $1,159,500 for
right of way acquisition and $1,700,000 for construction. The project will
be constructed with state funds. The City of Rocky Mount will participate
in the right of way funding for the project in the amount of $300,000.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
The proposed improvements will increase the safety and traffic
handling capacity for traffic operations between US 64 Bypass and downtown
Rocky Mount. Currently, Falls Road is a two lane facility with left turn
lanes provided at intersecting streets. Traffic volumes are expected to
increase along this corridor exceeding the capacity of Falls Road by 1997.
Further development along in the surrounding area will generate increasing
traffic volumes.
B. Thorouahfare Plan
Revising Falls Road and Peachtree Street to operate as a one-way pair
facility has been considered since 1973. The project has been included on
every update of the Rocky Mount thoroughfare plan since 1973. In 1979,
NCDOT completed a feasibility study analyzing ways of improving traffic
operations along the Falls Road corridor. The feasibility study concluded
a new connector across the Tar River was the best means of accomplishing
this.
The one-way pair has been identified as a major thoroughfare in the
latest update (1985) of the Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 2).
Peachtree Street is currently maintained by the City of Rocky Mount.
NCDOT will assume responsibility for Peachtree Street after construction
of the proposed project according to the system responsibility agreement
with the City of Rocky Mount.
2
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Traffic projections were made for this project for both the
Recommended Alternative and the "No Build" alternative. Projections were
for anticipated 1995 and 2015 traffic. As described in the Facility
Capacity Section, Section I.D. below, traffic volumes along the Falls Road
corridor are expected to increase beyond the handling capacity of Falls
Road.
Figure 4a provides a detail of the projected traffic volumes and
truck percentages for the Recommended Alternative.
As shown in Figure 4a, projected 1995 traffic along Falls Road ranges
from a low of 5,400 vehicles per day (vpd) south of Grace Street to a high
of 9,000 vpd north of Ridge Street. Projections for 1995 traffic along
Peachtree Street range from a low of 4,300 vpd south of Grace Street to a
high of 9,200 vpd north of Ridge Street.
Along Falls Road, traffic volumes are expected to increase by the
year 2015 to 8,700 vpd south of Grace Street and 14,800 vpd north of Ridge
Street. Year 2015 projections for Peachtree Street range from a low of
6,900 vpd south of Grace Street to a high of 15,200 vpd north of Ridge
Street.
Projected truck percentages along both Falls Road and Peachtree
Street are estimated at 5% (2% truck tractor semi-trailer; 3% dual tired
vehicles).
D. Facility Capacity (Level of Service)
Level of Service is an engineering term used to describe the
operating conditions of vehicles in a traffic stream. Operating conditions
are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of
service are defined and are designated with letters from A to F. Level A
represents the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no
delay at signalized intersections. Level of service F represents the worst
operating conditions and occurs when traffic volumes exceed the.capacity
of a roadway. At level of service F, long lines of traffic tend to form,
and delays at intersections tend to exceed 60 seconds.
A capacity analysis was performed for the Falls Road corridor for
both the Build and No-Build alternatives. This capacity analysis yielded
the following results:
No-Build Alternative
1. If no improvements are made to the Falls Road corridor, Falls Road
will operate near capacity, at Level of Service D, with projected
1995 traffic.
2. If no improvements are made, increasing traffic volumes.will exceed
the handling capacity of Falls Road by 1997. Delays at signalized
intersections will degrade traffic service for the entire length of
Falls Road. The existing signalized intersection with River Drive
3
will be the most troublesome intersection with operations at Level of
Service F by 1997.
Build Alternative
As indicated above, analysis of the no-build alternative indicates
that existing Falls Road will be inadequate to handle the anticipated
increases in traffic volumes. The recommended alternative (described in
Section V.) will revise Falls Road to operate as the northbound portion of
a one-way pair. Peachtree Street will be revised to operate one-way
southbound. With these improvements, the Falls Road corridor would
operate at Level of Service B in 1995 and would maintain Level of Service
B through 2015 (design year). A more detailed description of the capacity
analysis follows (also see Figure 5):
1995 ANALYSIS:
1. Falls Road - If the proposed improvements are in place in 1995,
Falls Road will operate at Level of Service B from Franklin
Street to US 64 Bypass. The projected 1995 Level of Service for
each proposed signalized intersection is as follows:
Falls Road/Franklin Street: LOS B
Falls Road/Grace Street: LOS B
Falls Road/Ridge Street: LOS B
2. Peachtree Street - If the proposed improvements are in place in
1995, Peachtree Street will operate at Level of Service B from
Franklin Street to US 64 Bypass. The projected 1995 Level of
Service for each proposed signalized intersection is as follows:
Peachtree Street/Franklin Street: LOS B
Peachtree Street/Grace Street: LOS B
Peachtree Street/Ridge Street: LOS B
2015 ANALYSIS (DESIGN YEAR):
1. Falls Road - With the Recommended Alternative in 2015, Falls
Road will operate at Level of Service B from Franklin Street to
US 64 Bypass. The projected 2015 Level of Service for each
signalized intersection is as follows:
Falls Road/Franklin Street: LOS B
Falls Road/Grace Street: LOS C
Falls Road/Ridge Street: LOS B
4
2. Peachtree Street - With the Recommended Alternative in 2015,
Peachtree Street will operate at Level of Service B from
Franklin Street to US 64 Bypass. The projected 2015 Level of
Service for each signalized intersection is as follows:
Peachtree Street/Franklin Street: LOS B
Peachtree Street/Grace Street: LOS B
Peachtree Street/Ridge Street: LOS B
E. Accident Rate
The accident rate for this section of Falls Road over a recent three
year period (January 1, 1987 - December 31, 1989) was 748.4 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm).
This greatly exceeds the statewide average of 277.1 acc/100 mvm for
similar routes over that same time period. The highest percentage of
accidents on Falls Road over this time period involved rear-end collisions
(40 percent). A high incidence of rear-end collisions is typical of a two
lane roadway operating beyond its capacity. The proposed project will
greatly improve the traffic operations through the Falls Road corridor.
The proposed one-way pair will provide a safer facility and should lower
the accident rate.
F. School Bus Use
Falls Road is an important route for local school buses. Currently
14 school buses use this facility per day for a total of 28 daily trips.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Functional Classification
Falls Road is classified as an urban minor arterial.
B. Length of Section Studied
The length of this project is 1.1 miles.
C. Existing Typical Section
Currently, Falls Road is a two lane facility with curb and gutter.
Left turn lanes are provided at signalized intersections. Pavement width
between curbs varies from 32 feet to 36 feet. A 34-foot curb to curb width
is maintained along the majority of Falls Road. Sidewalks are located on
both sides of the street from Franklin Street to the Tar River.
Peachtree Street is currently a residential city street carrying an
insignificant amount of traffic. From Earl Street to Spring Street, the
width of Peachtree Street varies from 26 feet to 27 feet between curbs.
This section of Peachtree Street is in poor condition with much of the
curb and gutter broken.
5
From Earl Street to Franklin Street (US 301 Bus.), Peachtree Street
is in better condition with pavement width varying form 34 feet to 36 feet
between curbs.
A sidewalk is located along the west side of Peachtree Street from
Grace Street to Trevathan Street.
D. Right of Way
Existing right of way widths are as follows:
Falls Road (State maintained):
from Franklin Street to Tar River: 60 feet
from Tar River to US 64 Bypass: 100 feet
Peachtree Street (City of Rocky Mount maintained):
from Elm Street to Grace Street: 50 feet
from Grace Street to Franklin Street: 60 feet
Intersecting Streets (State maintained):
Franklin Street (US 301 Bus.)
east of Falls Road: 50 feet
west of Falls Road: 60 feet
Grace Street (NC 43)
east of Falls Road: 70 feet
between Peachtree Street and Falls Road: 65 feet
west of Peachtree Street: 70 feet
Intersecting Streets (City of Rocky Mount maintained):
Wilkinson Street: 50 feet
Braswell Street: 50 feet
Earl Street: 50 feet
Trevathan Street: 50 feet
Oak Street: 60 feet
Ridge Street: 60 feet
Spring Street: 40 feet
Elm Street: 50 feet
River Drive: 50 feet
E. Bridges
The existing bridge carrying Falls Road over the Tar River is 298
feet long with a clear deck width of 36 feet. The sufficiency rating is
77.
6
F. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
The following streets intersect Falls Road and are controlled as
indicated:
1. Franklin Street (US 301 Bus.)
2. Grace Street (NC 43)
3. Wilkinson Street
4. Braswell Street
5. Earl Street
6. Trevathan Street
7. Oak Street
8. Ridge Street
9. Spring Street
10. Elm Street
11. River. Drive
signal controlled
signal controlled
stop sign controlled
stop sign controlled
stop sign controlled
stop sign controlled
stop sign controlled
signal controlled
stop sign controlled
stop sign controlled
signal controlled
These are no existing traffic signals along Peachtree Street.
G. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit for Falls Roads Road is 25 mph from Franklin
Street to Ridge Street, 35 mph from Ridge Street to the Tar River, and 45
mph north of the Tar River.
Peachtree Street currently does not have a posted speed limit. The
residential nature of Peachtree Street and its frequent stop signs tend to
limit vehicle speeds to 25 mph or less.
H. Access Control
There is no control of access along Falls Road except in the
interchange area of US 64 Bypass.
I. Utilities
Overhead powerlines parallel Falls Road along the entire project
length. On Peachtree Street, overhead powerlines are located on the east
side throughout its length.
Overhead street lighting is also provided along both Falls Road and
Peachtree Street.
Underground utilities along Falls Road and Peachtree Street include
water, natural gas, and sewer lines.
J. Project Terminals
The northern project terminus is US 64 Bypass. From the US 64 Bypass
interchange area northward, Falls Road is a five lane facility. Project
construction will begin at the point where Falls Road narrows to two
lanes. North of US 64 Bypass, Falls Road is renamed Benevue Road.
7
The southern project terminus is Franklin Street (US
the vicinity of Falls Road, US 301 Business consists of
with Franklin Street carrying the southbound lanes and
carrying the Northbound Lanes.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No-Build Alternative
301 Bus.). In
a one-way pair
Church Street
The No-Build Alternative was considered and rejected. The No-Build
Alternative would do nothing to solve the current congestion or
accommodate the increasing traffic volumes that are expected along the
Falls Road corridor. The high accident rate along Falls Road could be
expected to worsen as traffic volumes increase.
B. Build Alternatives
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended); One-Way Pair, New Bridge Across Tar
River (See Figures 1, 2, and 3)
Alternative 1 involves constructing a new bridge across the Tar
River just west of the Falls Road Bridge. A new connector would
then be constructed from the northern terminus to connect to
Peachtree Street. Peachtree Street will be widened from Spring
Street to Earl Street. Falls Road and Peachtree Street will then
be converted to one-way operation (Falls Road northbound and
Peachtree Street southbound). Section V. of this report
provides a detailed discussion of the recommended alternative.
Alternative 1 is recommended because it provides needed
transportation improvements to the Falls Road corridor while
minimizing effects to the historic Rocky Mount Mills. Other
Build Alternatives, described below, would either not serve the
purpose of the project or would cause greater impacts to Rocky
Mount Mills, commercial development, and residential
development.
2. Alternative 2; One-Way Pair, Widen Existing Bridge Across Tar
River (See Figure 7)
This alternative would involve construction of a one-way pair
facility similar to Alternative 1. However, the new connector
would be constructed south of the Tar River. Instead of building
a new bridge, the existing bridge across the Tar River would be
widened to five lanes. This alternative would decrease
construction costs but would increase right of way costs due to
increased damages to Rocky Mount Mills.
Alternative 2 was rejected because it would involve extensive
damage to Rocky Mount Mills, a property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Alternative 1 will also take
property from Rocky Mount Mills, but will avoid damage to the
mill's operations. Alternative 2 would encroach into the
8
3.
warehouse for the historic mill, severing approximately 50 feet
from a corner of the western building. This would seriously
disrupt operations of the Mill. Alternative 2 was rejected
because it would cause substantially more damage to Rocky Mount
Mills than Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 is less desirable from a design standpoint because
the new connector would include a sharp horizontal curve
partially obscured by the mill building.
Alternative 3; Widen Falls Road (See Figure 7)
This alternative would improve traffic operations on Falls Road
by widening it to a five lane facility. No construction or
change of traffic operations would be required for Peachtree
Street. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would widen the
existing Falls Road bridge across the Tar River rather than
require construction of a new bridge.
This alternative was rejected for similar reasons that
Alternative 2 was rejected. Alternative 3 would cause the same
damage to Rocky Mount Mills as Alternative 2. In addition,
Alternative 3 would impact the historic district located along
Falls Road from Grace Street to Earl Street.
Alternative 3 would cause substantial impacts to businesses,
churches, and residences located along Falls Road.
4. Alternative 4; Widen Church Street (See Figure 7)
As an alternative to improvements directly in the Falls Road
corridor, consideration was given to widening Church Street.
Church Street is a two lane facility which also has interchange
access with US 64 Bypass. Alternative 4 was studied to determine
if improvements to Church Street would "attract" more vehicles
to use the Church Street interchange rather than the Falls Road
interchange with US 64 Bypass; thus reducing traffic on Falls
Road.
It was determined the added distance required for vehicles to
use Church Street would prevent this from being a feasible
option for relieving Falls Road congestion. While improvements
to Church Street would certainly improve service to Church
Street traffic, Falls Road traffic would continue to use Falls
Road. Therefore, widening Church Street would not serve this
project's purpose and need.
9
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project
This project is approximately 1.1 miles long.
B. Design Speed Proposed
The design speed proposed is 40 mph minimum.
C. Typical Section
Falls Road
No changes to the existing width of Falls Road are proposed. Falls
Road will be restriped to provide two 11-foot northbound through-lanes.
Left turn lanes (10 feet wide) are proposed at intersecting streets as
shown in Figure 6.
Peachtree Street
From Earl Street to Spring Street, Peachtree Street will be widened
to 36 feet from face to face of curbs. Two 11-foot southbound
through-lanes will be provided with 10-foot right turn lanes provided as
shown in Figure 6. Widening will include 8-foot berms behind the new curb
and gutter. The existing sidewalk on the west side of the street, from
Earl Street to Trevathan Street, will be replaced. No widening is
proposed along Peachtree Street from Franklin Street to Earl Street
because this section already has sufficient width (36 feet).
With the proposed widening, Peachtree Street will have uniform width
from Franklin Street to River Drive.
New Connector
The new connector (including the new bridge) will consist of two
12-foot lanes, 28 feet from face to face of curbs; see Figure 6. The new
connector will widen to 36 feet from face to face of curbs prior to its
intersection with River Drive. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the
new bridge.
D. Alignment
The proposed alignment is shown on Figure 3. Peachtree Street is
currently proposed to be widened symmetrically along most of its length.
Between Trevathan Street and Earl Street, Peachtree Street will be widened
asymmetrically to the east to match the existing typical section south of
Earl Street.
During the further design of this project, alternatives may be
studied which will widen Peachtree Street asymmetrically to the east or
west sides.
10
E. Right of Way
The proposed right of way for the new connector and along Peachtree
Street is 60 feet.
Right of way along Grace Street will be widened to 80 feet to allow
addition of the left turn lane at Peachtree Street.
F. Access Control
There will be no control of access along the project except in the
vicinity of the US 64 Bypass interchange. The interchange area will remain
fully controlled access.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Signalized intersections are proposed along the following
intersecting streets for both Falls Road and Peachtree Street:
Franklin Street (US 301 Bus. South)
Grace Street (NC 43)
Ridge Street
Grace Street will be widened at its intersection with Peachtree
Street to provide a left turn lane on the westbound approach.
The existing traffic signal on Falls Road at River Drive will be
removed.
All other intersections are proposed to be stop sign controlled. The
proposed configuration of intersections is shown on Figure 5.
H. Railroad Work Required
An existing CSX railroad spur track crosses Peachtree Street at
Spring Street. The spur leads to the Rocky Mount Mills, but appears to be
abandoned. Therefore, these tracks are proposed to be removed. After
further design, the NCDOT Right of Way Branch will verify that these
tracks are no longer useful.
I. Bridge Work Required
New Connector
A new bridge is required to carry the new connector across the Tar
River. The proposed length of this bridge is approximately 430 feet with
a clear deck width of 28 feet. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of
the bridge.
The length of this bridge will be restudied during further design of
