U-2561A,B

Sp
1
?d y„a.q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
June 18, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN.: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nash County, Proposed Widening of NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613,
State Project No. 9.8043119, T.I.P. U-256113.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 43
from SR 1535 to SR 1.613. The 1.8-kilometer (1.1 mile) long project will widen the
7_.,v::-'existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter section. The proposed cross
' will consist of a 3.6 m (12-foot) center left turn lane and two 3.6 in (12-foot)
tra es in each direction.
rv S of ro'ect im acts: The project will impact jurisdictional Waters of the United
00 St six separate sites. Construction of the proposed project will result in a total of
0.5 i es of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands consisting of 0.25 acres of fill in
we , 0.08 acres of excavation in wetlands, and 0.21 acres of impact due to
m h zed clearing and grubbing. In addition, there will be 0.027 acres of fill in surface
waters.`and a total 610.1 feet of impacts to jurisdictional streams. All of the jurisdictional
sites are above headwaters. We have determined that this activity will be authorized
under Nationwide Permit 26.
ttwft
t
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) was
submitted by the NCDOT and approved on December 13, 1996. The document explains
the purpose and need for the project; provides a description of the project and the
alternatives considered; and characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects
of the project. Copies of the EA/FONSI have been provided to regulatory review agencies
involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
U-2561B is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the FHWA
characteristics of independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL STATUS
The six jurisdictional sites located on U-2561B are listed in Table 1. The project is
located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is located roughly along the divide between
two sub-watersheds. Generally, the waters to the east of NC 43 drain to the Hornbeam
Branch sub-watershed and those to the west of NC 43 drain into the Goose Branch sub-
watershed.
Jurisdictional Sites 1, 2, 3, and 6 qualify for NW 14 status. They are all road crossings
impacting less than one-third acre under and less than 200 feet of jurisdictional stream.
Site 5 is located above headwaters and would qualify for a NW 14 except that it impacts
265.7 feet of jurisdictional stream. The impacts at each stream are split between fill and
stream/ditch clean out as depicted in Table 1.
Table 1: Jurisdictional Impacts
Site Permit
Type Wetland
(ac) Streams
Filled' Stream
clean-out'
1 NW 14 0.18 78.7 101.7
2 NW 14 0 82 0
3 NW 14 0.02 0 0
4 none 0 0 0
5 NW 26 0.33 85.3 180.4
6 NW 14 0.01 65.6 16.4
0.54 311.6 298.5
1. Linear feet
1
RESOURCE STATUS
Wetland delineations: wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual on June 3, 1997. Due to the
limited impacts to wetlands, the wetland delineations were not verified by the USACE.
Based on data collected in the 1997 delineation, approximately 0.525 acres of Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990)
wetlands will be filled. The 1997 delineation revealed two communities with
characteristics approximating the Small Stream Swamp: headwater forests dominated by
sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata); and emergent wetland herbaceous vegetation comprised of soft needle rush
(Juncus effusus), cattails (Typha latifolia), and black willow (Salix nigra). Table 2
compares the wetland impacts using both Cowardin and Schafale and Weakley wetland
nomenclatures.
TABLE 2
Site Station Wetland Type

Cowardin (S & W)' Stream DEM
Wetland
Rating
1 11+98-L- PF01B Perennial 58
2 15+19-L- STREAM Perennial
3 17+97-L-LT PEM2C NJ 38
4 19+50-L-LT No jurisdictional
Waters of US at site NJ
5 24+85-L- PEM2F Perennial 45+
6 27+15-L-LT PFO1 B Intermittent 52
1.Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
according to Schafale & Weakley.
Endanergs ed Species: The May 13, 1999 species list has three species for Nash County,
the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterdon), and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio lanceolata). NCDOT evaluation of these
species resulted in a Biological Conclusion of No Effect for all three species. Tim
Savidge, NCDOT biologist has inspected the sites and stated that suitable habitat does not
exist within the project area.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
. Enclosed please find the project site map, the preconstruction notification form, and
drawings for the above referenced project. Application is hereby made for Department of
the Army 404 permits as required for the above-described activities. We also request a 401
Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. In compliance with
Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAA we have enclosed a check for $475.00 to act as
payment for processing the Section 401 permit application. We are providing seven
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
V C' _/?a
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer

DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):i4, 26
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation;
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manaqer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Nash NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rocky Mount
1

v
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Proposed Widening of NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: Tar
Hornbeam Branch & Goose Branch
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[xl
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.54 acres
2
I
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.25 EXCAVATION: 0.08
FLOODING: OTHER: Mechanized Clearing 0.21
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.54
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See cover letter for description of stream impacts
AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: x CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : Widen existing road
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3
r
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Each stream and wetland site was reviewed after field
inspection. Stream impacts were reduced to the greatest extent posible.
Project is widening of existing road.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. Copy of
SEA/FONSI has been submitted to agencies.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
1
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
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. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
agricultural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
NA
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
'/ c- 4? ,z•
WNER'S/AGE T'S SIGNATURE
lk' lqq
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
V ICIN ITY MAID

s90?
AO'
?
O
yy
p
Ro
4 'µuA,
sr c
W
T SaQllboro
Red Oak
PEp O? SORO
aAR1E

?Al
bFS
r C
48 301 f°
Cloy. x°
¦
?

ai'a ? a
N
¢ Ro. O
2
b c J
r
o
•

? Oonc £
RD. } X
hVK,rFA
!7
- "°V C
1' 1 •?
COURSE Ap.
04 j
``
?t _'.
W scNOpi
4
r
REGES
Sroftf 40. IR4 o
g
o , 0.

AD o

.loin 64
¦ ain ®
ry
Com.w.?ry fill"
Motga/ y
9 O
i
O Z
G.-I *
INSET C.U.y.
No+pal 5' 0 7k VAN
?ytE 7018 97
AVE. EXT. 608
i
?£GGETI
Acyt
?
9
Jt pO'
°<
tFkE2 r G
Sr 64 i
Gq'

No aer

hFj? 3'

h
?AyF s
64A

6 RALEIGH ST.
s ti Am.o1 Sa 3

> A° O -
C
0 r
ST. < A CSX
`
MOUNT ,?pl KM'GSTph NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
5T 701 a
W. r =? O NASH COUNTY
K
A
? BOAO
? W

.? Q O
8043119 U-25618
9
9
W
97 a ?`S
f tit M? W
? .
9

s `?"°AFF CN.
NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 1535)
aENO
9 joRDAN aNARR R0 barpsbutp Rocky Mount Area TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613)
' Roekr• - f SCALE
e° Wd-A,. - sr 0
R0. 1 2 3 MILES
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET I OF j o FEBRUARY 1998

SITE LOCATIONS
fi
To us 30
J

25,- 00 5
20+0o C
\ 4
1 O --.n/E-T LAND ?Jr-C6
SR SCALE
-? 1 ' 13RowNTOw?.1 RQ
Q._
15+DO looen 0 20o.h
-?(- ?nlooofZ?tF? i2d
5R i(ol3
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH COUNTY
9.8043119 U-25618
I0 + 00 NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 1535)
TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613)
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 9 OF 10 FEBRUARY 1998
t
SITE OWNER(S)
CATHERINE MAY ROSE
MICHAEL H. HANCOCK
2 BELMONT N. WOODRUFF
JUDITH R. CHAPPELL
RICKY LEE TOFFTON
1-UNNAMED
y= 3 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
4 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
5 CLAUDETTE D. REGES, et al
6 CLAUDETTE D. REGES, et al
0)
p. Lo M N ( D ( D M
"0 N (V N N N f "
t0» C
O
E
c
(
o
U
L
c
W U
0 0 0 0 0 0 °
(A (D Z
V U c
Q o L
CL

Ul -Q

1
0
AT
t

r1

?9

p

-

1n
W
?
c
c E
Co a
%
N
Q !?
L E
W U

Q

n 0 0 0 0 0 0
°
-0
ti
? c (o
C o r
D = a
cn

U N
0 M
0
0
O N
O N
O .-

C,
m 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 7 L O O O O O O O
f0
Z
iz
?t O M O (D O M
co
0
C1 pf M
O O
O C>
O
°
?
* O O O °
c
p
c
L L
L N
U U

m
?
O O O O O O O

C
C C
N
?y
LL ? L
U 0
Q >
y
C
U)
y O O O M
D Q -p
O O O O O
CL .
m
m ° 0 0 °
z
W
0

z W C
J
?, (n O O O O O O i °
W -
C
N
E
0 L
C
M O O O CD 0 N
O
C C O O O O
_ co O O 0 0 O
U
(D
>
m
0 d Q Q- a a n.
? U .
0 0 0 0 0

in o 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O °
i
O (
D (
D (
D (
D m
o
J
J ~

J J J !1 _1 J
2
U) co O ti O tn LO
lL
0)
CY)
LO

CO

-

(j r- rn v
ti
.- .- r N N
J
O .- N CO of to to
t-

va M
E

cr IT W
co it N
ui
V) V) w O

?
Q N ?
co ?
N N i? ev-?
?bt?a
EU -??
N^?

Q
3 w N
LLJ
NN~~ yO o Z
?I / ? t
N N ••' "''
W

- o a
o- ?
M
LIJ
-
r
3
3
I ao
p a ?
I \ ??` J
J I
1 O
A
o z
C13
0
c ca
m o a w
w o Ln m o w
c) w z .? z
o M
J M x ^? m A z ."a.
v L) F N a] ? ?"
I MN Z U O?r- 0
Nl?i?o A AA 4 A
- - - - \3 o
N b
l
0
0
:tv

CD \
? ?
m I oo \
a
N a a \

?
M a
??
O
= x ?

co Q
Li

N ?

U J_
N LL
Z
ON
E
ov
.- N
M
x M
U
oE \ +
W \ ?'
N N
Q N %
m II
Ow

O Y \
O
N Z
er =
W
Q \
U_
W
a
0
LO
t
t
J

z ..

htl)

-

? `?

C\l a

z x E"

?Z
v
c, ?

a OJ

? °G
? x o ? w ? Q
Lv F W U
O o
ao •.?
W A
?
W
ct. ? ? a w o

cry
a
c z F
w-
0
z
A > o Ox W

u A a ?' o
F w
?
z U
z
OS+SI diS 3NI-1H3ldW
. I
LLM

U-°0 - I
I

W
Q
w

w° CL

-? I I w
I
YMco
I I
I I J
??

=
I1 W
o
Sri
I
a

r
? I

?b4 Z

o w

I

??

O
ti N co O
4
--?
Z.b£ N LLJ -6 Z 9'81+
O
C)
C)
I 0
,•
( O?
O
/
:?
\
IZ 3
I v
I N
•-
W LO
th 7
/`-1
' O I L LJ
I? I I
co
w? I I I`1'
Qm

mw
V),
-<
MATCHLINE

STA.

14 7O

0
0

0
N
+
co
Cf)
z
J
S
U
Q
d
6
CA
I ELI
suq
I ISULZzz
0I89dd 831lIJ /M
ddddld 9 SShc9
0
Q
J
U
z
O ro
a x H ? o
zxZ a>
O W
Ea., Gz. U v .a A
O °or, W Gz.
cz. ? ? a W O
O O ?' F' can
a ? z w ? z ?
A? o a 3 H
W
z z
Q
2?
a 3
J ?
w ?
2 a
S
K
111 y
O ? ? t
? W
A a o
W
a
U
O
O
E
L
1
W
f-
U?
Sal
n 03-80

3A
L.Li
J
U

/ C/v'orlsunrr /
0-Z 133HS 33S OF \
1id130 33S \ ?0
+ j w K = 304
H0110 3Sb9 WZ'l O? \
z
u
a
z
0
W
a
U
O
LO
ON
U 009
13db z ddll00
03--90 11 1V
0ldddadl810 I SS 10 OF
\
009 SLR
-4-
CD
vJ
W
01' z
- J
03-9 ?
?8l'ZL)?ZZ
z
M

M a.,

rl ?-
b

v

x x
? o ? ? o

U M

F O ? W ? c:,
? ` W O
Gs. c W
°
• z 00

a o 3
? ? F
a w
A a , p
U F ?
U
z
z
z
o o Te
~ V
3I r i N -4
-
D I +
j
+ O - ? lw
m n O '? Z p, Z Va
< co
CC) x x "
N ?- 1 a U z 0
LLI
(D oW co w
O
W °o 'j x v `" "
-?I o a FF
co Q
Ld 3:
° CL z
M
J N ,
; Q - 71 N Co Vj 0
00 z
ti ry ^ j
t'
`- n vP-I z F
z
41
+N +? z
N W m Z y
fv) Eno,
U z 0 W.
z
I ?w c cz a
+I:z t--
W
J
It m
J M
d O 1'
O CO 0
M L) W
N m
W ---
Z_
J
S
49
F-
Q
-------------

L
M ?- I
I ? ` 2 Iw-+
O I N H- m
}? ?, a N b W i t? I av
00
`.
00 M
+" QCwt 4 ? ?0 0
-JLLi
UfY +N +M
i
W
J
O
N
M W
III J
Q
aoa -3 ?
I _
I
I `.
V) Ul)
m o I? I e a? I S O
n ? n ti ? ti ?
E v II ti ? ?.,
c, wn F,
O o '} N
t
}

z
0 !! a.`

r n ° I? 1'"" ? Ai v
W 0 W -

o o?
z a? D

a Z

?

0 z

F
a

U
A
a w
F
z u
z
y
• 3
(,0786)WO£ ZO'Z8)'u5Z c
_ -? t6 +
(IZ9159)wOZ
ul6l

I

m - 88 + -
NId8O 01
MV80
a
01 -3

O
?
o
+
N --- - 00 0
9 _
= - bO3-8 d ' ? t ?
N
?
F --
Mme'
69 MH INO?? 8'I Q

U)
Q) ONd ` MP
r3
{-
L
j 3AOw3a Lc
MH
j WIN ONV\\ NIV 138 w W
-1 -ND11 13 ? 83AOO HN z t?
_
U ?9 OSb £9 J

Q ON00 OS
+
U
-- ------ -
3 3 . 3 V9
Q W
- 8+ 3Od o
dal
0

t ,
JUL.01'1999 11:32
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island, NC FAX [phone]
#0879 P.001/016
US Fish & wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC FAX )919)856-4556
State Historic Preservation office
Raleigh, NC rAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone]
1. ACTION ID: 199700401
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/NC43/SR1535/SR1613/9.8043119/U-2561B
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 7/6/99
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): 7/12/99
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline): 7/20/99
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Eric Alsmeyer
FAX: [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached .PCN to the Fish and Wildl
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review
comment concerning any likely affect to any threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat within those
.agencies, jurisdiction.
fe
nd
JUL.01'1999 11:33
#0879 P.002/016
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:_? O bSLL_
NATIONWIDE PE,tMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):14, 26
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVI
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation;
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Br
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 2520
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: _ 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIrrZ
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): _
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733
AL
FROM
1
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: -
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Hranch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Nash _ NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rocky Mount
1
JUL.01'1999 11:33
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Proposed Widening of NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613
#0879 P.003/016
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: T
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTF
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW)
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)'? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ 3 NO[x]
7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 71F'OR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNA ION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR US, ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUM FR OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY F 401.
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED I-OR THIS PROPERTY IN I HE
FUTURE? YES [ ) NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATFD WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJE(
SITE:
0.54 acres
?nch & Goose Brant
2
JUL.01'1999 11:33
#0879 P.004/016
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJEC BY:
FILLING: 0.25 EXCAVATION: 0.08
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER: Mechanized Clearing 0.21
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.54
10b (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: See cover letter for description of stream
AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER:
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALI, THAT AP
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: _
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING: _
OTHER: 11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF TM
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? _-
WHAT IS TITE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWI
ONLY) : Widen existing road
13- PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3
JUL.01'1999 11:33
#0879 P.005/016
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT TEIS ACTIVITY MUSS.' BE C
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Each stream and wetland site was reviewed after field
IED
inspection Stream impacts were reduced to the greatest exterxt os ble.
Project is widening-of exi.stin roars.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN ExPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [J (IP NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [ x ] NO [ J
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTHI
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES (.x ] NO [
USE
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FR M THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGAR ING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. Copy of
SEA/FONSI has been submitted to agencies_
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORT
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RAI
NORTH CAROLINA 2"1603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
BE
FIGH,
4
JUL.01'1999 11:34
#0879 P.0061016
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION F
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MAT I.
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LP
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 7
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP_ MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EC
SO FEET OR I INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALI
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEP45NT PLAN IF REQUIF
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
agricultural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DI
NA
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLI
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRI
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (XN TZW TNZNTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROD
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE P1
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAG
PROGRAM.
W'C'ER'S/AGE T'S SIGNATURE, DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g-))
ES
, 21,
DATA
TO:
THE
5
JUL.01'1999 11:34
VICINITY MAP
#0879 P.007/016