this project. The final proposed length may be revised (increased or
decreased) to accommodate peak river discharges determined by detailed
hydrologic analysis during the final design phase.
11
State and federal resource agencies have recommended this bridge
should span the Tar River from wetland edge to wetland edge. This was
recommended by natural resource agencies because of concern the project
may impact the endangered Tar River Spiny Mussel (see Section VI.A.5.2).
Agency comments are found in the Appendix. A survey for this endangered
species was conducted and determined that no impacts to this species are
expected as a result of the project. Spanning the river from wetland edge
to wetland edge (900 feet) would add $1,000,000 to the project cost.
Because no impacts to the Tar River Spiny Mussel are anticipated, NCDOT
does not propose to span all wetlands adjoining the river. Wetland limits
bordering the Tar River are shown in Figure 9.
This bridge may include provision of railing, lighting, or other
aesthetic features using historic design motifs. Coordination is
currently underway with the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding
the project's effect to the historic Rocky Mount Mills (see Section V.I.B).
As mitigation for the project's effect to Rocky Mount Mills, consideration
will be given to providing historic design features to the new bridge.
The City of Rocky Mount has also expressed interest in the new bridge
having historic design features.
The City of Rocky Mount has also expressed interest in the new bridge
having an 8- to 10-foot pedestrian walkway (possibly suspended below the
roadway elevation). This walkway would allow users of a future City
greenway to travel across the Tar River. Plans for this greenway have not
yet been finalized. Additional costs caused by this walkway must be funded
by the City of Rocky Mount. At this time, the City of Rocky Mount has not
formally requested this walkway.
Falls Road Bridge
The existing Falls Road bridge across the Tar River will be retained.
No construction is proposed for the existing bridge.
J. Parking
Parking is not presently permitted along Falls Road and is not
proposed as part of this project.
Parking is currently permitted along Peachtree Street, but will be
removed as part of this project.
K. Sidewalks
It is anticipated the
Peachtree Street, from Earl
by the proposed widening.
also proposed on both sides
other sidewalks are proposed
L. Bicycles
existing sidewalk along the west side of
Street to Trevathan Street will be disturbed
This sidewalk will be replaced. Sidewalks are
of the new bridge across the Tar River. No
.as part of this project.
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
12
M. Speed Limits
The proposed speed limit is 35 mph along both Falls Road and
Peachtree Street.
N. Cost Estimates
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of
$2,859,500. Construction is estimated at $1,700,000. Right of way costs
are estimated at $1,159,500. The City of Rocky Mount will provide
$300,000 of the right of way funding for this.project.
0. Municipal Agreements
The City of Rocky Mount will participate in the right of way cost for
this project in the amount of $300,000.
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Study Area Description
The project is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The study area is located in an urban setting. Peachtree
Street is situated in an urban residential neighborhood. Rocky Mount
Mills, which was established in 1818 and is located on Falls Road
south of the Tar River, is the oldest operating cotton mill in the
state. The remainder of Falls Road supports an urban residential
neighborhood. Area immediately adjacent to the Tar River is
undeveloped and forested.
Topography in the area is gently sloping. Elevation ranges from
85' above mean sea level (amsl) at the Tar River to 100' amsl in
upland areas. The proposed project crosses the Tar River.
2. Study Methodology
Aerial photographs (1"= 200'), USGS quadrant maps (Rocky Mount),
Nash County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1989) National
Wetland Inventory map (NWI) of Rocky Mount and hydric soils list were
utilized during in-house research of natural resources. Potential
jurisdictional wetlands were identified from the soil survey, NWI map
and hydric soils list. A site visit was made on October 6, 1992 by
an NCDOT staff biologist to inventory natural resources and determine
wetland locations and boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state protected
species was obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM).
13
The natural systems evaluation for this project was conducted by
a NCDOT staff biologist. A Natural Systems Technical Report was
prepared for the project and is available for review at the NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch.
3. Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and wildlife communities in the study
area is provided below. Common and scientific names are provided for
each species listed; in subsequent references to the same organism,
only the common name is given.
3.1. Plant Communities
One upland and two wetland plant communities were
identified in the study area: Disturbed, Palustrine Swamp Forest
and Disturbed Scrub\Shrub Wetland. A description of each plant
community, in order of dominance, follows.
Uplands (Disturbed)
Located along Peachtree Street in an urban residential
area, the Disturbed community dominates a major portion of the
study area. Very large oak trees such as willow and water oaks
( uercus p hellos and Q. nigra) line the street and maintained
grass-dominated lawns are typical. Red maple (Acer rubrum),
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black walnut
(Juglans nigra), pecan (Carya illinoensis), crepe myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) are
typical in residential areas. The understory is absent. The
herbaceous layer is maintained in low growing condition and is
grass-dominated.
Within the residential area is a utility line and an
abandoned railroad track that support a Disturbed Scrub\Shrub
community. Scattered canopy species such as privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), mimosa (Albizia
julibrissin), white mulberry. (Morns alba), paper mulberry
(Broussonetia papyrifera) and wild cherry (Prunus serotina) with
rank growth of cow itch (Campsis radicans), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) are the primary components of this community.
Herbaceous species include pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
erigeron (Erigeron sp.) and goldenrod (Solidago odora).
This community is also located in the vicinity of the
project terminus, at the US 64 bypass. Young loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) and sweetgum comprise the canopy. Winged elm
(Ulmus alata), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), sericea (Lespedeza
cuneata) and blackberry (Rubus sp.) are common shrubs. Poison
ivy is abundant ground cover. Foxtail grass (Setaria sp.),
goldenrod, erigeron and various grasses dominate the herbaceous
layer.
14
Wetlands
Two wetland plant communities are located in the study
area. Each community is described below. Wetland limits
bordering the Tar River are shown in Figure 9.
Palustrine Swamp Forest
The Tar River floodplain is dominated by a Palustrine Swamp
Forest that is seasonally flooded. This community is narrow
north of the river and is more extensive south of the river.
The canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
with swollen trunk bases and cypress knees. Black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), sycamore, winged elm, sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), willow oak and pumpkin ash (Fraxinus rofunda)
form a dense canopy with water hickory (Carya aquatica ,
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) and box elder (Acer ne undo)
comprising a scattered understory. The herbaceous layer varies
in density and includes chasmanthium (Chasmanthium latifolia),
several dayflower species (Commelina communis an C. vii ri?ca),
false nettle (Boehmeria cy ind car nal flower (Lobelia
cardinalis) and poison ivy.
Disturbed Scrub\Shrub Wetland
A small area, located west of the existing bridge, lacks a
canopy and is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and wild
cotton (Hibiscus moscheutos). The herbaceous layer consists of
primarily aneifema (Aneilma keisak). Parrot's feather
(Myriophyllum brasiliense), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica) are
present in areas that support standing water. Climbing hempweed
(Mikania scandens) is common and observed on other vegetation.
Summary of Plant Community Impacts
Construction will impact the Disturbed and the Palustrine.
Swamp Forest communities. Plant community impacts are presented
in Table 1. This estimate is preliminary and may change.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMNdUNITY
Disturbed 4.2
Palustrine Swamp Forest 4.3
Disturbed Scrub\Shrub wetland -
TOTAL 8.5 acres
Note: Estimated impacts are based on a right-of-way width of 60 and
construction easements ranging up to 130' wide.
15
Direct impact from proposed construction in the Palustrine
Swamp Forest is vegetation removal. Light incidence and
temperature increases due to vegetation removal are anticipated
from proposed construction. Efforts will be made to minimize
impacts to the Tar River (see Section VI.G.).
Proposed construction along Peachtree Street will remove
many large oak trees that border the street. These trees form a.
canopy along much of the street. Tree removal will increase
light incidence and temperature to the surrounding residential
sites and will greatly change the appearance of the area.
3.2. Wildlife Communities
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by
proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna likely to
occur in each ecosystem are presented. The Palustrine Swamp
Forest is characterized in both the aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Terrestrial Communities
Open, dead mussel shells of Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)
were found on the river banks, this may indicate the presence of
raccoon (Procyon lotor) or mink (Mustela vison). Other
mammalian fauna anticipated in the swamp forest include opossum
(Didelphis virginica) and evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis).
In upland areas one may find gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus aguaticus), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vul es),
white-footed mouse (Permyscus leucopus) and woodchuck (Marmota
marmax).
Avian fauna anticipated in the Palustrine Swamp Forest
community includes barred owl (Strix varia), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), fish crow (Corvus ossifragus), green heron
( Butorides striatus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),
wood duck (Aix sponsa) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).
The Palustrine Swamp Forest community and the upland
Disturbed community support various amphibians and reptiles.
Species likely to be present are dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus
punctatus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus) and spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer). American toad (Bufo americanus) and Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei) may be found in upland areas.
Aquatic Communities
The Tar River supports a variety of fish such as eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmea), chain pickerel (Esox ni er), redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus),
swallowtail shiner (Notropis rp ocne), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
16
oblongus), suckermouth redhorse (Moxostoma pappillosum), silver
redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), tadpole madtom (Noturus rgy inus),
pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), flier (Centrarchus
macropterus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbus). In
addition, Asian clam shells (Corbicula fluminea) were found on
the river banks.
Summary of Wildlife Community Impacts
The proposed project will involve construction of an
approximately 430-foot long bridge across the Tar River. Fill
material will be placed on a swamp forest community that
supports a diversity of wildlife. The swamp forest community
also serves as cover, foraging habitat, and may also serve as a
corridor for animal migrations. Fill placement and resulting
construction will reduce the amount of available wildlife
habitat and may create a barrier to certain organisms. It will
also fragment the community and retard animal migrations.
Proposed construction creates potential for increased
deposition of soil material and sedimentation to the aquatic
ecosystem which may impact filter feeders and nonmobile
organisms. Construction may cause displacement of certain
organisms. Efforts will be made to minimize erosion into the Tar
River (see Section IV.G.). Best Management Practices and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be implemented during
construction.
In general, road widening will decrease the amount of
available wildlife habitat. Impacts to the Disturbed community
may decrease utilization for foraging and cover.
4. Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
4.1. Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Nash County Soil
Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1989). Four soil mapping
units are located in the study area.
Table 2 Soil Summary, Nash County
SYMBOL NAME CLASSIFICATION
GrB Gritney sandy loam Hydric Inclusions
NuB Norfolk-urban land complex Non-Hydric
Ur Urban land Non-Hydric
Wh Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded Hydric
17
The Norfolk-urban land complex is the prevalent mapping
unit and is common in residential areas along Peachtree Street.
This mapping unit is well drained, moderately permeable soils
that consist of Norfolk soil and urban land.
Urban land consists of areas that are urbanized and have
been altered from development activities. This mapping unit is
located at the site of the Rocky Mount Mills.
ti Wehadkee loam map unit is located adjacent to the Tar
River. Wehadkee loam is poorly drained, found on nearly level
floodplains and frequently flooded.
4.2. Water Resources
.The project is located in the Tar River Basin. The Tar
River is approximately 200' wide where it crosses the proposed
new connector. The river is approximately 250' wide where the
existing Falls Road bridge is located. Upstream of the proposed
bridge location, the river drains from two channels and merges
into one channel. Downstream of the study area the river is
impounded by a dam located adjacent to the Rocky Mount Mills.
The river bottom is composed of sand and silt with cobble- and
gravel-sized material. The Tar River originates in the eastern
piedmont of the state and empties into the Pamlico River located
near Washington, North Carolina.
The Tar River is classified as a brownwater river which
originates in the piedmont. Brownwater rivers carry a high
sediment load, have a circumneutral pH, have low organic carbon
concentrations, and have high concentrations of dissolved
inorganics.
Best usage classification of this section of the Tar River
is WS-III and B NSW (DEM, 1991). The best usage classification
of WS-III waters is defined as a water supply segment with no
categorical restrictions on watershed development; suitable for
all Class C uses. The best usage classification of Class B
waters is primary recreation and any other usage specified by
the C classification. Best usage recommendations for Class C
waters include aquatic propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Tar River carries the two classifications WS-II and B
because it is a water supply segment and supports primary
recreation.
The study area crosses one unnamed tributary of the Tar
River which is unclassified. The best usage classification of
this tributary is the same as the Tar River to which it is a
tributary. The tributary is approximately 3' wide, 1"-4" deep
and the bottom is composed of sand and silt.
18
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) 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 over 1 mile downstream in the Tar River at
NC 97 in Edgecombe County. The bioclassification of these
samples was rated as good/fair. Subsequent BMAN sampling in the
Tar River from 1984 to 1990 have bioclassifications of good and
good/fair.
One stream intake is located downstream of the study area
in the Tar River and several National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) are located downstream of the study
area.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters and
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area
or 1 mile downstream.
Summary of Water Quality Impacts:
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and
and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence
increased sedimentation and
- Changes in water temperature
siltation from construction
and water clarity
vegetation removal.
due to vegetation
due to
removal.
To minimize any unavoidable project impacts to water
resources, NCDOT will implement strict adherence to Best
Management Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines and
special erosion control measures as described in Section IV.G..
5. Jurisdictional Issues
5.1. Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating
activities in "Waters of the United States" 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" is defined as navigable
waters, their tributaries and associated wetlands and is
subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
19
Summary of Impacts
Impacts to surface waters and wetland are anticipated at
the Tar River. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland
hydrology as detailed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. Wetland boundaries are shown on Figure 8.
Impacts to wetlands are estimated at 4.3 acres of
Palustrine Swamp Forest. Estimated wetland impacts are based on
a right-of-way width of 60' with construction easements ranging
up to 130' wide. This estimate is preliminary and may change.
Wetland Permits
.A Nationwide permit is not likely to be applicable to the
proposed action because the Tar River is classified as below
headwaters at the proposed bridge site and wetland impacts
exceed one acre. A Bridge General permit is not likely to be
applicable because of the wetland impacts. An Individual
Section 404 Permit is likely to be required for proposed
construction.
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 Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Mitigation
If the project is authorized under an Individual Permit,
mitigation is likely to be required according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
5.2. 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.
Federally Protected Species
Three federally protected species are listed by the USFWS
in Nash County as of October 5, 1992. These species are listed
in Table 3. A discussion of each species follows.

20
Table 3. Federally Protected Species Listed for. Nash County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Tar River spiny mussel Elliptio steinstansana E
Definition:
E or Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all
its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
In North Carolina, moderate populations of red-cockaded
woodpecker are found in the sandhills and in the southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
RCW's use open, old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand nust contain at least 50%
pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
stands considered ideal habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are equal to or greater than 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine-dominated stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is approximately
0.5 mile and must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and
usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100
ft above the ground and average 30-50 ft high.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. No impacts to the red-cockaded
woodpecker will occur from proposed construction.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedged mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
In North Carolina, populations of Alasmidonta heterodon are
found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River
Basin, and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stony
Creeks of the Tar River system.
21
The dwarf-wedged mussel is a small mussel ranging in size
from 2.5cm to 3.8cm in length. Its shell is distinguishable by
two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and
industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed
with well oxygenated water to survive.
Mussel surveys were conducted for this project by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) during the Spring
of 1992. The NCWRC results stated that the study area does not
support suitable habitat for this species and mussels were not
found in the study area. Based on this information, no impacts
to the dwarf-wedged mussel will occur from proposed
construction.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
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. It is currently 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 bed should be
composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs
to be relatively silt-free.
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.
Mussel surveys were conducted for this project by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) during the Spring
of 1992. The NCWRC results stated that the study area does not
support suitable habitat for this species and mussels were not
found in the study area. Based on this information, no impacts
to the Tar River spiny mussel will occur from proposed
construction.
Federal Candidate Species
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Nash County (Table 4). 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.
22
Table 4. Federal Candidate Species Listed for Nash County
COMMON NAME
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Diana fritillary butterfly
Carolina trillium
Green floater (mussel)
Yellow lampmussel
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT
Elliptio lanceolata C2 No
Fusconaia masoni C2 No
Speyeria diana C2 Yes
Trillium pusillum
var. pusillum C2 No
Eli d o subviridus C2 Yes
Lampsilius cariosa C2 Yes
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 that are state protected and may occur in the study area
are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. State Protected Species Listed for Nash County
COMMON NAME
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Carolina trillium
Green floater (mussel)
Yellow lampmussel
SCIENTIFIC NAME
FAUNA
Elli tio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
FL-
Trillium pusillum
var. usillum
Eliptio subviridus
Lampsilius cariosa
STATUS HABITAT
T No
T No
E No
C2 Yes
C2 Yes
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of Federal
Candidate species specified for Nash County.
Fauna Status Definitions:
T - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
Flora Status Definitions:
E - Endangered: Any species of plant whose continued existence as a viable
component of the state's flora is in jeopardy.
I