1W Oak

r
!r

wAr Aopr
Rocky Mount Area
sawE
a I :
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIYISION OF HIGHWAYS
MASH COUNTY
9.8043119 U-256
NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 1 5)
TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET I OF 10 F RUARY 1998
. ... .. ... ,. ?. ,,i,• ?•, 71111+' 'nr ,I tr Syr 511111'i ?U'Ulp? r•? ?? ?'r %?,Ipq',, '?,f.,"'
•Y,? .I'i .w5y1,?• ?I 1 r,r^ .. .,?yll• r r
1, f1 MI 11?'If II•. Adn' ?? dp,, f,. 1. .. , ,
JUL.01'1999 11:34
SITE LOCATIONS
Ta us 3a 25'- QO

20+00
?? I - PJ(Zp?NTauJAI fZtl T?,
i5+00

Ic>+o0

#0879 P.0081016
0- *'A/t tl-At4 j:5r-r6
I
loOnr Q 2oorn
EPR 1b 13
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i " WASH COUNTY
9.8043119 U-25 B
NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 35)
TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 161
To SCALE A$ SHOWN
SHEET 2 OF 10 EBRUARY 1998
rl 1.411"??11? ?I.l..Y1Lib In?T?I yI 1
Mob
JUL.01'1999 11:34
#0879 P.009/016
OMENS1
1 CATHERINE MAY ROSE
MICHAEL H. HANCOCK
2 BELMONT N, WOODRUFF
JUDITH R_ CHAPPELL
RICKY LEE TOFFTON
1-UNNAMED
3 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
4 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
5 CLAUDETTE 0. REGES, et al
6 CLAUDETPE D. REGES, et al
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MASH COUNTY
9,8043119 U-256 6
MC 43 FROM PERE ROAD (SR 1 35)
TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 161
SCALE AS SHOWN
$HEETAOF 10 BRUARY 1996
... 1 I ?, ? ? hl, ?} ??Ilu:j y?uh nlMu ,. 11 6•' ., .., ? '?l
?y..?Ir?11MlML?*!0??N.141A17MY9ir' ???.illlW?..4,r1iW1? 111??MhM-?.u?44 I?,'I11'
NOW*
JUL.01'1999 11:35 #0879 P.0101016
z
0
Q
Oa
Z Z
S z
!- LL 000
U-
0-.: 0 N
'N z
?a
V
z
(3-
kA
0
C)
M
V'
rj
a,
W
V
a.
D.
_j
F-
LU
t z
Jt1L.01'1999 11:35
Ud E
W
O
o °? a
a

t
N
?a b w
3 =

o
c Q
U
#0879 P.0111016
z
O qr
0.0
?f1
Fes„ ? s? a ? .?_

? 0
? z
o
o

H
U ?
0 z
4r? c
?
O
Z oo q " w

is.
o ? z

O a ca
? x

r?
w
a?
yy 1rT?7
2
z
c
o
P
e
a ..
U
m
z? z
A? A
a
t
p?
F
O
x
n

z
?a
and
LL.
N
V~_
N 1?
z
O N
d E
L
N N `
m --
00
?o
?ttOO?1 \
tA: U
?Z4 0
N Z
a? Q
\z
J
LAI
V_
1
Q
4
O
Lo
Ui, I. YI '. 1 P Iv .11 ..._I ' `I?' 1. p i 1?i1 .{4? '1? 1 NI ?i a I Ib411?1 "? 1 4 it J I
+II???i?.i??I?MMM?411?+'??i?i'!?? .. ... ?? . •Il?r,u? 1.111?4??'?Nr??'?IhM'A?;?` ._. ,
JUL.01'1999 11:35
N
W
U7
/ . V5
- .T-7
mod-
L?v cV ?
O .
w0- ?- L1J
J
m
?? a-
Mn II
.Z.y£ N

a
mwI
'`"'' " I l I
grcm
a
& I I I
? I I
m
W f ? f I w
I^MATC H LiN E STA. 14 + 70

#0879 P.012/016

0 ..
F

Z
?
0
w

V
z

x
?

A

o
z

o

a p

m

x

U
z cd
D .
'?

?

E•

o

?
a
3
0
\.
I as

4
l2i
b
A

JuL.01'1999 11:36
I?
C?7
0
N
ryo
U)
J
2
U
d
d
r•
I I Usti
(, ELI
-Idb8d18 a SS l3
d
I`
J
#0879 P.013/016
O •'-?
P-4 0-%
C
M 0 z
Qe'+ rs„ U v W ?'' C
F p ?.
Z co
U r C
Z
5 c c F
p p P4 ? a'
z a ?? rt
z
s
D
e
K
N
2
D m
Q
0
a
-;
U
N
0
0
. ?; ? - - _ - • ? ? :..._.... ? • ,;?? ? ??xa? ....;- .rte--?.?:??:??.,w?.« . _ ..F , ...._ ? ? ??J
JUL.01'1999 11:36
Ct
w

301
?£ Q3_80 009
3
ON
!) 009
b•z anlloo
w -
W
_z .-
J
z
U _
F
? ?-/ •c-otlrunr
uN, I?8
(13-90 I1 O
SL£
0?
U)
W
0t z
S
Q3-8 U
#0879 P.014/016
O
~

4
.d 41
,

E-4
C 90 C 0
Q)
Z x a z
CON
tv c4
C
pc,
° V
M t W
a
c
Z y
a
A
a. ?
U

3
3
Z
U
a
z
All
Q
4srzL)zz v \ z
01bdtlVa 831$ I /M
0-Z 133HS 33S
A 33S
+ s w 18£3 300 \? ?!>
H0110 3Sb9 WZ'1
p \?1
a
U
to
d?
0
11I' 11'11 I?,:I `If M /) Hu 4?,n1t ?I M
it „I lt'!"II'1!11{??11:"? ?{'I{d4 I dle+i ?Ih??J {IA!??Ilwrwr "! • MI.M,.+..ia'aMMNMkMeW?d'r? i d r. N1..i t? L id4• Wly . II It 01.0 1
? '.4 ?? ?P7111A?.IliJ! i {ll'? ?1
JUL.01'1999 11:36 #0879 P.015/016
a 1 ?o o
4
31 ir' I?,? .9) -ter
A
4MI
V1 Q
T 2 Z_ H
m V1 co
°? .? C M L C ra
w X11 I-, awU o wF
axe a ?? c
m 41
c
4 oz
a
W ?. _ 41
+ D
? ?'' ? ? I ago
I o.. .r
U o "? Of cc r?pp
I -? -- -v' N of a
r -? V7
ti ` F
t?
vj r m v' z
I ?-
a W F?
I
O
? N
N K1 r
Nl??----?-. O ! W M N FBI
Q U W W
a II?,_,
y V J
J
1-
------- --- - - -?` w
- '
3
-bpd 3
U
I a a W ;. ?. r, :• ?• 4i
'40 hm I p
t? tV` W In 1 ?a @ I:? I a
ov)
+ 4 C7 "? ao o r t? ' f + ~
?,1r.iN,y?lur??rd?: mNlmf ,N}• -IEUIuu ,?I?IIt:nN?Iwlra'"?Irl
r .C Ui f "P ` .I M t?l l..dJ161.?1 I?Ii1YICC11111 1aMy I!rflr ? ?'nMi?'? L ... r? .6 U 11 N11' All " tM ?l}wY I I
JUL.01'1999 11:37 #0879 P.016/016
. . : d •.
O ?
Fo
'Q `^
r n cv

W z
e rg
x
o a
M R;
o
?-- ? c v ;
? a
u ca
O
n O Z a
+' p
rl F
A 5 0 ? ? ?.

z z
O
N
H
W
z
U
Q
(,W96)WoE or *eTv1tuo'
CrJ ?
N
Z
Ui
J
S

z
J
J
r7
O
Z
C
Q
Y
as
U
m
O
O
F,.
t .I „'-5'?'P?-^pij 'T ': ;',.- ;,.•itr:•`h7i:.-r'ilil'•irl i''???'i.!:!'iJ4W t:L'Jl.i 1.??'::;? ''Il AN ?iY. J1;YfLL4Tl'Yll"UI'1 i1?P 1?'i'?IIT(IYIIYI ?UTAFT'i",• '111PI I'':':I' rl'I,il..1i:.•. .,•?.??-
AM?IM1"6goof, .'W4?IMIIIMII•?1'?IMq.r'?a111. 'NfMllt?..w.tw,i'??q.pl' V1
V
-(d Ra

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 18, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN.: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
Subject: Nash County, Proposed Widening of NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613,
State Project No. 9.8043119, T.I.P. U-256113.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 43
from SR 1535 to SR 1613. The 1.8-kilometer (1.1 mile) long project will widen the
existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter section. The proposed cross
section will consist of a 3.6 in (12-foot) center left turn lane and two 3.6 in (12-foot)
travel lanes in each direction.
Summary of project impacts: The project will impact jurisdictional Waters of the United
States at six separate sites. Construction of the proposed project will result in a total of
0.54 acres of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands consisting of 0.25 acres of fill in
wetlands, 0.08 acres of excavation in wetlands, and 0.21 acres of impact due to
mechanized clearing and grubbing. In addition, there will be 0.027 acres of fill in surface
waters and a total 610.1 feet of impacts to jurisdictional streams. All of the jurisdictional
sites are above headwaters. We have determined that this activity will be authorized
under Nationwide Permit 26.
0
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) was
submitted by the NCDOT and approved on December 13, 1996. The document explains
the purpose and need for the project; provides a description of the project and the
alternatives considered; and characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects
of the project. Copies of the EA/FONSI have been provided to regulatory review agencies
involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
U-2561 B is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the FHWA
characteristics of independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL STATUS
The six jurisdictional sites located on U-2561B are listed in Table 1. The project is
located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is located roughly along the divide between
two sub-watersheds. Generally, the waters to the east of NC 43 drain to the Hornbeam
Branch sub-watershed and those to the west of NC 43 drain into the Goose Branch sub-
watershed.
Jurisdictional Sites 1, 2, 3, and 6 qualify for NW 14 status. They are all road crossings
impacting less than one-third acre under and less than 200 feet of jurisdictional stream.
Site 5 is located above headwaters and would qualify for a NW 14 except that it impacts
265.7 feet of jurisdictional stream. The impacts at each stream are split between fill and
stream/ditch clean out as depicted in Table 1.
Table 1: Jurisdictional Impacts
Site Permit
Type Wetland
(ac) Streams
Filled' Stream
clean-out'
1 NW 14 0.18 78.7 101.7
2 NW 14 0 82 0
3 NW 14 0.02 0 0
4 none 0 0 0
5 NW 26 0.33 85.3 180.4
6 NW 14 0.01 65.6 16.4
0.54 311.6 298.5
1. Linear feet
IV
RESOURCE STATUS
Wetland delineations: wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual on June 3, 1997. Due to the
limited impacts to wetlands, the wetland delineations were not verified by the USACE.
Based on data collected in the 1997 delineation, approximately 0.525 acres of Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990)
wetlands will be filled. The 1997 delineation revealed two communities with
characteristics approximating the Small Stream Swamp: headwater forests dominated by
sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata); and emergent wetland herbaceous vegetation comprised of soft needle rush
(Juncus effusus), cattails (Typha latifolia), and black willow (Salix nigra). Table 2
compares the wetland impacts using both Cowardin and Schafale and Weakley wetland
nomenclatures.
TABLE 2
Site Station Wetland Type

Cowardin (S & W)' Stream DEM
Wetland
Rating
1 11+98-L- PFO1B Perennial 58
2 15+19-L- STREAM Perennial
3 17+97-L-LT PEM2C NJ 38
4 19+50-L-LT No jurisdictional
Waters of US at site NJ
5 24+85-L- PEM2F Perennial 45+
6 27+15-L-LT PFOIB Intermittent 52
l.Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
according to Schafale & Weakley.
Endangered Species: The May 13, 1999 species list has three species for Nash County,
the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterdon), and the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio lanceolata). NCDOT evaluation of these
species resulted in a Biological Conclusion of No Effect for all three species. Tim
Savidge, NCDOT biologist has inspected the sites and stated that suitable habitat does not
exist within the project area.

REGULATORY APPROVALS
Enclosed please find the project site map, the preconstruction notification form, and
drawings for the above referenced project. Application is hereby made for Department of
the Army 404 permits as required for the above-described activities. We also request a 401
Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. In compliance with
Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAA we have enclosed a check for $475.00 to act as
payment for processing the Section 401 permit application. We are providing seven
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at [phone] Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
V. C _/?a
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
4
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):14, 26
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation;
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Nash NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rocky Mount
1
A
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Proposed Widening of NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: Tar
Hornbeam Branch & Goose Branch
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS--I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.54 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.25 EXCAVATION: 0.08
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER: Mechanized Clearing 0.21
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.54
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See cover letter for description of stream impacts
AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER:
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: x CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : Widen existing road
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Each stream and wetland site was reviewed after field
inspection. Stream impacts were reduced to the greatest extent posible.
Project is widening of existing road.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM 'rHE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. Copy of
SEA/FONSI has been submitted to agencies.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
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. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
agricultural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
NA
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
WNER'S/AGE T'S SIGNATURE
rr lqq
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
VICINITY MAID
?p
P° ?l
°y RO'
MAIN ST C
o Battleboro
! !o
Red Oak agTIEBORO pa
aEO o?
301 'O
?9r C wnNro• CMh'. ?1.
ONES 48
• 2 ^
a ? RO. J s N
oatt? ? v° °?
® b Ro. }
"UNTFR P°
COURSE R0.
G°v 7 4t U
RFGES J O t °
?? $ c
STORE RD.
RE ! °
r+u?A m 64 /EFF
• n * Noap?bl y O
Cou.g• " Ge••.el R° * 4 3018 97
SUNSft ? pbi ? V?N
rth'S?
AVE. EXT. 648 y
? LEGGETT -
S?lG NCya °
64
LE?` Sr
r"0
RD eELR? f s?HSEr GT `?' ° 64A
Nfy f ?RyE ` RAIFAN Si
ti Rmrro? Sa ;
Rp o -
?O
RO' ?J! Si t RO GSF
MOUNT Cpl SWOSTO"? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
43 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
e
wES 301 h?
W. rRRa 2e W NASH COUNTY
p o
pH(a RO ""` 9.6043119 U-25618
B?
W
r
97
of o"°?EE NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 1535)
$ENO
ARR. barpSborQ Rocky Mount Area TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613)
' t«kr?•^'- ?' SCALE
?. w?N••??roon ?sro 0 1 2 3MILES SCALE AS SHOWN
Ro.
SHEET i OF j o FEBRUARY 1998
f

SITE LOCATIONS
r usxk

25t 00
20+00

O
5R
SRowN'townl RQ
IS+Do _

O - WE-T AND 5RE
SCALE
loom O 2oor.,
-?{- \,fjooDR Ar;r 1Zd.
SR i1o13
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HASH COUNTY
9.6043119 U-2561B
iD + 00 NC 43 FROM PEELE ROAD (SR 1535)
TO WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613)
-To Z-qS SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 2 OF 10 FEBRUARY 1998
i
SITE OWNER(S)
1 CATHERINE MAY ROSE
MICHAEL H. HANCOCK
2, BELMONT N. WOODRUFF
JUDITH R. CHAPPELL
RICKY LEE TOFFTON
1-UNNAMED
3 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
4 FALLS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH
5 CLAUDE I I D. REGES, et al
6 CLAUDETTE D. REGES, et al
??

to

M

N (

o (

O
C O
l)
'o N N N ( N N
y C
O ?
U L
c U
W
0 0 0 0 0 0 °
In
.
S a>
c
U 0
E
Q -2 L
(D
a U

rn @ U1 O - ?n
11
1
F-
C C J
(D CL
7 E

N

?