A
No field surveys were conducted for state protected species.
23
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to review pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will have an
adverse effect upon a property listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
Because a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 wetland permit is
likely to be involved, this project is subject to compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 for the permit area.
This Act requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect upon a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, then the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation must be given an opportunity to comment.
1. Archaeological Resources
The North Carolina Division of Archives and History stated "It
is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be
affected by the project construction" (see page A-2 of the Appendix).
They recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted
for the project.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
This project involves one property listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Rocky Mount Mills is located along Falls
Road just south of the Tar River (see Figure 3). This Mill was
established in 1818. It is the second oldest cotton mill in North
Carolina and is the oldest which remains in operation in this State.
The proposed project will involve only a small amount of historic
mill property according to the current boundaries of the National
Register site. However, the historic boundaries are currently being
revised to include the historic Mill Village which adjoins the Mill.
With the expansion of the historic boundaries, the proposed new
connector will affect considerably more of the National Register
site. At least two houses in the Mill Village must be relocated due
to this project.
Coordination is currently underway with the State Historic
Preservation Officer regarding this project's effect on the Rocky
Mount Mills. NCDOT staff architechtural historians are currently
determining the revised boundaries of the historic site.
Coordination will also be undertaken to determine means of minimizing
any impacts to this historic resource. This coordination will lead
to a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation
Officer regarding the NCDOT's consideration of effects to historic
resources.
24
The following additions to the project are under consideration
as mitigation for the project's effect on Rocky Mount Mills:
* Relocation of affected mill houses to locations within Mill
Village boundaries.
* Provision of features incorporating historic designs to the
new bridge across the Tar River (rails, lighting, etc.).
* Provision of markers identifying historic Rocky Mount
Mills.
No other listed National Register properties are in the project
vicinity. No other properties eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places are within the permit area of the project's crossing
of the Tar River.
C. Social Settina and Imaacts
The project is located on the north side of the City of Rocky Mount.
The area is one of the older sections of Rocky Mount with the city's name
originating from the "rocky mound" found in the Tar River just east of
Falls Road.
Falls Road
Falls Road currently has residential development along the majority
of its length. Exceptions to residential development include Rocky Mount
Mills, located at the Tar River, and three churches - Marvin United
Methodist Church,.North Rocky Mount Baptist Church, and Falls Road Baptist
Church. Commercial development is located at the intersection of Falls
Road and Ridge Street. The Rocky Mount Chamber of Commerce is located just
south of Grace Street.
The project will generally have a positive effect to families along
Falls Road. By directing southbound traffic to Peachtree Street, the
existing congestion along Falls Road will be reduced. This will provide a
safer environment with less noise along Falls Road. However, some
residents and businesses may find the new one-way pair facility to provide
less direct access to their homes and businesses.
Peachtree Street
Effects to Peachtree Street will be considerably different than those
to Falls Road. Peachtree Street is currently a city residential street
with practically no through-traffic. Many residents along Peachtree
Street are older citizens who have lived in the area for many years.
Peachtree Street has a rather quiet setting with large overhanging oak
trees bordering the street on both sides. Non-residential uses are found
at the southern end of Peachtree Street. These consist of Grace Covenant
Church and Christian School and the Parkview Dental Office. Other office
development has occurred in structures that were formally residential
homes.
25
The proposed project will revise Peachtree Street to an arterial
roadway carrying 15,200 vehicles per day by the year 2015 including 5
percent truck traffic. Upgrading Peachtree Street to handle this traffic
will require removal of the trees which border the existing street from
Earl Street to Spring Street. Approximately six residences will require
relocation as part of this project (two along River Drive; four along
Peachtree Street). Section VI.D. contains additional data regarding
relocation impacts. In addition to relocation of houses, widening
Peachtree Street from Spring Street to Earl Street will bring travel lanes
closer to residences. Traffic noise will be increased along Peachtree
Street.
The NCDOT relocation assistance program is discussed in Section VI.D.
This program is designed to ease the burdens of relocation. For
residences where additional right of way is needed, but relocation of
dwellings is not required, any proximity damages caused by the widened
roadway will be considered as NCDOT determines the appropriate
compensation for landowners.
In general, the project will be beneficial to the citizens of Rocky
Mount and surrounding areas through reduced congestion which will make for
safer travel, more efficient traffic operations, and improved access.
Public services, such as police, fire protection, and other emergency
services, will benefit from a reduction in response time due to the
reduced congestion.
D. Relocation Impacts
Six relocatees are anticipated as a result of this project. This
estimate is highly approximate. As further design is completed for this
project, alternatives may be considered which will widen Peachtree Street
asymmetrically to the east or west. This may increase the estimated number
of relocatees. A Relocation Report prepared by the NCDOT Right of Way
Branch is found on page A-17 of the Appendix.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
* With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing of other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
26
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance. to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations, and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees.are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT
purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered
in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, and
non-profit organizations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increase interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to ,
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to-make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the State determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
27
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless or until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment.received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the State so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
E. Land Use
Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located in the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of the City of Rocky Mount. The 1975-1985 Rock Mount Land
Development Plan is currently in effect, although the City is developing a
more current plan. The City has also adopted and enforces a zoning
ordinance.
Existing Zoning
The area along the Tar River comprising Rocky Mount Mills is zoned
I-2 Heavy Industrial.
Most of the land in the vicinity of Peachtree Street south of the
Mill to Earl Street is zoned R-6 Residential. This district permits both
single family and multi-family uses, although larger minimum lot sizes are
required for multi-family development. The property along Falls Road is
also zoned R-6 from the Mill to Trevathan Street.
South of Earl and Trevathan Streets to Grace Street, the Falls Road
area is zoned R-10 Residential. This district is more restrictive than R-6
because it establishes a larger minimum lot size (10,000 square feet) and
permits only single family uses.
South of Grace Street, the land along Falls Road is zoned 0-I Office
and Institutional. Most businesses, governmental, and professional offices
are permitted, as are institutions such as libraries and churches.
Future Land Use Plans
According to the 1975-1985 Rocky Mount Land Development Plan, the
Falls Road/Peachtree Street area is expected to remain a residential area
dominated by single family uses. No major redevelopment or change in uses
is expected.
28
Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The proposed project will not cause changes to the current zoning or
land use for the area. The proposed changes to Peachtree Street will
introduce arterial traffic into this residential community; however, this
will not require any changes to local land use plans.
Farmland
Because the project is located in an urban setting, it is exempt from
the farmland protection requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy
Act.
F. Recreational Facilities
1. Parks.
Two City parks are located within the project limits. Battle
Park is located on the east side of Falls Road just south of US 64
Bypass. Braswell Park is located at the south end of Peachtree Street
at its intersection with Franklin Street.
The project will not impact either of these City Parks.
2. Greenways
The City of Rocky Mount is considering provision of a greenway
along the Tar River. Plans for this greenway have not yet been
finalized. West of Falls Road, the greenway would be located on the
south side of the Tar River. The greenway would cross the Tar River
in the vicinity of Falls Road and continue eastward along the north
side of the river.
The City of Rocky Mount has requested NCDOT consider provision
of an 8- to 10-foot pedestrian walkway (possibly suspended below the
roadway elevation) on the new bridge across the Tar River. This
walkway would allow greenway users to travel across the Tar River.
The new bridge across the Tar River will include 5-foot wide
pedestrian sidewalks. Additional provisions for pedestrians, such as
a separate walkway for greenway travelers, may be incorporated into
the bridge design as permitted by design standards. The City of Rocky
Mount must fund the additional cost of this walkway.
G. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. This project also has special concerns
due to the proposed crossing of the Tar River. Measures will be taken to
minimize these effects to the extent possible.
29
Traffic service on roads intersecting the project may be subjected to
brief periods of disruption during construction of the project. Every
effort will be made to ensure that the transportation needs of the public
will be met both during and after construction.
All possible measures will be taken to ensure that the public health
and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to
and from construction sites along the project and that any inconveniences
will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures." The
contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site violating of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are provided by
the contractor and that lay outside of the state right of way, unless
otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or permitted by the
Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas,
both during the work and until completion of all seeding and mulching or
other specified erosion control, in a manner which will effectively
control erosionand siltation.
Debris, including vegetation from land clearing and materials from
demolition, land clearing, and construction, will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable pollution and solid waste regulations.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to
ensure burning is done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings
and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when controlling dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists and area residents.
Borrow pits and all ditches must be drained as much as possible to
decrease mosquito breeding areas.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including precautionary steps to minimize damage or rupture to water lines
and interruption of water service.
30
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during construction of this
project. For this reason, an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work. The phases must be coordinated to
reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary
erosion control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be
required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which
pertain to erosion and sedimentation.
The general requirements concerning erosion and sedimentation are
covered in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution." The N.C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This
program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures and the policies of the Division of Highways regarding control
of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State
Forces.
The proposed crossing of the Tar River will require particular
attention to erosion and sedimentation control. Construction operations
will be carefully planned to minimize disturbance to stream banks.
Cofferdam sheeting will be used for bridge footings in water. Any material
excavated for footings or near water will be removed from the immediate
vicinity to prevent it from eroding back into the water. All runoff
crossing the construction area will be directed to temporary silt basins
via lateral ditches with rock check dams to slow and filter the runoff
prior to discharging into the river. Approach roadway fill slopes will be
stabilized with seeding, and temporary silt ditches, silt fence, etc.
shall be provided at the toe of fill. Berms along the top of the fill
slope will be used to convey runoff laterally to temporary slope drains
which empty into temporary sediment basins. Early placement of rip-rap
slope protection will also protect against surface erosion.
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The City of Rocky Mount participates in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The proposed Tar River crossing location is included in
the detailed flood study. Figure 8 shows the location of the 100-year
floodplain and the regulatory floodway. The proposed project involves a
new roadway crossing in a regulatory floodway; therefore, it is
anticipated that a floodway modification will be required. NCDOT will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and with local
authorities with regard to application for, and approval of, the
anticipated floodway modification. This will be done during the final
hydraulic design stage.
The existing floodplain is in a developed urban area. It is probable
some existing buildings in or adjacent to the floodplain have floor
elevations below the 100-year flood elevation. A detailed assessment will
be made during final hydraulic design to determine and provide for
mitigation of any adverse flooding impacts the project may be expected to
cause.
31
Groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of 4 to 6 feet throughout
the project limits. Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be
affected by this project. Scour potential is expected to be low or
negligible at the river crossing; this will be verified during the final
design.
I. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation
included an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also
included a comparison of predicted noise levels and ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Because the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table 6.
Review of Table 6 indicates that
are exposed to fairly high noise level
their daily activities. The degree
unwanted sound depends essentially on
nature of the intruding noise, 2) the
noise and the intruding noise, and 3)
the noise is heard.
most individuals in urbanized areas
s from many sources as they go about
of disturbance or annoyance of
three things: 1) the amount and
relationship between the background
the type of activity occurring where
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
in
23
32
CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table 7. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is
the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has
the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a
steady noise level with the same energy content.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SOUNDS
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E SO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
F]
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
33
TABLE 7
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
, Category Leg(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roams, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
34
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine existing noise levels. The purpose of this noise level
information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to
provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The
field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for residences,
businesses, and other noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the
project.
Existing roadway and traffic conditions along the proposed project
were incorporated in the most current traffic noise prediction model to
compute existing Leq noise levels. These computed values were compared
with existing Leq noise levels which were measured at six locations along
the proposed project. The computed existing Leq noise levels deviated 0.3
to 3.6 dBA from the measured noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can
be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-speed" vehicles and single
vehicular speed. The ambient noise measurement sites and the
corresponding existing Leq noise levels are presented in Table 8.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
Preliminary alignment was used in this noise analysis. The proposed
project was modeled assuming no special noise abatement measures would be
incorporated. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers which
could be modeled were included. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents "worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with
proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design year
2015, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to experience a
substantial noise increase.
35
TABLE 8
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1 NC 43-48, 350' North of Tar River Grassy Area 67
2 Falls Road, 250' North of Ridge Grassy Area 64
Street
3 Ridge Street, 220' West of Falls Grassy Area 61
Road
4 Falls Road, 100' North of Grassy Area 62
Trevathan Street
5 Grace Street, 400' West of Falls Grassy Area 62
Road
6 Falls Road, 400' North of Franklin Grassy Area 58
Street
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.
The total number of impacted receptors, whether by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels, are given in Table 9. Other
information included in Table 9 are the maximum extents of the 72 and 67
dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway in local jurisdiction and to prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses.
The traffic noise impacts in terms of increased exterior noise levels
are predicted to range from +1 to +19 dBA, these are indicated in Table
10. Substantial Increases in exterior noise levels of this magnitude are
common on new location projects since the majority of these areas have
little or no highway traffic noise in their acoustic environment. When
real-life noises are heard, level changes of 2 to 3 dBA are barely
perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
36
TABLE 9
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTOUR APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS DISTANCES RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
(dBA)' (MAXIMUM), TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
DESCRIPTION 501 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. Falls Road/Peachtree Street Connector 68 63 57 < 31' 54' 0 3 0 0 0
From US 64 Bypass to River Drive
2. Falls Road/Peachtree Street Connector 67 63 57 < 31' 53' 0 22 0 0 0
From River Drive to West Ridge Street
3. Falls Road/Peachtree Street Connector 67 62 57 < 31' 47' 0 44 0 0 0
From West Ridge Street to Grace Street
4. Falls Road From Grace Street to Franklin 65 60 55 < 31' < 31' 0 0 0 0 0
Street
5. Peachtree Street Connector From Grace 64 60 54 < 31' < 31' 0 1 0 0 0
Street to Franklin Street

TOTAL 0 70 0 0 0
'50', 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
37
TABLE 10
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
RECEPTOR EMIOR KISS LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL
SECTION <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >= 25 INCREASES
Falls Road/Peachtree Street
connector from US 64 Bypass 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
to River Drive
Falls Road/Peachtree Street
Connector from River Drive 0 0 21 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 7
to West Ridge Street
Falls Road/Peachtree Street
Connector from West Ridge 0 1 29 13 3 3 2 4 15 13 6 0 0 0 34
Street to Grace Street
Falls Road from Grace Street 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to Franklin Street
Peachtree Street Connector
from Grace Street to Franklin 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
Street
TOTAL 3 2 50 19 6 5 3 7 20 16 9 0 0 0 44
'As defined in Table 6 .
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either (a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC),
with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or (b) substantially exceed existing
noise levels, as defined in the lower portion of Table 7. Noise abatement
measures must be considered when either of the two preceding conditions
exist.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise can often be
applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earthen berms or artificial abatement walls.
38
The project will maintain no control of access. Most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct driveway connections to the
proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at-grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
of substantial height and length as to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.)
due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normal.ly be eight
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier
400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
Based on past project experience, these factors effectively negate
the effectiveness of any physical abatement measures and none are
recommended for this project.
"No-Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "No Build", alternative were also
considered. If traffic in the project area should double in the next
twenty years, receptors should experience a 3 dBA noise level increase.
As previously stated, this small increase would be a barely perceptible
change to individuals living and working in the area.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal since the construction noise is relatively short in
duration and is generally restricted to daytime hours. The transmission
loss characteristics of surrounding man-made structures and natural
features should be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
Summary
Based on the above noise analysis, no traffic noise abatement is
reasonable or feasible along this project and none is proposed. This is
primarily due to the non-controlled access nature of the proposed
facility. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements; unless a major project change develops, no additional noise
impact reports are required for this project.
39
J. Air Quality Analysis
The effects to air quality resulting from the construction of a new
highway or the improvement of an existing highway can range from
aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help lower
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
40
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as
more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale, supply, or
transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995." Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst case"
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the design year 2015 and for ten years prior
(2005) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban areas.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the project was
determined to be a business. The receptor is located 25 feet west of
Falls Road and approximately 400 feet north of River Drive. The "build"
one hour CO concentrations for years 2005 and 2015 for this receptor are
as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
"Build" Year 2005 2015
"Worst-Case" Receptor 3.3 3.3
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Because the results of
the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, the 8-hour CO
level also does not exceed the standard. The results also show that the
building of the project will not adversely effect air quality conditions
in the area.
The project is located in the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control
Region. The ambient air quality for Nash County has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because
41
this project is located in an area where the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement
A hazardous materials evaluation for this project was conducted. This
evaluation included a reconnaissance survey of the proposed project
corridor and a review of the files of the Division of Solid Waste
Management and the Division of Environmental Management groundwater
incident list. No known hazardous materials sites are located within the
project corridor and none were found during the reconnaissance survey.
After a review of all available information, no hazardous waste
involvement is expected.
L. Special Permits and Approvals Required of the Division of Highways
It is anticipated this project will require an individual wetland
permit in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section
401 General Water Quality Certification will also be required.
A floodway modification will also be required. NCDOT will coordinate
the floodway modification with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
with local authorities during the final design of the project.
Because this project requires a federal wetland permit and has a
property listed in and eligible for listing in the National Register
within the permit area, NCDOT must comply with the National Historic
Preservation Act. NCDOT will coordinate with the State Historic
Preservation Officer to reach a Memorandum of Agreement on how effects to
the historic Rocky Mount Mills will be taken into account.
The project is not located in a county that falls under the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Agency Coordination
On January 9, 1990 a letter was mailed to the following federal,
state, and local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental
input concerning the proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those
agencies who responded to this letter):
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
*U.S. Soil Conservation Service
*U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Publ.ic Instruction
and Natural Resources
42
*N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
*N.C. Division of Water Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
*Nash County Schools
Region L Council of Governments
Copies of agency and local government correspondence are found in the
Appendix. In addition, the City of Rocky Mount has been consulted to
determine the City's interests regarding this project.
B. Public Involvement
On September 15, 1992, a citizen informational workshop was held in
Rocky Mount to discuss the proposed project. Approximately 40 people
attended the meeting. Many of the residents along Peachtree Street were
greatly concerned about the change in the character of their street. Many
of these residents oppose the project because it will reduce their front
yards and introduce arterial traffic onto a quiet street. The project
received support from others who saw a need to address the traffic
problems along Falls Road.
RPH/plr
FIGURES