N
Q
3 w
t
w U H
0 0 0 0 0 0 °
Q U) v
W

?
C c m
O L

cn is
N
O (7
o .-
0 r
0 N
0 N
0 .-
0
a
(n c o 0 0 0
0 0
`
C Y (mu
o
o
0
0
0
0
°
co
_ Z

7 O M O (o O Cl)
co
fl ^
N p> . M
O O
O "T
O °
? O O O °
C C
o cu
? L
L
N
a?
o 0 0 0 0 0 °

C
c c
m m
cr-
` o m t
Q
c
co
? ?-- O N O
CN M
V)
?-1
J
Q
O
O
O
O
°
(n n. m cco
Z (a
d ° o o Cl
L
?
U
xx
z 111 c
g °
y 0 0 0 0 0 0

a?
E N L
(?
° 0 t-- cn
N
O
C C M
O 0
O (0
O 0
O
N O O 0 0 0
(D
li
>
m
N a Q. LL a n. a-
.
U U U U U U

(n o 0 0 o o 0
0 0 0 0 co G
rn (0 l
0 co ( 0 (
O

11O?
0 J J Q'
`
( J J J J J J
0
(n
co
?
?
to
u)
ti rn w ?
r 7 ? +
t O "
0'
r N N
J
Z N M V' tr) t0
O
H
CL
_ = rn
c) a E
F- ..-,
-.cr-v
LLI
om II N
LLJ
V) V) w O
I N N [? eel

O ?O t? 04
m J
E v

/

}-
OC"oi "iH?
?'??? C)?V)
3w / I O c
y
b'n Q
-{- ?
vi

NN?.,"r
/
a 3 LLI
Z

/ ?-?Ot o
NN?.?q. s
W
I 3

Or-
o- O
o
a) Q
U
2
M m
3- - 3 3 12
I
` O
O + ti
A
0
z
C-4 CD CD E
0 co
g
Ln a x F
n
w i°n mo wow z a? > ..z
J M = ca A A
???N z w z z
No
- -a Z
I
ao
MOO
q +
I ?

o a ?

m
l
l a
co
?

a
Q

O

ma
L.L-
N

Q w

U J
N It
2
O"
E
ov
? N

U u
\ O
Z-- U
\

i ? N
Z

*
2
O
U 00
w E
In N + d, ?1
L LJ\
O

Q N

II
co
` \
Q

_
E
o U_
LO
?o
r

N
W
C/7
. OS +SI ViS 3NI-lH O-LVN
!
L
LL-00
LLQ' N LM
?I
I
I
w
O
CL CL
Ww
I
LLJ

I

I
I
i w
YMm
LJao a- I
J w
> I I?
I
wo I ( ( I
U w
Q 1
?)
.Z.K N w b1'6 { Z 9'81+ 1\ CD
Q
C) { 3 C-0
IL I
w

co CD
V O
U r ? .
o N I ;n

ti
M
O w'
W I I o
I I
{ co
I
I Iw
am
?
? I I I
=C= I ,
mw
? w
I I
w
I
!
_
V)
MATCH
LIN
E STA. 14+70

z
3
Q
?c
?n
J
?.L
0
3
0
W
1.4
0
0
z V
° ILA
H, Cl)
W ? C1`i +Y "i
a 0 z o w
Z " P
O .. Q'
W x w u a s
'-- ° w ?
44 °
° z H a E
C1? a ° z w z
} ( SPA I I tatr A A a?° w
301 rs'oi? IsrZ z a U ?'
,? ?`?? ?Sq*88 I tua z
dHU7- 3Z'r6 +
!Y!usia sox
3 3-3
- ---- y 3
OSb EE J a
O d3 90 0 ZE z a
N
ddll0 d13 e Q y
CO F-
-- T ,- a t
Q II 'a y W
Nld13d I Ise OE ?? 0N Z A a A
ONO OS 4-
W96V*l = 03 009 --1 _
z MIt AOw3? _
- - T _
J 1SIX3 009
8 3 3 I-
U I-- g"IM d LE AM IS= ti
y 8rzL1 SuZZ
W80su0£ ?
} 0189dd 8311H iM
- _?... d ddl8 9 SShc9
0
0
LO
i

W
f
Sal
+ O
ad---- - -- 0
9 002 ro
-1 ZEJ: 1009
Q MH ON00
H 3AOV438 VZ+8dl300
, 11

N? Ir d13H

W
z
03
-90 ?? lq _
J
=
n
sb %1009
-A lszl_?

SL£
;tea
Q?
U)
W
0?' Z
- J
03-9
- _1 Q
UmDtazz
-T- M+ ?o
Olddbddld8181SShcO
O-Z 133HS 33S OF
N lidi30 33S X
+ c w K = 300
HO110 3Sd9 WZ•I OFD \
Cl -corluone- W
a
U'
O
O
E
LO

z ^
i
M
Q.
O

^ vl

E

0
v

z
? 5
a
?
? x 0 o
V
H O c A

` W 0
o W
°
• z W

o
? E
ca
A a
v H
z U
z
d
3
3
z
u
a
z
0
y
z
1 jM o
?n
a 1 ?4 N = ??! -tlr
to N FU- ?? "? g •?•? , H
_ --t - N of ? z rZ
Q? zxx -? z p
w En Sao wF
0 ? oW a^ m H ? A
w o w o 0
o 0-
1-4
W ^ - - °? A
7U.
m 0-4
H OA W
UJ
- ¢ 100
I _
U o
f
00
z .a
I cc as °
+ N + + x V > z
NW cz d
= E ?N paaa? k,
77 m? b zU Z? z i
I y? LW G G 7..' A
a ? >
? J
LLJ
O
J
m m N
(V M iI ?
- - - - - - -
N O U W N N ?J
O W M W f-4
Q Z
F- m ii
to U J
W
Z_ ? V P-4
S ?
F-
Q
--------------- --3-- 3
Boa ?
o
I
I
LLI
O i 1- -I- i, o M W E No
N tl. v?j
F- m e<
to I QO Q LO O
M I N I
a N? W t? I I b
ON C)
06 00 t
-M Ln
-JLLj
Ua? N moo ? N
v
•

0 . .
,

W a
Z4' 0 Z
x 0 p ?

-
? 0
o ?
x ? a s

O
(f) cz.
0 0?
0.4 z v+
F W W
aU O

A
? W
o z
as H

U a a w o
w
F ?
- z U
z

• 3
(£b'86)£ (,ZO'a)u`SZ w
- ?I- t6+
'Z9) +'6I
+ \ I
(I t£ a
- gs+ -
NIdHO 01
3adH9
a
0
ro 1

??
-3

0 A
+ .
--- - 009 - ?
c+ ?
cV

?- Mme,
69, 6H 0NA, 8'I o 89
\` Q
3
QNV -LO
IQ

W n
3AORI ?
U)

Z ?? Nid 13?
-?- 8d1100 ONd w
W
J -NOttJ?S1bf+?3? 83A00 H{N z
_
U ®r-19 05b £9 -?
_

<
OS
ON00
L + 0
U
- ta - --
-- ------ ? - -
3 3 3 V9
-
0 _' < W
W
5
- s+ Sad o
dal
o
r
Ln

ti
Mtin? ?
?eKf ?0k 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
June 21, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Stanly County. Widen NC 24-27 from Canton Road to NC 740. Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(2), State Project No. 8.T680301, T.I.P Project No. R-2530A.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 24-27 from Canton Road to NC
740 in Albemarle, North Carolina. The 3.4-mile project consists of widening the existing two to three
lane facility to a five-lane curb and gutter highway. Permanent and temporary stream and wetland
impacts associated with the project include 897 linear feet of surface water and 0.272 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands.
This letter is a request for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 verification. A previous NWP 23 (Action I.D.
199600728) was issued on 4/29/96 and expired 1/21/97. Mitigation was not previously required as a
permit condition; however, current regulations require mitigation for single stream impacts greater than
150 feet. On site mitigation efforts offered for the proposed project includes the creation of 0.074
wetland acres and the relocation of 224 ft. of stream channel. A summary of all stream and wetland
impacts is included in Table I and Attachment A.
Table 1. TIP R-2530A Stream and Wetland Impacts.
Site
No. Stream Name Wetland Fill
(ac.)" Mechanized
Clearing (ac.)' Stream Channel
Lost (ft.) Stream Channel
Created (ft.)
1 N/A 0.049 <0.025 0 0
2 N/A <0.025 <0.025 0 0
3 N/A 0.099 0.025 0 0
4 N/A 0.025 <0.025 0 0
5 Poplin Branch
- 0.025 0 66 0
6 UT I to Poplin i3
ranch 0 0 141 53
7 UT 2 to Poplin Branch 0 0 240 171
8 UT 2 to Poplin Branch 0.049 0 450 0
Total Impacts 0.247 0.025 897 224
"impact in wetland due to mechanized clearing beyond construction limits.
2Approximately 75 ft. of the relocated channel will contain riprap.
2
MITIGATION
On May 14, 1998 at a preapplication meeting, a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers voiced a
list of concerns/comments relating to the proposed project. Based on this meeting, NCDOT implemented
the following avoidance and minimization measures.
1. Avoidance: The proposed widening project will occur along the existing roadway as much as
possible.
2. Minimization:
Long Creek (Station 20+30): No roadside ditches will be placed adjacent to the wetland area
located at the toe of slope of the existing fill and sewer line.
Little Long Creek (Station 28+00 to 28+20)• Evaluation of tightening the proposed fill slopes
shows that the slopes can be reduced by 9.8 ft. on the north and 16.4 ft. on the south sides of NC
24/27. The increased slopes would require rock plating at an additional cost of approximately
$17,500 with a total reduction in wetland impacts of 0.04 acres (1722 ftz). Based on these
figures, NCDOT does not feel that the additional cost is a prudent expenditure of public funds.
UT to Poplin Branch (60+20 to 61+10)• NCDOT reviewed the feasibility of relocating this
section of an UT to Poplin Branch to the south side of NC 24/27. Results of the evaluation
indicate that the resulting channel would be straight and/or riprapped due to the grade steepness
and topography from Station 57+80 to 61+80. Additionally, an existing wetland is present from
Station 61+28 to 61+80. Stream relocation in this area would require excavation in the wetland.
Based on these factors, NCDOT does not feel that significant biological/water quality benefits are
gained by relocating this stream section. The total impacts to this stream are greater than 150
linear feet. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required.
Compensation: Compensatory mitigation is required for those stream impacts occurring at Sites No.
7 and No. 8. Both sites occur on a single UT to Poplin Branch a Division of Water Quality "Class
C" stream and result in cumulative stream impacts of 594 feet (Total Impacted distance - Relocation
Distance). Site No. 8 of the referenced stream is located adjacent to NC 24-27 and an urban parking
lot. Because of its location, the stream receives significant urban runoff. A June 1, 1999 field
survey revealed the presence of heavy algae and few benthic species in the referenced stream. Based
on these observations, NCDOT proposes a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the stream impacts occurring at
Site No. 8. Site No. 7 is located in an undisturbed riparian area downstream of Site No. 8. Because
of the undisturbed state, NCDOT proposes a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for Site No. 7. Total stream
mitigation requirements based on the proposed ratios are 738 feet [Site No. 8 (1 x 450 ft.) + Site No.
7 (2 x 144 ft.)]. NCDOT proposes crediting stream mitigation requirements from the Shepherds Tree
Mitigation Site in Iredell County. The proposed mitigation site is located within the same river
basin, but in an adjacent hydrologic unit.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
ttached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Planning Document and permit
°awings for the subject project (See Attachment B). The project is being processed by the Federal
ighways Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
herefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a
ationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Vol. 61,
o. 241. We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project and are providing one copy
the CE Document and permit drawings to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
esources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919) 733-
1176.
Sincerely,
V C- K'L
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
W/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
W/o attachment
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Benton G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Karen Boshoff, Project Development & Environmental Analysis

i
ATTACHMENT A
PERMIT DRAWINGS
NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanley County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2);
State Project No. 8.T680301; TIP No. R-2530A
r5:d? 13 Z \a 1 17 rcnnoo? t L ki
I 3 3 _ u.6nltr I1t: + 7}:" oId New London, t 1 \
/" 7 srllle '3 O 3l 1 / ?* 11 `.
' Moun Pleasant Badrn . U.
nuntorn It 2g + s I N
7
1 s .7 , .21 t.po°krX '? ?A r R, S Ibemarl :
z??„, ° R .- 700 eorievill Lambert 1
lti Holly iHarnsbura 60l :d S T A
I
a? eck?, Nfwell1 s eM?m ?LOCU II 4 i Porte,
Red Cross 3a 52 uF
Charlotte' ° r Midland Oakboro + aw'
Allen Wire, •Cwa a a a e \
521 + .r t l 1 51 s g P I 7l1
1 - Mint IIII t Rory,
+ 7 ,
It a V ?7 Fairview '
S2ECKEE .s 1\ GW? - ' ew s, m Cedar "111 ;
44
M.mmi°? ••'S Stallings 601
; monrdle ,
.e 0 Prne le 2 1 = 3. ??nd an 74 Id :I '+ " ¢.
»` s s had U I
.'^.N I O N "gt
S , ' C Weddrnaton I IktO
Lfilarnn Baker- _ L uolee? •"I r- ,
Scate of Miles
5 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometer
C284 f r- ..
1 /.
- ?--' 1 eJ C2
-=C2Z8 E
i.: C280 . • t 37 --
?' j, a. - ?• .? ALBEMARLE r,X
'. r«. •• ? 'roll u.no \ i
C283
„ 31
r
w?tr7, +• '.' VIM ,,,,
'1 m L - 2
267 ` w ra y..
39 4 9 "`"'r nLr?t
• _?? wry •"r'«
?? ?t ?, \,• `iii ? r ?? 1
,,gEG INS; ??==?'r ,1 ? ?, '` •
STANLY COUNTY N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
j NORTH CAROLINA
A BRIDGE LOCATION MAP R2530 S.T680301
PRFPMED BY BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT RALEIGH,NORTH CARCLD+A STANLY COUNTY
w <00•d+.P vww M
VS. DIPA."IH1 OF IRAHS/OalA11OH
FIVIA1 HIGHWAY ADrAwlsuA110H s PROPOSED WIDENING WrrH CURB &
GUTTER ON NC2+U27 FROII EAST OF SRI 963
TO 0.50 KNI WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
,,... ra y.Arcwns
SHEET ........ OF ........
f'

-1

J
M
Q
m
a
W N
11 II
p0
E-i •
N
00 II.
ago
+++ ,
ym4N

I
J
M
m +
,m

<v? / /> ?