.t.Ytr,t
y 1 541
rt.uL
oDat
Kw.
Latr. uw.
i
1
1
1
$ PROJECT LIMIT
?J \
i
NEW CONNECTOR"
{ ac«. a
wu

PROJECT LIMIT !a
--t
o E
4. ?'ao ••.. Y • r
• ow,.r .a,. r F w.n terw! F
f ? Y.(.• a. of ^ '! Ld.1
? M« J :
•( ! Cwt ? 1 +Wr?
.•. S 4 ; ouw • 97
G • 4 ?1? rL. t• • Q
•
` `iii
'y
p
Y i
••, `'LYI.-
•
•yc ~ ? ca«
'
t'
4
•. q.
1r
O• L
)
!
, ^•L. rrow.a
g ?ODYD .. LILr
T? r,w.
Mrs •
? ?

3 i ' tQl.
y,

<w a ? r _ r1 t .r 301
N ODD
.«Dtc?O •
?.

.,
• cat. Kw
w. ? .ua
w
..w
w
r
?
'
.rye
.r ?`
O• ..aaM. Dal
Y L ' rr.
?t ?• ~
r I
iµ d •• i f
.°
?
...• ?? , : _ , ? is a
ROCKY MOUNT
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
.3
? wu.o
aC7' ? .
3
/
y ha4K NEM
COw.
/ y
m
?O
J 1` •
p?VER ---_=
for (.,«.... , .••° '/
,DD.E. C I • •;
s«.,row g
K '.
[.D
O.R. •[
• Ktr' `
wrt( prt w. "? F ! I
r ? Q
DK
.DK H
n(r.!
,w.
« tw o
w
?cir: u rt. . ? .?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
U-2111
FALLS ROAD - PEACHTREE STREET CONNECTOR
AND ONE - WAY PAIR
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
0 miles 0.5 FIG.1
's
i

i ?
C

i
f
r

j?.
NORTH CAROLINA
JULY I, 1985
X
f,c
LEGEND
E%IGTING PRDPDSED
FREEWAY sommomms
64AJOR THOROUGHFARE lmlw? ----m---
MINOR THOROUGHFARE - --------
GRADE SEPARATION O
INTERCHANGE O
ADOPTED BY ROCKY MOUNT ON AUGUST 12 190
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY PLANNING n
Ices ?i?
RESEARCH BRANCH ON At,?T 15
ADOPTED BY NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SEPT.131995
FIG. 2

I6
NC 43-48
FALLS ROAD-PEACHTREE STREET CONNECTOR AND ONE-WAY PAIR
FROM US 301 BUSINESS (FRANKLIN STREET) TO US 64 BYPASS
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U-2111
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8043124
PROJECTED 1995/2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN HUNDREDS)
BENVENUE ROAD
TTST = 3% NC 43-48 A A
DUAL = 61/o TTST = 2%
DHV = 10°/, 208 DUAL = 3%
DIR = 600% 330 DHV = 10%
DIR - ONE WAY 92 it 90
l 152 1 148
•
89 24 37
54
156 40 ..
HUNTER HILL ROAD 54
93

1 59
5
11
18` 9

18 42
TTST = 7% US-64 BYPASS 28 ?`67
DUAL = 13%
f
DHV = 10% 249 2s 277
DIR = 61% 428 33 42 476
\
\ 32
48
75 51
\w 2 5
\
15
4 9
w 23 2 BATTLE PARK
W
195 4
319
4J
It 96
160 / 97
159
Q

k-
Q
5 O
0

a Q 6 ?? Q

33 11 1 13
57 20?/ \?2 22,?
TTST = 2% RIVER DRIVE 6_*1 {2 19 6'"N
DUAL = 3% 10 4 33 11
DHV = 10% .
DHV = 60% 92 90
152 148
2 I 1-
W. ELM STREET 4.r Q
6 2? x1-
11 4 l 1
f 92
152
12 3 11 4
W. RIDGE ROAD 20..1 %? 19 E. RIDGE ROAD
TTST = 2% 36 2 N {1 26 1 19
DUAL = 3% 61 3 2 45 2 2 35
DHV=10%
DIR = 55% 80 77
1 132 126
6
10 3 8
1 a
& TTST = 2%
EARL STREET ..1 ks 2 DUAL=3%
21 5 N "'l 14
s''\
DHV = 10%
35 s 2 24 10 a DIR - ONE WAY

T 77 75
127 122
18 25 15 17 GRACE STREET
GRACE STREET 31.d 1,43 29 k,29 NC-43
TTST = 2% 114 5N 1(4 120 6? r 121
DUAL=4% 202 9 7 212 11 9 213
DHV = 10%
DIR = 55%
43 54
69 87
FRANKLIN STREET 43 0 0 4
US-301 S. +- 69? 0 0
TTST = 2% 78 35 4_'? 715
DUAL = 4% 136 67 7 25
DHV = 10%
DIR = ONE WAY }
1I 69
112
1 1-
2 11 E. ELM STREET
3 1 , F1 2
5 2 1+ 3
90 t I
148
89 21 0
161 45j `0
CHURCH STREET -'" 3 9
5 16
60
88
US--301 BUS S.
50
92
TTST = 2%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 10%
DIR - ONE WAY
US-301 BUS N.
74
127
1 1- 1 1- 1
2,?/ ?1 2 `1 2
3 1? 1r1- 2 1 1 1- SPRING STREET FIGURE 4a
6 2 1 4 2 1
A - - - - - - - A RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
NC 43-48
FALLS ROAD-PEACHTREE STREET CONNECTOR AND ONE-WAY PAIR
FROM US 301 BUSINESS (FRANKLIN STREET) TO US 64 BYPASS
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U-2111
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8043124
PROJECTED 1995/2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN HUNDREDS)
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
f
208
330
34
61
RIDGE STREET
A 180 A
299
23 7 17
38 13 35
3 2
5 4
155
257
O
ao TTST = 2%

89 24
156 40 37
54
HUNTER HILL ROAD 54
93
11 \\ 59
18 95

18 42
249 28 67 227
)
428 '? k_ 476
TTST = 70/0 22? F 26 US-64
DUAL = 13% 33 42
DHV = 10%
DIR = 61%
? 32
48 ` 51
75
2 5
15 4 9
23 2 BATTLE PARK
a
195 O
319 Q
O
c

TTST = 2%
39 27 N DUAL = 3%
60 ao DHV = 10%
RIVER DRIVE 12 DIR = 60%
zo
180
299
4 2 1- 1
8 4 1 2
ELM STREET 2 1-
4 1
180
299
2 1 1- 1
4 2 1 2
SPRING STREET 1 1-
2 1
180
299
A A
20 11 0: DUAL = 3%
39 21 co DHV = 10%
EARL STREET 9 It DIR = 60%
18 U.
153
254
14
2a4 TTST = 2%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 10%
114
202 33
54 36
59 116
205 DIR = 55%
s 5 GRACE STREET
11 9
91
151
60 22 4 50
109 f - 37 8 . .__ 92
0 r 9 FRANKLIN STREET
2 14
75
124
88 20 2 74
157 41 4 127
1 1- N. CHURCH STREET