ooh ' ?Np1

?
-0' •
/? / '
i
16f

' y?r
pc?? r ?' ? W
*
?
U V
VVV III

` U \
11+00
y
m
'oa N
??? ?
ltavw •ls - -- .
W
1
o °
~J
O

.14
?v
00
11???aal
I?x
00 O
+++0
lyy yVZ4
AI N' DEPARINIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
8-2530 3.T630301
STANLY COL WrY
PROPOSED WIDENING WITH CURB &
GUTTER ON NC24127 FROM EAST OF SR1963
TO 0.50 K.h1 WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOW.
SHEET ........ OF ........

r

In
N ?
?C
o +
d ?
M
H

U
N
C

v py
_ gg
k z
Z

? V
Al
i
2

• wr

Jr
? O
o
'80 NV)IU3HS (BbONy£(_liy on
(9V) -£A-

d
Obl
M3 0 LLB
J
4
l
H
8b Q
C1
N
?
'?4 0773
. QQ
Y
-
91
(er)
'
-1A_ I
O

30 t 00 -do No
N3Wb, J
/
( w Go
o + / O
J
eye y m N ?r
Q.
•
O Z F 4i`iP 1
O N
m f. Qr -}-
Z (V
a co Q?• V
m kA

?^ d
? } / ,,.C. DEPAR711ENT OF TRAiNSPO,RTATION
80,7 d_
'£4, ?\ y ?V
ti DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
25+00 .r`?y?? an 82530 8.T630301
1 yam'} ' ?/
STANLY CO(JirTY
d ???*\C\?
? PROPOSED NVIDENING WMI CURB &:
AST OF SRI 963
ns
?G GUTTER ON NC24/27 FROM E

C TO 0.50 Khi %YEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOW'
SHEET ........ OF ........
MATGHUNE S'rA• 50t(o0 -L-
50-+00 1SOlA bM
00 T r
n..
erg, ar,
H3Nv»9 SNI dod
,? V1
O oj J
?? N
r ?.
45}00 Y
? J
c"'
W
o al
Ld 4.1 U r my c,`
o° ?0+, w a•
Q: } 07 M O Q '
¢) n O Q jAi W tN 01
VI M 'ej} '?1
1 -" I ?15 ON8A3S.5 /.?
S(\ f G
LS ON 3S t ??? V N p
1S Q?G j rr, a
40fOo Go
i m° p
SN?1a? `' ? v r LA O M Q
w r ? z
Y
co b Q
n? sC _ N ?1`J 1 W
ON?Og? LSNoM CG }yvy v
' r N
'1S S31Vdj_
r yL r? -bA- ?` 0? VFi E-i h
-' 3?y JN
i ? 51??00y?
35+00
?r y\ ' r ? r M "nry
C
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRAINSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o 8.2530 8.T680301
STANLY COUNTY
PROPOSED Nl7DENING KITH CURB A
GUTTER ON NC2.U27 FROM EAST OF SRI 963
TO 0.50 Khf NEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET ........ OF ........

v

I
e dzi ?O.
:??

(JID
(All
'1S
? 1OSN
3H I
1
Y4 8, ??

,
- l

r r
(
?
60+00
, v`
? i
^V ?
? 1 J // I i
.
1-4
?O
II ??
??(
? co '3AV Q2lvN0
0
ly-- ?
O? y?
?Qya
op _ 0 ?.? y

55+00

t
n r _-
J
Q ?aa
o
, I, b ,+b?lp??3po
a a, 4
„n to v?
u hl ('
Qy
' i; V
V ££

? cr)
l O
k4 44
44 U) rO) a
'
. o
F 1hN ?? 1 i /
C7
Nd
J
1 ?
Q N
V
Z

O
NIATCHLINE STA. 5 0f <ot0 - L'
7t
u)

q
• Q
' j tl? C??? x • _?x ?.x
x!
x_,(20_0 •w x--x-- ? , N 0tLi'
0
C • S } , 9D Gt' x pf
N.0 ASPM
tC
F\
? 1 rT 1 ? 14
11 LIMY FUEL S &STMUT14
l I; I 'I DO 263 PC 261
1
?u?ll" IuI ?
I
1
F ? F
.I ?
I
1
1 I N
1 • F UnST 45 T20 R/? _
bt - / :.00
CB
POE
S. P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS 53 SITE_ O DB 1780PC 2549
DB 512 PC 418
DS 144 PC 124
SCALE
20M 10 0 20M
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
C9 N
N ~
w

v
e
I
v
y (r
uJ.??o v
?q
m
ooo• \
2 .
ACS `\
\?or`
v
,
00.
r v?
m

<
(
c
i W
(1
o
S?
o j
N N 1
ou??ui?
?
t

n-
'
i
u
.?

u III
• N jil
7
00.09T-
I?11
00
L-Li
t1 n
UI
m
W
F-
Q
3
0 W
a a
H LL-
3 N
Z z
_I J
LL-
H H? N
W W
F- F-
O O
z z
W W
0 Q
•
Os
J•3 V V
ClJ

9
?
3
?
T
Ttn oor __
__
D13 707 Dt, t
IIV 1
Il` I u ? ? 1

• yyC.? < n ?

? 8 dI
pr m
V ¢i W o I

ATTEN REKTT Co.
06 33 PC 113 0

A 04
rg NdSiM9 ?^-?,J 7NOJ f
I •n..rt 1 -_ x of
J
-?Ji] JNQS a
. _
y Zp EN PROPERTIES. L.P.
Do S41 PC OSI
p
73Sa3. W O
N

? a MO U
I
N O
I ?

?I N
VI
I
.
I
O Y'
ul
y ?
l
` So

?I ( II w a
'
l

I
R2530 AA & AB PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE # NAME ADDRESS
1 STANLY COUNTY FARM BUREAU 304 AQUADALE RD
2 CITY OF ALBEMARLE
3 CURTIS G. RAGSDALE
4 RUSSELL'S AUTOMOTIVE
5 PAUL E. & HENRY T. CARPENTER
JAMES W. & GEORGE CARPENTER
6 JOE FRED LEDBETTER
S.P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS
7 S.P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
ALBEMARLE CITY HALL - PO BOX 190
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
507 WESTLEY HEIGHTS DR.
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
48198 NC 27 HWY
ALBEMARLE,NC 28001
6815 FALCONBRIDGE RD
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
PO BOX 627
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
501 NC 24/27 BYPASS
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
803 N. 9TH ST
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
803 N. 9TH ST
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
N. C. DEPAR?tENT OF TRA ?vSPORinTION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
:2530 87680301
STANLY COUNTY
PROPOSED NIDENING WITH CURD, &
GUTTER ON NC24/27 FROM EAST OF SRI 963
TO 0.50 KAI NEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHONN
SHEET........ OF ........
f

LO o
co

M
O
O

F-
C6 M
co
(D
0
LO Z 06
?
0 m
m

CO
m a
W
l-
co U
OQ
H
o
(D
>
w
0
Z=

M N
0
Z
\ co
w 3:
w z v w
CD CN
Ii0 w
?
v
Z 0 3: Z Y W
wm p0?° _
2
> wCD° !n
p U
Cl) d O

F-
? U _.
o
?
o
W
0 O W
r
-
p w a
m a c?
H ?
a

D
co co ? E Q Q Q Q ?pUp ? Uo
0 o
C) Cl)
E

2

(a) IX
N

C)
LO N
II
OR
CO O
L O 11 cc =)

E

c
CL
fx
CL

c In O

W W O N
?
Za mtnZ=
Z A
F- F- p w U U
F- J O ? >W II
W aZW II >CD
Z ?
j
Z
Z
F- Zfn>
W W (nap - w
> U X M Z Z W
a
Ix X -
m LL W U g Z U J
a O O w O a J
CO
= _ a a
ZQ
U
a Z
a
0c7
(n J Z Z J U Z
w J W W J X W=
LL J J U- W F- U
CO
J J J J J J w
J a a a a a a
J H
a 0000000

U

a L
c ? ?
???

o

0

0

0

0

(.0
d c L m

g UU
?
? o m
Q c
cm ? O E 0 0 0 0 N Cl) Cl) M M
c L J " ?
J U N
W
U
LaL. C N ?
m? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co
p LL ??-- 0 0 0 0 0
o
rn
c O C
l0
U a)
N
?U t
m ? w?? o 0 0 o O o 0 0
U a?.cv o o o o

a
E y ? 0

g w
t
O
N O
6 O O O O O O O M

N
0
0
0
N
L
- X 0
L
y?
0
0 0
0 O
O O
O ?
O O
O
N
N

a
U

? Z Z Z Z ?jU o ?? «)

?
C U C C c
E
N
Q
Q
Q L
O
a m
? O L
ac L
O
a c L
O
d
Z Z Z $ m
` 0
c o m o m o m
inZ ?m Q
' M m` ? m `

J
i
J
?
J
J
J
J J
J
J
J J
-
.
o ao ? vrn to (D o LO
o h o + + + + c o +
co
?
O N N CO ?
? ? ? +o c
LO +
r, +
O
' CO co
J J J
0' ?' J Of Q'
Q' Q'
N O co e ? n? 'OV N O N
? O n N n? to ? O r
N N V IT LO It7 cD CO

.0., p
(n Z
?
N
M
IT
an
O
?
o J
?
O
0
O
w
Jp tp

11 co
W = W Lo p o
3
H?
: F- F- F- F- F- F- F-
F-
ATTACHMENT B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County.
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2);
State Project No. 8.T680301; TIP No. R-2530A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
c,"„) tC) RO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 16, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMITS 14 AND 33 APPLICATION FOR
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
WIDENING AND IMPROVING NC 157 (GUESS ROAD), DURHAM
COUNTY, TIP # U-2102.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen and improve a 3.1 mile
section of Guess Road from SR 1407 (Carver Street) to SR 1449 (Umstead Road). The
proposed improvement between Carver Street and Lake Road (SR 1413) is a five-lane, 68
foot wide, curb and gutter roadway and a four-lane, 72 foot wide curb and gutter roadway
with a 16 foot raised median for the remaining portion. Both sections include a 14 foot
outside lane to accommodate bicycles. The project was documented in an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) on 6/29/95 and 12/30/96, respectively. The State
Project No. is 8.1351301 and the Federal Project No. is M-5329(1).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands. Wetland delineations were conducted by NCDOT
biologists using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. There are five jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted by this project. All
wetlands are located adjacent to stream or storm channels. The vegetation is similar in all
areas, however some are regularly maintained and have only shrub species. Commonly
PHONE [phone] FAX[phone]
2
found species include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Liquidambar
straciflua), black willow (Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), privet
(Ligustrum cinense), and Japanese grass (Microstegium sp.) The total wetland impacts
for the project is 0.25 acres. No mitigation is proposed.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters. Three jurisdictional surface waters will be impacted
by this project. Site IV will impact more than 164 linear feet of stream. However, 148
feet of the stream will be relocated, resulting in a net loss of 16 feet. The WRC Stream
Relocation Guidelines will be utilized in the relocation design. No additional mitigation
is proposed.
The crossing of the Eno River will require widening of the existing bridge. Two
causeways will be required to facilitate bridge construction. The first will be located on
the downstream side and will stretch across the river, temporary filling 0.10 acre of
surface waters. Flow will be diverted through four @ 1050mm (3.44 feet) corrugated
steel pipes. The fill, consisting of washed Class II rip rap, will total approximately 400m3
(523y3). The second causeway will stretch about half way across the river, filling
approximately 0.03 acre of surface waters. Washed Class II rip rap will also be used for
this causeway and total approximately l OOm3 (131 y).
The downstream causeway will be in the stream for approximately 14 months
beginning in December 1999. This causeway will then be removed and the upstream one
built. It is expected to be in place for approximately 14 months. In both cases, the rip rap
will be removed from the creek to the extent practicable without disturbing the creek
bottom. It is expected some residual will remain.
Threatened and Endan erg ed Species. As of May 13, 1999, Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) are the federally-protected species listed for Durham County. No suitable
habitat exists for the bald eagle. A survey was performed for the other two species during
May 1994. No individuals of the species were found during the survey. Therefore, this
project is expected to have no effect on endangered or threatened species.
Cultural Resources. There is one historic resource within the project's Area of
Potential Effect, the Kinchen Holloway House. After a consultation with NCDOT and
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), FHWA determined that the widening of
Guess Road will have no effect on the House.
One archaeological site, the Guess Road Mill (31 Dh612), was documented as a
result of the field investigation for this project. However, this project will not disturb the
Guess Road Mill or any other archaeological site.
r
li
3
It is requested that these activities will be permitted via Section 404 Nationwide
Permits 14 and 33. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting the appropriate 401
General Water Quality Certifications from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood
at [phone].
Sincerely,
IDWAVL
.1` O
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
WDG/mgw
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 4 Engineer

r?
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; PDEA
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME;
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
25201
(IF DIFFERENT
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 50 on NC 157 (Guess Road) over Eno River.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Eno River
RIVER BASIN: Neuse
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0 acres
2

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
N/A FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Placement of Rip-Rap in channel
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Temporary placement of 5 @ 42" pipe and rip-rap into the
creek to facilitate equipment crossing. Equipment will consist of
heavy duty trucks, dozer, crane.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Temporary crossing to facilitate
construction of a new bridge.

3

t
t
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project is water dependent. Minimization efforts are outlined in
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA/FONSI (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see EA/FONSI
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
0. \\\\.... 3399 .14 ?0 ?233
2308 0 'T3
20 1594 2413 : .10 - 1577 .2 2309 3312 .I1 X2313 2
?? 47 y 231.14 .10 .n .09
.18 .08 12 2310 7
1!42 .01 h 1447 .?(
aafn 1549 A 0 Sr?Iv
2304
1321
1?2

V - .17 1z:..? l
.o .19 1716 .21 12 °•
0 1720 0
1700 .21 ? i:'::
M1509 C? 1514 •1, ?? f.... ...
09 C 1503
1a4s ?
NIA97
1555
ITE «
1443
09 ' Mill Gmve

sus
?
•

L` .35 1407
i
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
SHEET OF

c
o
U
L
c U
W
L
F-
U ? c
o

0)-G) N N N O
LU c c
E
u-
? WU

W
?
Q c
?0

N LL
^ O O ? N

^
co
O
O
O
O
C L O O O O
z v
LL ..
'C ^
N Q!
N C _
C i O M
m to
U O N ...
oU
?

d

C o c

m
m " ca
o d s
v
Q ?
N c

= U
Q c w+
o ?
CO
a
?
m ?0 ^
? N L

Z W c

W -
3 ? C
lC ^
CL l0
E
F- c
Y1
C ?
O (O <O 1? M
O I?
O
C
^
?? C C O
C O
C
- C O
LL
>
X m x co
E M U
y M Ir c
n
iii
.?
(V E
N
(V E
V o
to
co Uf v O
N M M (V
C O J J J J J J
O
:r
O
O
O
O
O
O
m O O O + + O O
co -
LL
N
M
M
IT
W)
W)

v? z° J
?a-
O
F-
i -. _ 3 ...... ? _._? .6 kdugemont ' - I ... - r o gy .C ?
_. --
Osceola I Ru.hnpb,n, Carr S 1 7 i`' 1 T 9 J
r ?
,ugS(9m `?
''S Rr? ' R
union idge !, C r.
entervill
Monhcelto ,p Rldge Caldwell I`t ?auiNEa or Ingleilde
3 , Altamsna 62 8 49 112 4 57 ' Bana e L ;hie Hester` Sat
S
Osspee 7 Cedar r 'P:.Hi9 ' - ? `S q dton r 1 ;
R D I eg 87 Giell Burli 0n Grove „ S Schley 501 's ?Utpe(O `? r. F R V N L I N
Elon sven -Green Level I = f IS 16 SCmro"li +LowsN?rgOJ O 9
oll _ 6 l5 Creedmoor 00
?ansvll'rG N.?• S P ?Z Mehane E- a???,I frankhntoro' 501 Sf
I sons O' O 10 O e EHsnd sS4 q 56 .
, IO
I• - q O Rlvet +._ Sr vkh , , or thside 8
00
10 Sedah l 2 1 aw J I1 III bOfOU 5 t ° i
c • B. ?% 96 ?? aDleville lustlG
'I®tset ?° ?7 3 ° I - 7+t\?1506'(' I ro In Sal
4 119 I !. Youngsin 39
6 Alamanc >- 7 f 10 l
,s raham. ',ORANE,? J Dur?ian? ?,:? 5 IA s 401 e
oi'fl ] tom?« ? Swep; Ie 491,« 751 ,:., f@S New Hope
t?I nr?y,o?? 87 ; !1 i ?2 P 5 98 ,? ;. 7 Burin Spm 54 ant Garden 4 A LA M A N ! ' Chapel Nill' • 3 1 B l?,kjGrove V.t Lake 2 S ° I?enN, Ho
IY.s?a 3 S !O •` dboa '6 Lnke%ea, .PonJt 64A
421 Nlmesvtlle 18 Ca?rboro:? 3 ' w<n r, y St. ft . a. o , R ley 5 6 98
3 ( a9apaha 1? 2 5 1 1-: Pa.k. Neuse 4
yl ? 70= 10 ^ I Rolesville Pearces q
bYn -I °? !" EIi WMtney v1o..em<:v:n, - 1 S4 1 7L 1. Gr- s 9 401 Plot 4
^s 11 UnerarsrrN 7 "li. rN.e Lowe m Loke g6 I? q Jjb 64 23
2 now Camp _ - rove Nelso i. ek.
e Luke E Wakefiel , 7 97
2 UDert_ _ 9 501 f 2 dlbrook + Lizard 4
?.? r'•? y ."I ... , ' f 2 3 I 7.1\alei h Lit 2 ?7
Grays Chapel t ,f;y+.+Crutchheld %rds Fearringto 13 mortl
ryl - 2 5 q l 4 ebulo 5 264
St 8I
a ley 9 -.___S I Hope F? Village FarnngtOn 751 •2 C r J NS 9 O EagTe,? O 648 ?Aiddlese
.07 S 1210
?5 ]]O7 .07, .O 4 .14 XIE-1 233 S 1401 'a .19 .71 .17
ca 7 ~ 3L t 3;lss t4 ''o? .11 o° >IY 0 t770 -o.
h444 n 7u7 1 3.bL o°°, 91 z7s7 0' r 4 c .19 ?1
.oe 1700 .21
•. o >? z32 y.,,.
'' a 3.7? 0 .19 .03 .07 ^ n t Q 1£Li ..:::
.Oa 7306' 'a IiL o° 2' .10 .23 a 13'0 377 4ap t::.<.
'Jd 41.1 .10 x.07 .07 °
I 2309 2]17 .17 ]]13
7]46 7347
11 7]nI
v
01, .14 10 .l8
la ,08 1 z 10 1"7
ILL .01
h 1447
139 r __ /
1709
5 ITC
m A
7399
1321
1404
VICINITY MAP
.13
Iwo
14
496 c .07
)sp_7
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
SHEET / OF 7

v
Y

--( ?--mac is? Guess r2? I - L----------------- -

S

A
Q ?
a fl
Q
?% Cpuse?y ? ?
FJ ?.?IosocSP ESE
5 4 ---.?
PLAN
SITE 111A
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
- DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
I SHEET Z OF I
I
x
4"-ff m J. -rof 61= CAusEWA Y
(o M 4aooe ?,PE
q 1.. r,
94,,
/
\ IAI uT2A t.
Iooye wscL qL, z8 / `GROw?o
S? ye WSEL 9S, 83 /
CAmcseWA4 F.ev, ±93,O n
? Q n tt?a SEE /`FTC)
y @ /OSO CS P
?5foo -;.CEV- -?20 +4o a6o
DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE
&-a"MAL Sc ate
om I ZM
??212OnJTAC. SC..gLE
O?n IO.n Zoe^
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
e
I

J
Lr

(? Q
? C
C 4
Q
J v

N W

W
;Y1 t
v !
0
? Q

0 3
M
1

U
C

U
-' N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
A -r- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
SHEET OF 7

C3
d

\ II (
I I (
I I I
? 11
i l l
I II
zl ?
£ I
'ID
i
OO•Sb
b
0

k
I
?\ I
45??
I
I ?
PE,
1
i
1
l?
I
Q
W
Cn
0
0
LO
4-
3 I
O
OD I
J
W
v3 I
i
I
ON3 I -r
I
I
I ?
IV
I
t

9 5 - 1 0,

-
- 1 7 - - - -- -

I T L

TA ,
x -
00

_
?
. - w i l l
PROFILE
UPSTREAM
DM ?M 2M
YE2'r?c.A? 5c.,aLE
lpn. Zoe
?-?oeizoaTA?- PLC
N. C. DEPT. OF. TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTS'
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
SHEET & OF 7

I - I I I t

? I I ? I
I ! I I
I 1 I , I
I I I I 1 I I ? I 1
I I I , I
I i
! I I I I I
I I 1 I I
I I I I-?--?- -
I

1 I I

4 i I ll f il l !

-
- I I I I I I I , I '
ffl

1 I I I I

.
01i
Li I
t 1
I
I
1
I
i 1 1
d
ll N i6 Fk
r I
- I
,
ill N
I
t l!l f ll
I I
I I I
I

1
II I II f i l l Il l I

1;
1
1
11
1
j
j
I!
I
I
I
I
I
ll
t
i
l
l
il
l I I
I 1
I I
I I I
I 1 I I I

I I 1 1 I I
1 I I I
I
UPSTREAM
voL,AmE A"o Aou-Aot ol= cI_As?- 12IP -2AP
-ggLow
AceERUE - . O I ? p,
r l Y-meta - 100 M3
OM IM Z"' N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VE2TICQL Sc.AtE
OM Zn. 4- DURHAM COUNTS'
PROJECT: 8.1351301 (U-2102)
?-?oe?ZortrA?- ScA?E
NC 157 (GUESS RD) WIDENING
1 SHEET 7 OF ?
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE WIDENING OF NC 43 (BENVENUE ROAD)
BETWEEN SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE) TO SR 1535 (PEELE ROAD)
Project 9.8043119 U-2561A Nash County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the
above Public Hearing on Thursday, May 27, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Benvenue Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room, 2700 Nicodemus Mile
Road, Rocky Mount.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
design and right of way requirements/procedures. 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. Q. Box 25201,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
It is proposed to widen the existing roadway from two lanes to
five lanes with curb and gutter. Additional right of way 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.

4b
d o-
s4k Cu.w v?b".
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
February 04, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: ?ohn Dorney??
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA/FONSI NC 43 from SR 1616 to SR 1535
Nash County
State Project DOT No.9.8043119, TIP #U-2561A
EHNR # 93-0598, DEM WQ # 8092
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
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/FONSI prepared
for this project which will not impact wetlands.
1. No 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project since no
wetlands are to be impacted.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
nc43nash.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
Monica Swihart
F.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax a 919-733-0513
An Equal Opportunity Affirmarive Action Employer
a
e v 9 "Ll
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):
q.3 -6_S_q9

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville 'g Air Coastal Management
ater Planning

F-1 Mooresville Water
K El Water Resources v ironmental Health
tn
undwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
Raleigh r
Land Quality Engineer orest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant d Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmington ?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem

,..,,,.
JAN 22 1997,
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? 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 incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-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
PS.lnd
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.

.r
Rocky Mount, NC 43
From SR 1616 (Country Club Drive) to
SR 1535 (Peel Road)
Nash County
State Project 9.8043119
U-2561A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/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. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
D e

L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
r

Rocky Mount, NC 43
From SR 1616 (Country Club Drive) to
SR 1535 (Peel Road)
Nash County
State Project 9.8043119
U-2561A
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
V c
Y-44
Robert James Booker III
Project Planning Engineer
, , "//. , /? - k, ?.'
Richard Davis, P. E.
Project Planning, Unit Head
C''
O? 0 •••.e.ac...e ,i
:•QO 14%
L °
..
a
?c.•Fiy?l MEs??;: ??? o.
r y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . 1
B Characteristics of the Existing Facility . . . . . . 1
1. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Existing Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
6. Existing Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
7. Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
D. System Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E.' Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
F. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. General Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Project Length . . . . . . . 3
C. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Cross Section Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
H. Intersection Treatment and Type ofControl . . . . . . 3
I. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
J. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
K. Bicycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
L. Railroad Involvement. . . . . . . . . 4
M. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
N.. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
0. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
P. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B., Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
t
v" . I
TALBE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
IV. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . b
E. Project Compatibility with Local Plans . . . . . . . . 6
F. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. ENVI RONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . 10
D. Highway Traffic Noise/ConstructionNoise
. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
E. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Plant Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

.
3. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. Federally Protected
Species . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. State Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Hydraulic Aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
G. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . .
23
APPENDIX
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
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, Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 43 in
Rocky Mount to a 64-foot curb and gutter facility from SR 1616, to
SR 1535 (see Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project is 1.0 mile long
and is an existing 18-foot shoulder section. The total cost of the
project is estimated to be $2,800,000. The project will be built
with state funds.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area involved by improving traffic
circulation and traffic safety in Rocky Mount. It will enhance the
area's economic growth by increasing accessibility to the region.
One family will be relocated by the proposed improvements. There may
be some erosion and siltation during construction. Strict adherence
to erosion control measures will minimize the damage. No recreation
facilities or historic sites will be involved. Future noise levels
are expected to increase between +g and +11 dBA. No traffic noise
abatement is reasonable or feasible along this project and none is
proposed. The ambiant air quality.in the project area has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
3. Alternatives Considered - In addition to the recommended five lane
curb and gutter section, no-build and public transportation
alternatives were considered. The no-build alternate was rejected
since the improvements, provided by the project are needed to provide
a more efficient and safer facility.
The public transportation alternative is not considered to be
feasible since the project is beyond the transit system's limits for
the foreseeable future.
4. Coordination - Several State and local agencies were consulted during
the preparation of this environmental assessment. Comments from the
following were received and considered during the preparation of this
assessment:
N. C. State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History
City of Rocky Mount
5. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact - Based on an
analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project, it has been determined that no significant adverse
effects on the quality of the human environment will result from
the construction of the proposed project.

I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen NC 43 in Rocky Mount from SR 1616 (Country Club Road) to
SR 1535 (Peel Road) to a five lane curb and gutter section. The widening
is to be done symmetrically. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
The proposed project is included in the 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program with right-of-way acquisition to begin in 1994 and
construction to begin in 1996. The estimated cost is $2,800,000.
B.' Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on NC.43 consists of a 18-foot
roadway with 6-foot unpaved shoulders.
2. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way along the project is 60 feet. The
right-of-way is symmetrical about the highway centerline.
3. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 35 and 45 mph.
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
5. Bridges
There are no bridges nor culverts along the project.
6. Existing Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment is good and
should be adequate to maintain a 50 mph design speed.
7. Intersections
Currently, all instersections along NC 43 within the project
limits are stop sign controlled.
C. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 43 is listed as an urban major thoroughfare in the 1985
mutually adopted Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan. NC 43 is also listed
as a rural.major collector on the functional classification system.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 43
FROM SR 1616 (COUNRTY CLUB DRIVE)
TO SR 1535 (BRIDGEWOOD ROAD)
NASH COUNTY
U-2561
0 mile ?/2 FIG. 1
2
The recommended improvement for proposed project is in
conformation with the thoroughfare plan. The construction of this
project will be a step toward the implementation of the mutually
adopted thoroughfare plan.
D. System Linkage
The proposed widening of NC 43 will serve as a vital link in the
transportation for the City of Rocky Mount. NC 43 will function as a
major radial in the northern portion of Rocky Mount. It will reduce
travel time, increase capacity and safety, and provide adequate land
use service for anticipated development along this corridor.
E. Economic Development
Much of the future development is anticipated to occur in
northwest Rocky Mount. Increased development in an area creates an
increased transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in
the economic development of the area by improving the accessibility
to northwest Rocky Mount. This will reduce transportation costs by
decreasing travel time to areas in Rocky Mount.
F. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Estimated 1995 and projected 2015 traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 3. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1995 range from
8400 vehicles per day (vpd) to 13,600 vpd. These estimates include
6% dual tired vehicles, and 3% truck-tractor semi-trailer. Projected
average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2015 range from
16,800 vpd to 24,100 vpd.
The level of service of a roadway is a measure of its traffic
carrying utility. A level of service of A represents unrestricted
maneuvering, and operating speeds close to the speed limit. A level
of service of D represents severely restricted maneuverability, and
unstable and low operating speeds.
Presently, the existing roadway is operating at a level of
service B. The proposed project should operate at a level of service
of A when constructed, and based on traffic projections should
continue to operate at level of service of C or better through the
design year (2015).
CD O N O C7 Q
?1 ('7 r OD z
t r OD Y
v V1 U c
U Z ?? 4 r C
z W W
cc Go
O in `O N ?r T a
t/ I-
LC) D - Z r O 0
(n Lr)
n /1 V 1A Z T r (p N LL
??a{( Clll U
N W T L N
W Q ?p LO r LO
a Z Q N
O Lo OL N Y w
cr `°
LL. T
r r V .? In
it ~ Oy
Z W T T r T 7 ?D
co N
T
O T '
N
\ ? T
N
T
r ??
L r
N T
1 ? N
OD
z O T co
O O in LC) T co
_ T
N_ 4 T I / N cc
w ma r/ `( vr-. T u?
> Ei
Q O
W T-
ao u? o -? ? ? r' --?
a
10 1?
O
O ao rn
O T
C7
W f- N
OL
1 ?C
r O
T
r N to
Cl) j
V`
? f
2 N