2 9
59
88
FIGURE 4b
NO - BUILD ALTERNATIVE
?
N
o y rn
z
. v
z
0 m

D M
?
N
r
0
D m "
M mm
z ?
<
M
m n

m
to
n

0
z
C
m
I //
f
RIVER DRIVE _
m V)
m m
O
a
ELM STREET
SPRING STREET _
M t t:
No
RIDGE STREET Q -.G O

TREVATHAN STREET

It
EARL STREET T
WILKINSON STREET
g ? CN I f .
fT {n ? ?- +- pto
mw oW
I.-a-4
?m
OAK STREET
BRASWELL STREET

o ?-
bls N11?Ndti
133

'IV
1

U)

?
O M
0
o
0
m
0
m<
z

M O
m
v
?
C
c v
Z
Z r
D
m
?
LZ
j
j m ?
m
m 0
0
c>
= >
>
'0 Cl)
m Z
0
c
Z >
m m
..j C
Z Z
m
0
-1
O
m
a
U-2111
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS
L 8' '21 10' 11, _. _ 11, .2% 8'
1/4"/FT. I i I I 11 1/4"/ FT
rr--?
I
FALLS ROAD
(EXISTING)
t f
i' 11 10` .2 ' . 8'
1/4 I I I I I I I/4 of / FT.
PEACHTREE STREET
(PROPOSED WIDENING)
12 , 2'
I /4° /
NEW CONNECTOR
(PROPOSED)
114'1 FT.
.r ,
FIG. 6

1
!
1

NRR
m!&
W ?S\M
r
1
r
• ,a To.:w.Y..R.
.
1
E
ALTERNATIVE 2
ONE-WAY PAIR -
NEW CONNECTOR
E H OF ROCKY MOUNT MILLS

?LLit'? r\
MN 11113'/1L rY111I.0-
/ \\ < AIRPORT n 3 *wreo.
/ s.viou ! ° ? 0
c?3?'?r •.; i?F? ?MiKEYi ? /
\ i ------ TW cco CQ y .(7(7(yhNl1. CORR NR{
64
\\\\ KEii M Tl[ MME / ` XjE /(T Y
43
46
a ? /W
\ ROE[ /?
\ \ \\ ASi[Y /?
? \\ ? Ytr V 1
../ Roc.?ui ?? /? 1
? ?/ .• YoRTR??+ 305 / ?? ?' R
1 _ • -_' ? ?c+. or"coo / ' y. e.
1 P? 4\ r e8 / W 1
ALTERNATIVE 4
WIDEN CHURCH STREET
• M ror SY„M ..R.

•wi4M 9C.?E..x.Yv
go'N?1?
LEGEND
Illlllllllllllllllll ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ALTERNATIVES
U'- 2111
0 miles 0.5
I L - I FIG. 7

Rocky Mount
?. Mill Dorm
.00
M69

L?
i
V
1

1544
?l
1

i
i e re55
.•J f
1
85 2
B,
\ ? ?? ? 779 \\ I m s ' !??l /
I = N
,RIVER -?
o
s It'
i
=555 \\ ? R.:R-. ,.' AREA'
ool \? 9? \
' I
(I1
LEGEND
------ APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE
OF NEW CONNECTOR
WETLAND LIMITS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
LIMITS OF WETLAND
BORDERING TAR RIVER
U - 2111
0 feet 200 FIG. 9

APPENDIX

IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 5, 1990

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
-_ -f

We have reviewed your letter of January 9, 1990, requesting
inf ormation.for "Environmental Impact of Falls Road - Peachtree Street
Connector, Rocky Mount, Nash County, U-2111" and offer the following
comments.
This connector includes a new bridge over the Tar River. The
effects of this bridge on the 100-year flood plain elevations and the
floodway need to be calculated and evaluated in relation the city's
flood plain management ordinance.
Review of the proposed project indicates that there will be a
crossing of the Tar River. There is an endangered species in this
waterway (the Tar River Spiny Mussel), and it is recommended that the
river be bridged from wetland edge to wetland edge. This activity
will not require Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, if the
project is designed so that no fill material is placed in waters of
the United States and/or their adjacent wetlands during construction
of the proposed project. Final construction plans, with a written
description of the proposed work, should be forwarded to Mr. Ken
Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Raleigh Field Office,
11413 Falls of the Neuse Road, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, when
they become available. Mr. Jolly can be reached at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I
Lawrene W.J unders
Chief, lan ng Division
A-1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Y P.,.
FEB 12 1990'
H ., 0
II &
i1A Y's
RESE'01
0 James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 8, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation '
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Falls Road-Peachtree Street Connector, U-2111,
Rocky Mount, Nash County, CH 90-E-4220-0470
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
Rocky Mount Mills Historic District. Located along NC 43-48 (Falls
Road), south of the Tar River, north and east of River Road, in the
northwest section of Rocky Mount. Listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (see enclosed map).
Rocky Mount Mills Mill Village Historic District. An area south of
the Rocky Mount Mills Historic District and on the study list for
future inclusion in the National Register.
Judging from your maps, it appears that the new connector road will
cross the Mill Village Historic District and. the southwest corner of the
National Register Historic District. Please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley as soon as possible to discuss Section 106 compliance procedures
for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We,.therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 A-2
2
s
Page Two
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 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
A-3
,?-- .. - -- • Wrtrncl _ '4/ < Oi7.t.< ; 5
'48 47'30" Ail .. d - - ` i,; .• ?<.• ••????_-_? -_?,??_-, ? 1,557 _ E
? ?
`'; 137
? It
1P - I
p 11;1
-VGRp01N t' p( N
,f
_ I 1 n ' / ? 1• ? 1 /
.... \•• fit. /_TY?,'`;?\?•? ^? /
1f
• ?_ i . ?i' /r . i a .? 111 `J ? ?.`?/'-?`
iii: Gol(Course t al`1°•
/44
9 115
10
Senvenue
I-AN
9 ?_,_ .'n y x I y.
am ;,Q >as Rw I
13
Vem
'Kid
V V' i is 1
i
Rocky Mount Mills
= Nash County i
?L Along NC 43-48 (Falls Road), south of the *oe
v /t
°?• Tar River, north and east of River Road,
in northwest Rocky Mount.
Approximately 20.26 acres j
NE 18/247400/3982970 SW 18/247050/3982760
1- SE 18/247400/3982760 NW 18/ 247050/3982970 J1/
R4? T,
(WEE
plle
%
Oz. J`
•° r
3ubsta •' BM 9y ?Chii:lrenS NuSGUm %?% I
lT? 114tEr Treatment Cf j
ant
F (ity l• '°?/?'-- a? y,1p, d?il?luy?,. A6 J Q
r 1 1 \? Esrr? \? e % Norttf>•a
• ' 103
( /?J- 1.?a ( k MG• / f /r??:. F ?? ? .- - r? \?=?i \ ..a.._ ? lc. , //
Y 1 - I S , . ?•7?,. WT' /5'o / )tom.,;/! '?
i roe
it j!
,,..
13 4'
H
1
SENT Of
o
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
March 2, 1990

0,5 1990,
Subject: Scoping Comments for the Falls Road (NC43-48)-Peachtree
Street Connector in Rocky Mount, Nash County; TIP U-2111.
This responds to your letter of January 9, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon the Tar River ecosystem and
its associated wetlands within the study corridor, and upon anadromous fish,
including American shad, which use the river reach immediately downstream of
the proposed project for spawning purposes.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
A-5
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
8) Consideration of an "existing rights-of-way" alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincer ly yours,
R. Wilson Laney
Acting Supervisor
Attachment
A
A-6

F
REVISED SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
Nash County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana) - E
There are species which, although not now-listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of status review species which may occur
within the. project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification.
These species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be
protected under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do for them.
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) - SR
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
Lewis' heartleaf (Hexastylis lewisii) - SR
Carolina trillium (Trillium pusillum var. pussillum) - SR
A-7
FM208 01/31/90
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATI
1 16 WEST JONES STREET 3 ?i,
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 11
woo
07
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS ?''`•:? T'.` '$
MAILED TO
N.:. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
L. J. WARD
PLANNING E RESEARCH BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FROM
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT`
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
SCOPING FOR-COMMENTS TO AID IN PREPARATION OF ENV. DOCUMENTS FOR
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A CONNECTOR BETWEEN FALLS ROAD AND
PEACHTREE STREET IN ROCKY MOUNT
SAI NO 90E42200470 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION L
A

A-8

??TTwo
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community De
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-0470 - Street Connector in Rocky Mount
DATE: February 7, 1990
789
? ff?l
FEE 1990
Flo mec?
P
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposal to construct a connector road in Rocky
Mount. Concerns have been expressed with additional bridge
crossings of the Tar River. This proposal would cause excessive
sediment problems around the river.
Our Natural Heritage Program has also recognized that one of
the most endangered species in the country known as the Tar River
spiny mussel may be present in and around the project area. We
recommend that-the Department of Transportation (DOT) consult
with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of
Parks & Recreation through out their planning stages and, if
possible, look at other possible alternatives for the connector
road to avoid impacting this species.
There is also mention of possible impacts on wetlands. This
is also a critical issue that DOT should make every effort to
address early on in their environmental document.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. More specific
comments will be provided during the environmental review.
MM: bb
Attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] A-9
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
February 5, 1990
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Carol Tingley C
SUBJECT: 90-0470 Street Connector in Rocky Mount