v (n
U 0
Z W
Z

f1 n U Z
CM Q N o
a
o z O

? c O
J W N

W
Z
0
Z Z
Q Q N
CL N_ 4--- N
2 >
W
Q m -? co
W
C.)
-?
m !n d O -? LO
T N CO
r
T N r
1
0
?^ l
3 +-
W
C%j --jk
cw7 N
O O 00 ? O ~
N
r I/? - l
M O
N
T O
N z
cn cNV-? T OI
O T ?
T
CID
U
2 co
/ r
00 1` o
co N 0 0) N r Z
Z co ?? 1? N ?
N N
LO ?? m
J
00 ) r LO N LO CO
U
CD 04 N
- co ~- N O O
N C')
T / N
(? T
N \ N
V Cl)
? o
J//J CO N M
N
r ?
P. CO N CO
????rrt
ZT
T
co
Cp
1 r ?
r O
Jf r ?
co
O O N a) co
r O N O ?._,
C) U)
m
P-)
W
x
CD
LL
3
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Location
The proposed project will widen NC 43 from a two lane facility
to a five lane curb and gutter section along the existing alignment
in Rocky Mount.
6. Project Length
The proposed project is 1.0 miles long.
C. Project Termini'
The proposed project will begin at SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
and terminate at SR 1535 (Peel Road). South of Country Club Road,
NC 43 has a five lane, 64-foot face to face curb and gutter cross
section, while north of Peel Road NC 43 has an 18-foot pavement and
6-foot unpaved shoulders.
D. Cross Section Description
A five lane curb and gutter facility, 64 feet face to face, is
recommended for this project. This cross section will provide two
12-foot lanes in each direction plus a 12-foot center lane for turns.
E. Design Speed
The design speed is a minimum of 50 mph.
F. Right-of-Way
A 100-foot right-of-way width is recommended for the proposed
project. This is to be symmetrical about the existing centerline.
Temporary easements may be required to contain construction limits at
various locations along the project.
G. Access Control
No access control is proposed on the project.
H. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections on the proposed project will be at grade and
stop sign controlled. Country Club Road (SR 1616) will need to be
realigned at its intersection with NC 43 in order for the
NC 43-NC 48 intersection to operate properly. SR 1616 will be
shifted slightly westward to provide improved intersection spacing,
as well as, improved intersection geometry.
4
I. Sidewalks
No side walks will be provided along the project. However, an
8-foot berm behind the curb is proposed. This will provide an area
where sidewalks can be constructed by others in the future.
J. Parking
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
K. Bicycles
No special accommodations for bicycles are recommended for the
proposed project.
L. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crosses or runs parallel to the proposed project.
M. Bridge Work Required
No bridges or culverts are involved with the proposed project.
N. Utilities
0.
Overhead utility poles parallel the project on both sides.
Water lines and underground telephone lines are buried underground
and are within the right-of-way.
Special Permits Required
No permits are required on the proposed project.
P.
Cost Estimate
Construction $1,600,0002
Right-of-Way 1,200,000-
Total $2,800,000
2 Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
Includes acquisition, relocation, and utility costs.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternative 1
This alternative widens NC 43 to a 64-foot curb and gutter
facility from a two lane shoulder facility. The proposed alignment
is symmetrical about the existing centerline and provides for two
12-foot travel lanes in each direction plus a 12-foot center lane for
left turns. This alternative is recommended since it provides
adequate traffic service through the year 2015.
5
B. Public Transportation
Although Rocky Mount does have a public transit system, the
system does not serve that portion of NC 43 being studied. It is not
anticipated that this service will be extended to the portion of
NC 43 north of NC 48 in the near future.
Public transportation is not a viable alternative to the
widening of NC 43.
C. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative were chosen, it would avoid the
adverse effects arising from the project. However, it would have a
definite negative impact on transportation in the proposed corridor.
Not constructing the proposed project will hamper commercial and
residential growth in the area.
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians
will decrease. Without the proposed facility, it will require a
longer travel time and increased road-user costs for cross town
travel. Since the advantages of building the proposed extension
outweigh the disadvantages of not constructing it, the No-Build
alternative was therefore rejected.
IV. LAND USE PLANING
A. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement occurs within the jurisdiction of both
Nash County and the City of Rocky Mount. Both enforce zoning
ordinances within their jurisdictions. Rocky Mount adopted a
comprehensive plan in 1975, which has not been updated since that
time. The City is currently developing a new land use plan, now in
draft form. Approval of the draft is expected in early 1993. Nash
County adopted a land use plan, Heritage 2001 in 1981. That plan has
been updated, and approved by the County Commissioners in July, 1992.
B. Existing Land Use
The area in general appears to be in transition from rural land
uses to a suburban area. Land use in the SR 1616 area remains
relatively rural, though suburban uses, including a shopping center
and school are located along NC 43 at the five lane section
immediately south of the project area. Active farms are located on
both sides on the roadway.
Two large apartment complexes, Woods at Benvenue and Bridgewood
Apartments, are accessed from NC 43. A small residential subdivision
is located on the west side of NC 43 near Peel Road. Several single
family residences front NC 43 in this area.
6
A privately owned country club and golf course are located on
the west side of NC 43. The golf course is situated between SR 1617
and SR 1618. A green is located near the intersection of SR 1617 and
NC 43.
C. Existing Zoning
City of Rocky Mount - A variety of zoning districts occur within
the project area. The Griffin tract, located on the east side of the
roadway in the vicinity of SR 1618, is zoned as a Shopping Center
District (B-3CU). The conditional use zoning requires the developer
to construct an internal collector route from NC 43 to NC 48. -It
should be noted that if the collector is built, a five-leg
intersection will be created at NC 43, SR 1618 and SR 1617.
The multi-family developments are zoned R-6, Residential. A
small B-1, Business District is located near the southern end of the
project area. The remaining land in the project area is zoned A-1,
Agricultural District.
Nash County - The Benvenue Forest area is within Nash County's
jurisdiction. That area is zoned R-30 Residential, a low density
residential density.
D. Proposed Land Use
The Heritage 2001 plan describes the area on the southwest side
and most of the northeast side of NC 43 as an area in transition.
Transition areas are at least eight percent developed and changing
from rural to urban uses. A small area near US 301, on the northeast
side of NC 43 was already designated as urban at the time of the
plan's adoption.
According to City planning officials, more residential
development is anticipated north and east of SR 1516. The 1975
comprehensive plan shows that residential densities will be varied in
the project area. The rate of development will depend on the
extension of public utilities to the area. In general, development
in Rocky Mount has occurred in the west and northwest portions of the
City, following the completion of the Tarrytown Mall and later the
construction of the Golden East Mall. Recent development trends
indicate more activity can be expected in the northwest area.
E. Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The project will serve the new residential development expected
in the general area, as well as the commercial development likely to
occur at the southern end of the project. The project appears to be
compatible with recent development trends and the 1975 comprehensive
plan.
F. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires state agencies to consider
the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
farmland soils. Farmland soils, as determined by the US Soil
Conservation Service, that have previously been converted to
committed to non-agricultural uses are exempt from consideration. As
the Rocky Mount and Nash County land use plans indicate that urban
development is anticipated in the project area, further consideration
of the potential impacts to farmland is not required.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT -
A. Social and Economic
The proposed project is located in Nash County. Nash County is
in the northeastern section of the state and is bounded by Edgecombe,
Wilson, Johnston, Franklin, and Halifax Counties. The 1990
Population Census Date indicated that the population of Nash County
is 76,677.
The proposed project begins on NC 43 at Country Club Drive and
extends to the north where it ends at SR 1535. At the beginning of
the proposed project on the west side of the existing highway
facility the neighborhood is characterized with single family
residential homes. There is an open field on the east side of the
existing highway facility opposite these residential homes. As the
proposed project proceeds to the north on NC 43, it passes "Woods at
Benvenue". "Woods at Benvenue" on the east side of existing NC 43
are the Bridgewood multi family dwelling units. From Bridgewood Road
to the end of the proposed project at Peel Road, the neighborhood is
characterized with single family dwellings within what appears to be
a changing rural environment.
Everyone using NC 43 will benefit from the proposed improvement
through improved safety and traffic flow. The potential for economic
development will be enhanced by a reduction in traffic congestion and
the improved accessibility of adjacent land along the proposed
project route.
The proposed five lane facility will bring about increased
comfort, convenience, and safety of travel. And each of these
improved conditions will yield economic benefit of reduced costs both
in terms of time savings and operating expenses.
Based on N. C. Employment Security Commission's Preliminary
Civilian Labor Force Estimates Data for December 1991, Nash County
had a total Civilian Labor Force of 37,320. Out of that total,
35,000 were employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,320, or
6.2 percent.
8
The proposed improvement will probably relocate 1 residence. 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 or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacmenet will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property acquisition Policies Act of 1910 (Public Law 91-646), and
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation 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,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
9
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, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable or adequate 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 purpose 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 unavailabe 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.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project,
since there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation
within the area.
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with 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.
The area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties for this project was delineated, and the area was reviewed
by DOT staff. The North Carolina State Preservation Office was
consulted. These efforts revealed no properties listed in the
National Register of Historic Places located within the area of
potential effect. (See letter dated October 1, 1991, included in
Appendix.)
10
Since no federal license or permit. is required for this project,
no federal compliance is required, and this completes compliance with
GS 121-12(a), the state review process.
An archaeological assessment of the project area for the
widening of NC 43 between SR 1616 and SR 1535 resulted in the
location and preliminary documentation of the archaeological remains
of four sites within the one-mile project.
Based on the determination that the site disturbance associated
with road construction will be either minimal or nonexistent, the
project recommendations are that no further investigation is
necessary.
C. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Two primary
sources are industrial emissions and emissions from internal
combustion engines. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution
are solid waste disposal, forest fires and other burnings. The
impact 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 analyses 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
11
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 cares, 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 in Los
Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
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.
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. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the
reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. 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 receptors 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
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The modeling analysis was
performed for a "worst case" condition using winds blowing parallel
to the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the design year 2015 and for ten years prior (2005)
12
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
suburban areas.
The receptor affected by "worst case" air quality conditions
resulting from the widening project is a residence located 50' from
the existing and proposed NC 43 centerline, about 1350 feet northwest.
of SR 1616 (beginning of project).. Furthermore, if the widening were
not undertaken, this receptor would likely experience "worst case"
air quality conditions in the project area. The predicted 2005 and
2015 one-hour average CO concentrations (including the background
concentration of 1.9 ppm) at this receptor for the build and the
no-build alternatives, are as follows:
1-Hour CO
Project "Worst Case'' Concentration (ppm)
Alternative Receptor 2005 2015
Widen to 5-lane Residence 50' from NC 43 2.7 2.7
roadway centerline, about 1350
feet NW of SR 1616
No Build
(Same as above)
2.7 2.7
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.
Since the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is less than
9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard (see Tables Al through A4 for input data). The results
also indicate that building the project will not adversely affect air
quality conditions in the area in the design year 2015 and ten years
prior.
The project is located with 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. Since 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.
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2561 ; NC 43 IN HASH COUNTY RUN: 2005 BUILD
DATE: 06/09;1992 TIME: 14:44:35.76
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = 0 CM/S VD = ,0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
-AS = 5 (E) ATTM = 60, MINUTES `:H = 400, .4 AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
..............
:,INK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES M
* Xl Y1 X2 Y2
........................ *........................................
*
1. NC 43 ''!WB LINK * 304.8 5.5 -304.8 5.5
2. NC 43 SEB LINK * -3304.8 -5.5 304.8 -5.5
LENGTH BRG 71-
(M) (DEGi
----------------
610. 270. AG
610, 90. AG
7Pu 3r' H W . y''EUE
Y
/MT 4
!M) VEH
----------------------------------
1060. 7.2 .0 13.4
1060. 7.: 0 .3.4
RECEPTC' ?O?'.m:CNS
------------------
* COORDINATES iXl
PECEPTOR * X y z
------------------------- *-------.--..-.......-.--.-.-.--.---.-*
1. R10 * .0 -15.2 1.8
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2561 / NC 43 IN HASH COUNTY RUN: 2015 BUILD
DATE: 06/09/1992 TIME: 14:52:22.79
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS : ,0 CM/S 'VD : .0 CM/S
U : 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO : 10. CM
ATIM : 60. MINUTES MIBH : 400, M AMB : 1,9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH IF H . W V/C QUEUE
* %1 Y1 %2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
........................ *........................................ *..........................................................
1. NC 43 NWB LINK * 304.8 5.5 -304.8 5,5 * 610. 270. AG 1060, 7.1 .0 13.4
2. NC 43 SIB LINK * -304.8 -5.5 304.8 -5.5 * 610, 90, AG 1060, 7.1 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * % . Y Z
......................... *......................................
*
1. R10 * ,0 -15.2 118
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2561 / HC 43 IN NASH COUNTY RUN: 2005 NO-BUILD
DATE: 06/09/1992 TIME: 15:10:33.72
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .O CH/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 MIS CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* %1 Y1 B2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
........................ *........................................ *..........................................................
1. NC 43 NWB LINK * 304.8 1.8 -304.8 1.8 * 610. 270. AG 1060. 8.9 .0 9.8
2, NC 43 SEB LINK * -304,8 1.8 304.8 -1.8 * 610, 90. AG 1060. 8.9 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * % Y Z
......................... *.....................................
*
1. RID * 0 -15.2 1.8

TABLE At
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2561 / NC 43 IN HASH COUNTY RUN: 2015 NO-BUILD
DATE: 06/09/1992 TIME: 15:11:30.30
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO = 10. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIYH _ 400. H AHB = 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* %i Yl %2 Y2
........................ *--------------------------------------..x.
1. NC 43 NwB LINK * 304.8 1.8 -304.8 1.8
2. NC 43 SEB LINK * -304.8 1.8 304.8 -1.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * % Y Z
---------------------- -*---..........-----------------.......x
1. RIO * 10 -15.2 1.8
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
(M)' (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------------------------
610. 270. AG 1060. 8.8 .0 9.8
610. 90. AG 1060. 8.3 .0 9.8
13
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance 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 in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of widening
NC 43, in Nash County on noise levels in the immediate project area
between SR 1616 (Country Club Drive) and SR 1535 (Peel Road) in Rocky
Mount (Figure N1). This investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway intersection.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the
human ear by placing most emphasis on.the frequency range of 1,000 to
6,000 Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the
reponse of the human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements. 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 N1.
14
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship
between the background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type
of activity occuring where the noise is heard.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Some pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h).
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 trafffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
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 (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVLES
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to qualify 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. The existing Leq
noise level along NC 43 as measured at 50 feet from the roadway
ranged from 61 to 63 dBA.
PROOCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continually changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
15
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.1 and
OPTOMA (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.), recptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
The proposed project is to widen the existing 2-lane roadway to
a 5 lane curb and gutter facility from the project's onset at SR 1616
to its terminus at SR 1535. 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" topograhpic 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 enable the
determination of 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 expect a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100,
200, 4009 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the change in projected traffic volumes
along the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The traffic noise impacts of this project in terms of increased
noise levels are predicted to range between +9 and +11 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 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.
The number of receivers in each activity category that are
predicted to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) are shown in Table N3. The project will likely impact some 126
residences and 2 businesses in the project area, all by approaching
or exceeding the NAC. Thirty=eight (38) receptors are predicted to
experience substantial noise level increases along this project. The
large number of impacted residences is attributable to the many
multi-family housing units along the project.
16
Other information included in Table N3 is the maximum extent 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.
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 N2. Noise abatement measures must be considered
when either of the two preceding conditions exist.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access along the
facility, meaning 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 normally 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 (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEY-73-9796-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and, high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures
for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in
their case.
Based on past project experience, these factors effectively
negate the effectiveness of any physical abatement measures and none
are recommended-for this project.
' f
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 I
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 80 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
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(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 H above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, 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.