Fin 1990

?C ? ?
`V L.. Vey
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the proposal to
construct a connector road in Rocky Mount. Our Natural Heritage
Program is concerned with any additional bridge crossings of the
Tar River, primarily because of the presence of the Federally
Endangered Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) in the
river. The species is known at present to exist in the river at
the town of Tarboro and formerly elsewhere in the river in
Edgecombe County. This species might be present between the
bridge site and Tarboro. This is one of the most endangered
animals in the country, with only a few known living specimens
having been found in this river and in swift Creek, a tributary
of the Tar. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is strongly recommended to determine the possible impacts
this project might have on the spiny mussel.
We suggest that the N. C. Department of Transportation examine
other options for the connector road that do not require the
construction of anew bridge over the river.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
CT/sk
cc: Chuck Roe
3143

j
A
A-10
_i
1 - >r
dr?^T?o
19
90
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
January 22, 1990
MEMORANDUM:
FROM: John Sutherlan 4
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of Falls Road-Peachtree Street
Connector, Rocky Mount, Nash County, U-2111
John N. Morris
Director
TO: Melba McGee
The proposed connector will require a new bridge over the Tar
River. Bridge and other riparian construction should employ best
possible means of erosion, sedimentation, and silt control.
Impacts on any wetlands should be minimized and wetland losses
should be mitigated.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
A-11
:goo
Ire
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee; Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: W. Don Baker, Program Manage
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
DATE: January 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of Falls Road - Peachtree
Street Connector, Rocky Mount, Nash County, N. C.
These comments are provided in response to your request
of January 17, 1990, for information for input relating to
fish and wildlife concerns for the proposed subject project.
Wildlife Resources Commission review of the environmental
document would be greatly facilitated if it contained:
1. A description of fishery and wildlife resources,
including habitats, existing within, or impacted
by the project.
2. The quantity of wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds
and other fish or wildlife habitats to be graded,
filled or otherwise disturbed.
3. Stream relocations, crossings or other proposed
construction activity that may impact them.
4. Acreage of upland habitat impacted by cover type.
5. Mitigation measures proposed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for fish and wildlife
habitat losses.
Thank you for the opportunity for input during the
pre-planning stage for this project. We will be happy to
assist in any manner feasible during all phases of the
project.
WDB/lp
A-12

}
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural. Resources:?
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary , Director
January 31, 1990

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Larry Sinl-S
SUBJECT: A-95 EIS Review of Peachtree Street Connector, Rocky
Mount, Nash County. Project No. 90-0470
The proposed extension of Peachtree Street in Rocky Mount will
have no impact on prime farmlands and statewide important
farmlands. Since, it will be crossing the Tar River, there is
potential for impact on wetland areas associated with the River
area. Therefore, a wetlands determination and evaluation should
be made and all means possible to avoid any adverse impact on any
existing wetland areas.
LS/tl
P.O. Boa 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

A-13
,i.
State of North Carolina
/apartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
G.7? ?7t17;?
After review Nof this orth Carolina project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
Law.
comply With
Questions regarding tnese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into stale surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
? Water use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
? Well Construction Permit NIA 7 days
(tttdays)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit

? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement f 60 days

facilities and/or Emission Sources f
NIA ?
(90 days)

Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. '0
w
n

Demolition or renovations of structures containing ?
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. -
c .'? ..
,
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800. (90 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
ill
w
be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.

? AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5.000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
counties in coastal N
with organic soil's
C On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
th
fi
f 1 day
.
. an
ve acres o
ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

?
Oil Refining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

?
Dam Safet
P
it Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
y
erm inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
A - 14
PS-105 Continued on reverse
United States soil 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
nd:IN Department of Conservation Raleigh, NC 27609
Agriculture Service
Telephone: [phone]
January 31, 1990
Mr. L. Jack Ward, P.E. ?? -'•
Manager, Planning and Research tl.y`. u' t
N.C. Department of Transportation
x P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Environmental Impact of Falls Road-Peachtree Street Cdnnegfor, Rocky
Mount, Nash County, U-2111
US 158 (Stratford Road), from SR 1101 (Harper Road) to SR 2973 (Frontis
Street), at Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, State Project 9.8091812,
U-2311
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for important farmland information for
projects U-2111 and U-2311. Because of the urban setting these projects
will not affect any farmlands as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy
Act.
Sincerely,
State serv i st
cc: Frederick Y. Alexander
Grover C. McPherson
Hugh D. Price
Franklin T. Hodges

`O The Sol Conservation Service
J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
100014 - Ad00
A-15
Nash
BOARD f EOUCATION
B.B. BOOTH CO*un
C/winerm:
FAME T. GARDNER +S Chdo
I ti:tvboirnton
JOHN T. AYENT, M.D. RONNIE BATCHELOR
BILL BEASLEY
OTIS JACKSON
VERA H. MANN
JANICE MILLS
JOHN MORGAN
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
CECIL E. STROUD
??.• '? ? kf nwndnn
CHARLES L. BOYETTE
?`.3Li.?u:ialejuprtina'nden:
.? S4kFRANCES MATTHEWS
' Ai?lSmnt.iuprnnttndtut
BOB RAINES
Ai mant supvin-i-
TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
JAk
FROM: Bob Raines, Assistant Superintendent
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact of Falls Road - Peachtree Street
Connector, Rocky Mount, Nash County, U-2111
DATE: 29 January 1990
I have reviewed the information on.the above listed project.
On behalf of the Nash County School System, we see this an an
improvement.
An F.gua[Oppor -O, E-p6)- A-16
930 EASTERN AVENUE - NASHVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27856.[phone]

NOt•th Carolina DeT)artment of TrAnsportntion"
RELOCATION REPORT
X F.T.s. (Xxifitix.4I f):SI(IN TtELO(ATION ASSISTANCE
17110 R:1 : 9.0043124 011)NTY: NAS11... Al ternate ... _.._... of - -- Al ternaite
t.u. r!r).:Il 2.111. F.A. iT10JEC17: _ NAPEACHTREE ST.
-PEACiIiREE-ST.?-NEW-.CUNNE.CT-O1L11ND-ONE=WAY-PrIR,..._Ff1UM_US 3U1_.B.USINI
RU.
nrS!xtlrrim or. mom--ci: rALLS
.
_.
10 US 264 BYi'AS, Fl Y M AINT, NASH-CO 1NLY
fis;IIMAli=i) Uic;PI.A(.FFS INCOME LEVEL
to or
r:lllncee
r
y
(Nutters
Terlntti.s
Totnl M i nor-
i ties r
0-ISM
15-2.5M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
------ --
livi(,iral l
li
, 0

rnm i 1 i es 4 2 4 1-
Rusinp` sps VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 Omprs Tenants For Sale For-_en -
mon- rt of i t 0 U-20M p $ 0-150 -
p 0-20M p $ 0-150 p
_
AfI,Wi f1 AI.I.. (]tlt:S1 I(N1S ?O-AUM p

1 150-250

1 20-40M 5j 150-250
-21!i
Yrs 14) Fxf'I AI N At L °Yi"S" ANSWERS 40-70M 4 250-400 _ _
1 40-70M 161 250-400 550
- `
-
X 1. will special r-elocatior, 70-100 p 400-600 p 70-100 15? 400-600 40II
-pr•vicpq he npcP.ssar'y
V!i 11 sch(X)is or churches be
2 -
100 Ur
0 -
600 UP
0 100 Ur 167 600 UP 10
X
- .
a f f ec t rrl by displacement
i 11 -
YOTAt -
4
3
531
175
X wi 1 1 hus Ir1P!2$ services -,I
i _ .._ __ _.......__
- ....
,
Ile av:l i I nh i p n f ter pros pc t
W i i 1 nny hus i r1ess be d t s--
A ._
--
f1EMfftKS (Respond by Number)
x .
illnr:ed. If erg, irl(IiCnte .i7p
tp(irlumhpr of
-Ii
I
ALL RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES COUNTED AS FAMILIES
ma
ytr!, e
--- - nmllloypps, minorities, etc.
#3 NO BUSINESSES BEING 'DISPLACED
X 5 . W i l l r p l o(-ri t i rill cause a
1 C1 nl- 17 p
101J-5 to,
X I;. Sclrn ce fc?r available hour- #6 REALTORS, MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, NEWSPAPER ADS
ing (list)
x 7. Will additional housing 18 AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW
-- it1,091'ams be needed
X 13. R1101-11d t.as t Resor- t Housing
--- - by cons i dp1 prl
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
rnldprly, etc. fIfni Iips
ANSW 41 I I IESE ALSO F(11 DESIGN
to. will public houqing be
- - npeded for project
p1.1b t i c housing ava i 1-
1 1. I q
___ _ nb 1 e
12. is it felt. lhpre will be nd-
p(II Ia I p DDS housing nvn i 1 ab 1 e
(hiring rplocntion period
13. Will there by n problem of
I• I1Ousirrg within financial
j - mean
14. Are stri table business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comp t e t p f1FLOCAT 1 Orl
NANCY E. WILSON B-14 -9- - - - -- ---L --..... --- 1-1 ---
l iin 1 n(::1 i i In Agpn i 111' t Date Approved a t e
frrrto 1r,.4 [Inv ispd ,5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State nelocati.A.171't
2 Cony: At-ea fte 1 oca t i on r i l e
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE FALLS ROAD-PEACHTREE STREET CONNECTOR AND ONE-WAY PAIR
FROM US 301 BUSINESS (FRANKLIN STREET) TO US 64 BYPASS
Project 9.8043124 U-2111 Nash County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above Public Hearing on Monday, February 28, 1994
at 7:30 p.m. in the Rocky Mount City Council Chambers located
at One Government Plaza in Rocky Mount.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed location and design, right of way requirements and
procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to the.
proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of 10 days from the date of the hearing to:
L. L. Hendricks, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
It is proposed to construct a new connector in
Rocky Mount tying Falls Road (NC 43-48) with Peachtree
Street. Falls Road and Peachtree Street would then be
revised to operate as one-way paired streets. Additional
right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will
be required for this project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy
of the Environmental Assessment are available for public
review at City Hall, Engineering Department (2nd Floor),
One Government Plaza, Rocky Mount.
Anyone desiring additional information regarding the
Public Hearing may contact Mr. Hendricks at the above address
or telephone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary
aids, and services for any qualified disabled person
interested in attending the Public Hearing. To request: this
assistance, you may call Mr. Hendricks no later than seven
days prior to the.date of the hearing.