DESCRIPTION
TABLE N3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 43, SR 1616 (Country Club Drive) to SR 1535 (Peel Drive),
TIP # U-2561, State Project Number 9.8043119
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTOUR
Leq NOISE LEVELS DISTANCES
(dBA)1 (MAXIMUM)'
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
A B C D E
NC 43, SR 1616 (Country Club Road) to 71 67 61 67' 129' 0 44 1 0 0
Woods at Benvenue
NC 43, Woods at Beavenue to Brideewood 72 67 62 75' 136' 0 51 0 0 0
Road
NC 43, Bridgewood Road to SR 1535 (Peel 71 67 61 64' 125' 0 31 1 0 0
Road)
TOTAL 0 126 2 0 0
150', 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.
17
The traffic noise impact of the "Do Nothing" or. "No-Build"
alternative was also analyzed. If NC 43 were not widened,
twenty-seven (27) residences in the immediate project area would
experience traffic noise impacts within the next twenty years. Noise
level increases would range between +6 and +9 dBA. As previously
stated, an increase of this magnitude would be a readily noticeable
change to individuals living and working in the area.
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. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of
surrounding man-made structures and natural features are believed to
be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise
impacts are an unavoidable consequence of roadway widening projects.
However, based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise
abatement is reasonable or feasible along this project and none in
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
E. Ecological Analysis
1. Plant Community Impacts
Future widening will eliminate portions of roadside shoulders,
agricultural land and suburban lawns. This will result in direct
loss of plant species from grubbing operations, soil compaction, and
soil erosion.
Acreage impacts to each community are summarized in Table
below. Calculations are based on a right-of-way width of 90 feet.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Uplands
Man-dominated Areas 14.8
Pine Forest 1.2
Total Acres 16.0
18
2. Wildlife
Disturbed roadside communities and urban areas provide shelter
for opportunistic animal species, such as the Norway rat Rattus
norvegicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus, leucopus), and
house mouse Mus musculus). These rodents are common prey for
red-tail hawks Buteo jamaicensis). Other bird species observed in
this urban setting are the American robin Turdus migratorius),
mockingbird Minus polyglottos), rock dove Columba livia), cardinal
Cardinal cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) and the
European starling Sturnus vulgaris).
Openland wildlife associated with overgrown vegetation
(fallow agricultural land) are mourning dove Zenaida macroura),
quail (CColi?nus virginianus), red fox Vul es fulva) and eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus).
Reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the project area
include the southern toad Bufo terrestris), eastern box turtle
Terra ene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undultus),
ground skink Scincella lateralis), six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), southern hognose snake (Heterodan simus)
and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Impacts due to the proposed widening will be reflected in the
creation of new habitat and in the alternation and elimination of
previously existing habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving
organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced. Creation of a "highway barrier" can affect both
short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal, diel) and long term
migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending on individual
species' requirements for food, water and cover. Also, animal
migration may be interrupted due to vehicular noise. Road-killls
will decrease numbers of individuals of certain species.
3. Soils
The project area lies in a transition zone between the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain. It is an area where soprolite from felsic igneous
and Slate Belt rocks occur on the same landscape with Coastal Plain
sediments.
Soil series located within the project area are presented in
Table 2.
19
Table 2. HYDRIC AND NONHYDRIC SOIL SERIES IN STUDY AREA
SOIL SERIES
CLASSIFICATION
HYDRIC INCLUSION
Norfolk loamy sand
0 to 2 percent slopes
Norfolk-Urban land complex
0 to 6 percent slopes
Bonneau loamy sand
0 to 4 percent slopes
Non-hydric
Rains
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Bibb
Norfolk loamy sands (Fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Type
Paleudults) and Bonneau loamy sands (Loamy, siliceous, thermic Arenic
Paleudults) form the largest aerial extent in the project area. Both
are well drained and fairly level soils occurring on broad
interspream divides of Coastal Plain uplands. Both types support
hydric inclusions but none were identified in the project area.
4. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as'amended.
Information received from the USFWS reports several federally
Endangered species known to occur in Nash County (Table 3).
Table 3. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Nash County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spiny mussel E
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
A brief description and habitat requirements for the above
listed species are summarized below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (E)
The red-cockaded woodpecker.(RCW) was once a common bird in the
mature pine forests of the Southeast. It lived from east Texas to Florida
and north to Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. Today, its range and
population have been reduced through loss of habitat. Forty-one North
Carolina counties are known to currently support active RCW colonies.

20
These are largely restricted to the upper, middle and lower coastal
plains.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has specific nesting and foraging habitat
requirements. Nesting habitat consists of pine or pine-hardwood stands
(50 percent or more pine) over 60 years of age. Available foraging
habitat is defined as pine and pine-hardwood stands (50 percent or more
pine) over 30 years of age, contiguous to and within 0.5 miles of the
colony centroid. The 0.5 mile radius from the colony centroid represents
the foraging range of clans and may encompass areas outside of the project
area.
Small, isolated pockets of suitable nesting and foraging habitat were
identified between SR 1616 and Bridgewood Road. It was determined that
clearing would eliminate strips of this habitat.
The next step was to determine if RCW colonies were present. A
survey was conducted by walking north-south line transects, spaced 50 to
100 yards apart (depending on midstory density). Surveys for colony sites
resulted in no cavities or individuals seen. Subject project will not
impact the species.
Tar River Spiny Mussel (E)
Historically, the Tar River Spiny Mussel probably ranged throughout
most of the Tar River drainage basin. By the mid-1960's, its known range
had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope in
Nash-County to Falkland in Pitt County.
The Tar River spiny mussel's preferred habitat includes the
following:
1. Relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH
water.
2. Relatively, silt-free, uncompacted, gravel/coarse sand
substrate.
3. Sites prone to significant swings in water velocity.
4. Habitat is usually found in shallow water areas.
Suitable habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel does not exist in the
project area, thus subject project will not impact the species.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel (E)
This small mussel currently inhabits the upper Tar River in Granville
County; Cedar and Crooked Creeks, Franklin County; and Stony Creek, Nash
County. It inhabits streams down to two meters in size. The stream
bottom can vary from sand to pea-sized gravel. In larger streams, the
dwarf wedge mussel is usually found in pooled areas along logs. Habitat
of this type does not exist in the project area, thus subject project will
not impact the species.
21
In addition, the Candidate species Carolina trillium Trillium
pusillum var. pusillum) may occur in the area. Candidate species are
species which are not legally protected of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Carolina trillium is mentioned here for the purpose of
information, as it may be listed under a protected status at a later date.
It currently has a state protected status and will be discussed in Section
3.2.2 below.
5. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife-Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
Carolina trillium is currently listed as state Endangered. It is
found in ecotones between savannas and nonriverine hardwood forests over
marl. It may potentially occur in the project area. No surveys were
conducted for this species.
6. Hydraulic Aspects
The proposed highway improvement is to widen the existing NC 43 from
a two lane, 18-foot section to a five lane, 64-foot curb and gutter
facility.
There is no major drainage structure in this project. The terrain in
the vicinity of the project site is relatively flat with poor drainage
characteristics. Groundwater and existing drainage patterns will not be
significantly affected by the project construction. Since the proposed
project does not cross any wetlands, it is not anticipated that any
environmental permit will be required. Siltation of work area during the
project construction will be minimized with use and maintenance of
standard erosion control devices and measures.
The City of Rocky Mount is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Attached is a copy of the Rocky Mount Flood
Insurance Rate Map on which is shown that the proposed widening is out of
any designated flood boundaries.
F. 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. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
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 imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
22
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 decreases regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of
way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of
Highways. will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the 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 which 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 siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation 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".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source
will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included the the National Register of Historic Places. A
copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to
performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.

23
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no
potential hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land
uses observed reveal it is primarily agricultural and a low risk for
hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any underground storage tanks
regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project, it has. been determined there will be no significant
adverse effects on the quality of the human environment as a result of its
construction.
The project will require the relocation of one family and no
businesses. It will have no adverse effect on religious, educational, or
medical facilities. The project should have no adverse effects on the
economy of the area. .
The construction of the project will have no effect on historic or
cultural resources.
Any construction impacts will be of short term duration and will
cease upon the completion of the project.
APPENDIX

n
qa STATF o
Distribu 'to:
Poole
Dudack Prevatt O'uulnn
?? Davis= 8ruton-
? N°nv°od..._? Shuper
Modlin Elliott
_ wet -_ Nedwidek
T"d Elmore SPr?nper
Grimes`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S: Price, Jr., Director
October 2, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State c
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 43 from SR 1616 (Country.Club Drive) to
SR 1535 (Bridgewood Road), Rocky Mount,
Nash County, U-2561, CH 92-E-4220-0148,
9.8043119
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our survey site files which do not identify
any structures of historical-or architectural importance within the
general area of the project. However, during an early scoping meeting
for this project, we discovered three houses over fifty years of age in
the project vicinity.
We recommend that the architectural historian for the Department of
Transportation examine these structures and report her findings to us.
For each structure, please submit photographs, keyed to a map, along
with a location description. Also include a brief statement about each
structure's history and explain which National Register criterion it
does or does not meet. Without this information, we are unable to
determine if any National Register-eligible structures are located in
the project area.
the scoping meeting for this project we also uested aerial
arcnaeoloJWx oe`ft-*M- As soon as these photos are available, we will
be'?g to evaluate potential effects of the project upon archaeological
resources.
109 EastJones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

L. J. Ward
October 2, 1991, Page Two
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw.
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan & Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Do
r ?
From: Cyndi Bell
A F1.9MA,
r41
[D F= F1
FAXED
FEB 13 1997
Subject: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 43, Rocky
Mount, from Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project DOT No. 9.8043119, T.I.P. No. U-2561B
EHNR # 97-0432, DWQ # 11479
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters
of the state including wetlands. The subject project will impact up to 0.03 hectare (0.08 acre) of
wetlands. Impacts to surface waters at stream crossings were not quantified. DWQ offers the following
comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT proposes asymmetrical widening of 1.1 miles of NC 43. Based upon the design
restrictions within the immediate project area and considering the project's minimal effects
on wetlands, DWQ endorses DOT's selected Alternate 1.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed
in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded for
this project.
C) DWQ asks that NCDOT stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the
construction contract awarded for this project.
D) The EA implies that no new stream crossings, culvert extensions or channel changes will be
required. If this detail changes during the design phase of the project, stream mitigation may be
required in accordance with current DWQ Wetland Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) } which
were not in effect at the time the EA was prepared.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, General Certification 2671 will likely be applicable
to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision of
wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
J
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
February 13, 1997
Page 2
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Assessment. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality
concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, DOA, Raleigh
Robert James Booker, III, NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2561BEA.DOC

NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
L el
&6
ate Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
December 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
--, ref
v' 0?
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
???,0??? CAj('CC
?.: ?FESSIpN•?9
Richard Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager SEAL
. 6944 •
Planning and Environmental Branch ?,• .??
??y Fji,Cr NEEQ`.
D 00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary ...................................................................................................... i
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................... 1
A. Economic Development ................................................................ 1
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ....................................................... I
C. Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................... 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY .................................................. 2
A. Existing Cross Section .................................................................. 2
B. Existing Right-of-Way .................................................................. 2
C. Speed Limit .................................................................................. 2
D. Access Control ............................................................................. 2
E. Structures ..................................................................................... 3
F. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................................................ 3
G. Intersections and Type of Control ................................................. 3
H. Sidewalks ..................................................................................... 3
1. Utilities ......................................................................................... 3
J. Bicycles ........................................................................................ 3
K. Railroad Involvement .................................................................... 3
L. Terminals ...................................................................................... 3
M. School Buses ................................................................................ 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
ALIGNMENT .......................................................................................... 4
A. Project Length .............................................................................. 4
B. Project Termini ............................................................................. 4
C. Cross Section Description ............................................................. 4
D.
..................................................
Design Speed ..............................
E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................ 4
F. Access Control ............................................................................. 4
G. Sidewalks ..................................................................................... 4
H. Parking ......................................................................................... 4
1. Bicycles ........................................................................................ 5
J. Landscape ..................................................................................... 5
K. Bridge Work Required .................................................................. 5
L. Special Permits Required .............................................................. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
M. Speed Limit ..................................................
N. Cost Estimate ...............................................
.......................... 5
.......................... 5
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .......................................................... 5
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended) ......................................................... 5
B. Reduced Facility ........................................................................... 6
C. Public Transportation .................................................................... 6
D. No-Build Alternative ..................................................................... 6
VI. LAND USE PLANNING ......................................................................... 6
A. Status of Local Planning Activities ................................................ 6
B. Existing Land Use ......................................................................... 7
C. Existing Zoning ............................................................................. 7
D. Project Compatibility With Local Plans ......................................... 7
E. Future Land Uses .......................................................................... 7
F. Farmland .......................................................................................7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT .................................................................. 8
A. Social and Economic .................................................................... 8
B. Cultural Resources ...................................................................... .. 9
C. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................... .. 9
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ................... 12
E. Ecological Analysis ..................................................................... 17
F. Construction Impacts .................................................................. 28
G. Hazardous Waste ........................................................................ 30
VIII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IlVIPACT .......................................... 30
APPENDIX
Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
All standard procedures an measures, including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission concerning
any stream channel relocation and/or modification.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the
State Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object
that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow
source.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613 in
Nash County (See Appendix, Figure 1). The 1.8 kilometer (1.1 mile) long project
will widen the existing two lane roadway to a five lane curb and gutter section.
The proposed cross section will consist of a 3.6 m (12-foot) center left turn lane
and two 3.6 m (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction. The total estimated cost is
$2,300,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive
overall impact on the area by improving the safety and traffic handling capacity of
this major thoroughfare. No significant impacts to plant or animal life are expected
and no recreational facilities or historic sites will be involved. A small amount of
wetlands (less than 1.0 acre) will be impacted by the project. No residential
dwellings or businesses will be displaced by the proposed improvements. Noise
level increases for this project range from +5 to +9 dBA.
Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an
existing facility, no alternative corridor alignments were considered; however, in
addition to the recommended five lane cross section, a reduced facility alternative
was considered, but eliminated. The "Do Nothing" Alternative was also
considered, but rejected because of the need to increase the traffic carrying
capacity along this section of NC 43. The five lane cross section is recommended
because it provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes and provides increased safety benefits due to the separation of traffic
movement with a center turn lane.
4. Coordination - Several State, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Comments from the following were
received during the preparation of this assessment:
Town of Rocky Mount
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
Permits Required - Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
will be required for this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. No major stream crossings are involved on the project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
Nationwide Permit is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613 in Nash County (See Appendix,
Figure 1). The proposed improvement will widen the existing roadway to a five lane,
19.5m (64-foot), curb and gutter section. The total project length is 1.8 kilometers (1
miles). The current estimated cost of this improvement is $2,300,000.
This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with an estimated right-of-way cost of $1,000,000 and a construction cost of
$1,500,000. Right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997, and construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1999.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Economic Development
Development is occurring and is anticipated to continue in this area of Rocky
Mount. Increased development in an area creates an increased transportation demand.
The proposed project will aid in the economic development of the area by improving
accessibility from I-95 to Rocky Mount. The improved access to the area, savings in
operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community, as
well as the State.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1994 and projected 2020 traffic volumes are shown in the
Appendix. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1994 range from a low of 7960 vehicles
per day (vpd) to a high of 8,000 vpd. The estimates include 2% dual tired vehicles, and
1% TTST. Projected average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2020 range from a
low of 16,700 vpd to a high of 16,800 vpd. These estimates include 4% dual tired
vehicles, and 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Presently, NC 43 is operating at a level of service D. However, as traffic volumes
continue to increase the traffic service will deteriorate. By the year 2020, NC 43 will
operate at Level of Service F if no improvements are made. Level of service A, the
2
highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not
stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of
service B, traffic operation is stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher
levels of delay. Level of service C is characterized by stable operation with drivers
occasionally having to wait through more than one red indication. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial
during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F
represents over saturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to
most drivers.
The proposed project will operate at a level of service of B when constructed, and
based on traffic projections should continue to operate at level of service of C or better
through the design year (2020).
C. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 43 is a major thoroughfare in the 1988 mutually adopted thoroughfare plan.
The construction of this project will be a step toward the implementation of this
thoroughfare plan.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on NC 43 consists of a 5.5 m (18-foot) roadway with
1.9 m (6-foot) unpaved shoulders.
B. Existing Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 18.8 m (60 feet). The
right-of-way is symmetrical about the existing centerline.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 34.1 kph (55 mph).
D. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
3
E. Structures
There are no structures along the project.
F. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
The existing horizontal alignment in the project area is good. The vertical
alignment is flat. No grades over 3% exist along this section of roadway.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
The two intersections located at the beginning and end of the project are at grade
and stop sign controlled.
H. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
1. Utilities
High tension electrical towers exists along the west side of the project and then
shifts to the east side (see aerial, Appendix). No water or sewer lines exists on the
project, the utility impact is median. A power substation exists on the east side of the
existing right of way.
J. Bicycles
The subject section of NC 43 is not a designated bicycle route. There are no
exclusive bike lanes or trails along the existing roadway.
K. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crosses or parallels the proposed project.
L. Terminals
The north end of the project begins at SR 1613, a to lane facility intersecting at
grade. At the south end of the project, SR 1535 (a two lane facility) intersects with an at
grade with NC 43.
M. School Buses
There are five school buses that travel this section of NC 43 in the morning and
five in the afternoon.
4
IV. RECONMIENDATIONS FOR THE RECOMNMNDED ALIGNMENT
A. Project Length
The proposed project is approximately 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles) long.
B. Project Termini
The proposed project begins at SR 1535 and ends at SR 1613.
C. Cross Section Description
A five lane, 19.5 m (64-foot), curb and gutter facility is recommended for NC 43.
This cross section will provide two through lanes 7.2 m (24 feet) in each direction, and a
3.6 m (12-foot) continuous center left turn lane.
D. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing roadway development
or a minimum of 31.1 kph (50 mph). Design speed is a
correlation of the physical features of a highway which influence vehicle operation and
reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to
be interpreted as a recommended posted speed limit.
E. Right-of-Way
An 18.2 m (60-foot) symmetrical right-of-way width exists along the subject
section of NC 43. The proposed right-of-way width is 27.3 m (90 feet) asymmetrical to
the existing center line, (35 feet east of existing centerline and 55 feet west).
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
G. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
H. Parkin
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
5
1. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles are not recommended for the proposed
project.
J. Landscape
Landscape funds will be provided if justified, up to 0.5% of the project
construction cost.
K. Bridge Work Required
No bridge work is required along the project.
L. Special Permits Required
Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be needed for
this project.
A 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management in NDEHNR will be required for fill activity in
wetlands and surface waters where a federal permit is required.
M. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the project is 55 mph. The speed limit is expected
to remain the same after completion of the project.
N. Cost Estimate
Construction* $1,700,000
Right of Way $ 600.000
Total $2,300,000
* Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternate widens NC 43 to a five lane, 19.5 m (64-foot), curb and gutter
section. The proposed widening is asymmetrical throughout the project and provides for
two 3.6 m (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction and a 3.6 m (12-foot) center lane for left
7
Dortches has no official land use or planning documents but is using the Nash
County Land Use Plan, Heritage 2001, (updated 1992), as a planning guide.
B. Existing Land Use
The area in general appears to be in transition from rural land uses to a suburban
area. Land use in the vicinity of SR 1535 remains relatively rural with some residential
development. The Benvenue Forest sub-division is located at the intersection of SR 1535
and NC 43. The primary land use is A-1, Low-Density Agriculture with active farms
located on both sides of the roadway. According to Rocky Mount planning officials, the
project area is currently in a "holding pattern" because of the expected land uses changes
addressed in the FUTURE LAND USES section of this document.
The Rocky Mount Municipal Airport is located approximately three miles to the
southeast of the project area.
A privately owned country club and golf course are located southeast of the
project area on the west side of NC 43. The golf course is situated between SR 1617 and
SR 1618. A green is located near the intersection of SR 1617 and NC 43.
C. Existing Zoning
The land in the project area is zoned A-1, Low-Density Agricultural.
D. Future Land Use
The Heritage 2001 plan describes the area on the southwest side and most of the
northeast side of NC 43 as an area in transition. Transition areas are at least eight percent
developed and changing for rural to urban uses.
E. Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The project will serve the new growth expected in the general area. The project
appears to be compatible with recent development trends and the 1975 Rocky Mount
comprehensive land use plan which is in the process of being updated.
F. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural
and Forest Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils. Farmland soils, as determined by the US
Soil Conservation Service, that have previously been converted or committed to
non-agricultural uses are exempt from consideration. As the Rocky Mount and Nash
County land use plans indicate urban development is anticipated in the project area, further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is not required.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Social And Economic
Neighborhood Characteristics
Nash County is in the northeastern section of the State and is bounded by
Edgecombe, Wilson, Johnston, Franklin, and Halifax counties. The County has a
population of 76,677.
The proposed project is located in the city of Rocky Mount. Rocky Mount
has a total population of 48,997.
The proposed widening will take place along Dortches Boulevard that is
sparsely populated and runs through an area that is mostly farmland on either side
of the existing highway facility.
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary
Data for August 1995) indicated that Nash County had a Civilian Labor Force of
42,340. Out of this number 39,850 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 2,490 or 5.9 percent.
The proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the economy.
Public Facilities
There are no public facilities in the path of the proposed action; therefore,
the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on public facilities
4. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
The proposed project will probably not have any relocations.
Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, interfere with
the accessibility facilities and services, and will not relocate residents and
businesses.
9
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute
121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI which require 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.
The area of potential effect (APE) on properties for this project was determined
and the area was reviewed by an NCDOT staff. The North Carolina State Preservation
Office (SHPO) was consulted as part of the process for identifying historic architectural
and archaeological resources located in the APE. On February 10, 1995, the SHPO
concurred that there were no properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places located within the projects (APE), therefore no further compliance is required (see
memorandum in Appendix).
C. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOA and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of
emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the
local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
10
Automobiles are 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. 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. However, regarding area-wide
emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of
cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally 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 regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate
matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g.,
industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on
the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning
of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead
which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per
liter. 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 make 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.
II
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. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year of 1998 and the design
year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be the right-of-way line at a
distance of 13.7m from the proposed centerline of the roadway. For the no-build
alternative, the right-of-way line is at a distance of 9.1m from the center of the existing
roadway. The one-hour CO concentrations for the these receptor points for the years of
1998 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
1-Hour CO Concentrations (PPM
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1998 2020 1998 2020
R/W 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.0
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. Since the results of the worst-case I -hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al and A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Nash County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
12
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 will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
NC 43 from SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele Road) in Nash County on
noise levels in the immediate project area (See Appendix, Figure N1). This investigation
includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted
noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from
the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics Of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
13
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1.
. Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things: 1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the
background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) The type of activity occurring when the
noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level
of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background 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 existing Leq noise level along NC 43 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway was 64.5 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic
noise prediction model in order to calculate the existing noise level for comparison with
the noise level actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was 3.2 dBA of the
measured noise levels for the location where the noise measurement was obtained.
Difference in the dBA level can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
14
Procedure For Predictinp, Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
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.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing roadway of NC 43
to a five lane section. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2020. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30,
60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3. These are noted in terms of
those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. No receptor is
expected to experience a substantial noise level increase. Other information included in
Table N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
15
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the
proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range
from +5 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change
is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels 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 earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
16
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access 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 high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the widening did not occur, 5 residences are predicted to experience a
traffic noise impact in the year 2020. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an
increase in exterior noise levels in the range of 5 to +8 dBA. As previously noted, it is
barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
17
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
E. Ecological Anal
Water Resources
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality
by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality;
thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No
BMAN information is available for Hornbeam Branch (CNSW 28-72-1)*, Goose
Branch (CNSW 28-70)* or their unnamed tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any discharger is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists no
dischargers in the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major anticipated
impacts to water quality. Scouring of the intermittent stream bed and drainage
channels, and soil compaction (increased runoff) are also potential impacts.
Increased sedimentation from lateral flows along with erosion is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water quality resources in
the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to prevent increased sedimentation to
the three ponds.
* Best usage classification
18
2. Soils and Topography
Two dominant soil series are found within the project boundaries: Norfolk
Sandy Loam and Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam. Rains Fine Sandy Loam is found in
association with Norfolk Sandy Loam.
Norfolk Sandy Loam is the major soil series present within the study area.
Norfolk soil is described as well drained, nearly level to gently sloping, and with a
seasonal high water table of 1.2-1.5 m (4-5 ft) below the surface. The soil has slow
surface water runoff. Wind erosion is a hazard for this soil. The Norfolk soil is
used almost exclusively as cropland which is apparent within the study area.
Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam is moderately well drained, nearly level and
has a seasonal high water table of 0.6-0.9 m (2.0-3.0 ft) below the surface. The soil
has slow surface water runoff. Wind erosion is a hazard. Goldsboro soils are used
mostly as cropland.
Rains Fine Sandy Loam is poorly drained and nearly level. The seasonal
high water table is at or near the surface. Surface water runoff is slow and water
can pond for brief periods in some areas. Rains Fine Sandy Loam is included in
the list "Hydric soils of Nash County" (USDA, 1991).
TABLE 1. MAPPING UNITS FOUND ALONG THE U-2561 B PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Soil Percent Hydric
Symbol Series Name Slope Classification
NoA Norfolk Sandy Loam 0-2 B
NoB Norfolk Sandy 2-6 B
Goa Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam 0-2 B
Ra Rains Fine Sandy Loam - A
NOTES: "A" denotes inclusion on the list of hydric soils of the United States.
"B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots.
Nash County lies within both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic
provinces. The project area is situated in the vicinity of the two physiographic
provinces. This area can be described as transitional between the rolling hills of the
Piedmont and the broad flat plains of the Coastal Plain. The topography within the
study area is relatively flat with 0-6% slopes.
19
Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife
communities that occur on the U-2561 B Project site. It also discusses potential
impacts affecting these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study
area: (1) Man Dominated and (2) Mixed Hardwood Forest. Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of both terrestrial
communities. Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an
asterisk (*).
Man Dominated
This disturbed community is found along road shoulders and existing
highway right-of-way. This community also includes agricultural field, roadside,
and lawn habitats. The more well-maintained (mowed) areas are dominated by
fescue (Festuca sp), buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), henbit (Lamium sp.),
field pansy (Viola rafinesquii), and vetch (Vicia sp.). Less well maintained areas
are occupied by broomstraw (Andropogon sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and wild
radish (Raphanus raphanistrum).
Agricultural field is the dominant terrestrial community where it occupies
approximately 60% of the road frontage. At the time of the survey the agricultural
fields were being prepared for planting. Normal crops for the soils in this area are
corn, soybeans, tobacco, cotton, small grains peanuts, sweet potatoes, and
cucumbers.
Residential homes and small business comprise approximately 23% of the
road frontage. These areas include lawns dominated by fescue and landscaped
areas that include willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), azaleas (Rhododendron sp.), and ornamental
Arbor Vitae (Thuja occidentalis).
The man-dominated landscape offers habitat for many faunal species
adaptable to agriculture activities and residential settings. Opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk* (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridaus) are found
within this landscape. Avian species observed during the field survey include
mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), mocking
bird* (Mimus polyglottos), common crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American
robin* (Turdus migratorius), American kestrel (sparrow hawk)*
(Falco sparverius), and redtail hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis).
20
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed hardwood forest community is found in one location in the eastern
portion of project area on the southwest side of NC 43. The canopy is dominated
by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
red maple (Acer rubrum). Species found throughout the understory include black
cherry (Prunus serotina), privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The mixed hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. Reptilian
species that may inhabit this community include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and ground skink
(Scincella lateralis). These species forage on small plants and insects such as
crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and harvestmen. The Black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and copperhead (Ankistrodon contortrix) serve predatory roles by
feeding on numerous small reptiles, birds, mammals and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for species such
as the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) , tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), northern flicker* (Colaptes auratus), and downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources. described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources
will impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the requested study area of
15.2 m (50 ft.) on each side of the centerline. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire study area or even right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
21
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Impact
Man Dominated 4.1 (10.1)
Mixed Hard Wood Forest 0.4 (0.2)
TOTAL 4.5 (10.3)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres)
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented and man-dominated,
relatively little impact will occur to species that live along the edges and open
areas. However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. Mobile species will be temporarily displaced. Increased predation will
occur as a result of habitat reduction.
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of the United States and Rare and
Protected species.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of he
United States"' as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Two wetland systems will be impacted by proposed project construction.
Each wetland is described below and rated in accordance with methodologies
recommended by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Wetland 41 This wetland is located on the west side of NC 43 and is
approximately 518 m (1700 ft) north of SR 1535 (Peele Road). This wetland is
associated with a drainage system for NC 43, and it is upstream to a small pond.
22
The wetland is dominated by soft stem rush (Juncus effusus) with scattered
patches of cattail (Typha latifolia). Woody vegetation is largely restricted to a
ditch area and includes sweet gum, black willow (Salix nigra), and red maple
(Acer rubrum). Several crayfish (Cambaridae: Procambarus sp. and/or Cambarus
sp.) chimneys were dispersed within the wetland area. Hydrologic indicators
include areas of surface water ponding to a depth of 5 cm (2 in) and free water to a
depth of 5 cm (2 in) in the core hole (non-ponded area). Soil color in this
community is 10 YR 4/3 (dark brown). According to the COE'S definition for
hydric soils, the soils within this wetland meet the requirements of saturation and
ponding to be considered hydric soils. The Cowardin Classification of this
community is PEM 1 B (palustrine emergent persistent saturated). The DEM rating
of the wetland community is 29.0 out of a possible 100.0 points. Approximate
amount of impact is 0.02 ha (0.05 ac).
Wetland #2 is located on the eastern side of NC 43, and is approximately 152 m
(500 ft) south of SR 1589. This wetland is associated with drainage from NC 43
and an intermittent stream. The wetland boundary is approximately 13 m (43 ft)
from the center of NC 43. Emergent vegetation is dominated by soft stem rush,
with small amounts of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), while woody vegetation,
restricted to the ditch area, includes black willow. Crayfish chimneys were present
within this wetland community. Depth to free water was 18 cm (7 in). Soil color
is 10 YR 3/1 (very dark gray). The Cowardin Classification of this community is
PEM1B (palustrine emergent persistent saturated). The DEM rating is 29.0 out of
a possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.01 ha (0.025 ac).
A third wetland is located within the mixed hardwood forest community.
Hydrologic indicators include free water at 7.6 cm (3.0 in) and drift lines. Soil
color is 2.5 yr 4/2 with the presence of oxidized root channels. Vegetation is
dominated by tulip poplar, sweet gum, Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle.
This wetland can be described as PFO1 (palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous). It is located approximately 18 m (60 ft) west of NC 43 road edge.
This wetland is outside of the proposed project boundaries.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) 26 is applicable to the proposed project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
23
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares
(10 acres) of Waters of the United States;
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of Waters of the United States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in
accordance with the "Notification" general conditions (for discharges in special
aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also include a
delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
Nationwide Permit is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Both wetlands can be
avoided by project realignment. Areas on the opposite side of the roadway from
each wetland, are nonwetland areas. However, project realignment may trigger
other major considerations such as additional land acquisition and utility
relocation.
24
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States should be minimized
by modifications in design such as, steepening of side slopes, use of structural
retaining walls, etc.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions
and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is. required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of he Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
25
7. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of he Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28 1995 the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Nash County (Table 3).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and
protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species
in or near the project study area.
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR NASH COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spiny mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterdon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Vance,
Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found
in various drainage systems within the Neuse and Tar River basins. The dwarf
wedge mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
26
No suitable habitat (no permanent water features) exists for the dwarf
wedge mussel within the project boundaries. Therefore, no impacts will occur to
the dwarf wedge mussel as a result of construction.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, Pitt,
Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, and
has been reported from Falkland in Pitt County north to Granville County.
Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be found in streams of the Tar River
Drainage Basin and of the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated,
circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and
coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a
species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is named
for its spines which project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally. As many as 12 spines can be found on the shell which is generally
smooth in texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No suitable habitat (permanent water feature) exists within the project
boundaries. No impacts will occur to the Tar River spinymussel as a result of
construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery,
Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange,
Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson,
Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
27
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively
in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years
of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This
acreage 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 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m
(30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based upon extensive field reconnaissance, no suitable habitat in the form
of stands containing at least 50% pine, with appropriate habitat is present for the
red-cockaded woodpecker in the surrounding areas of the proposed project.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of
project construction.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 7 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Nash County. Federal
Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although
no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species state status (if afforded
state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study
area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
28
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR NASH COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habitat
STATUS
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance mussel T N
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe mussel T N
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater mussel E N
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T N
Lilum iridollae Panhandle lily - N
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly - N
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina trillium E N
pusillum *
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Nash County in the past twenty
years.
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as a Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
F. 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.
Measures will be taken to mitigate these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's 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 imposed on the public 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 decreases regarding
the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land disposal
site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
29
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction, and land
clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with applicable air pollution and solid
waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of Highways will be held to discuss
various construction procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken
during the time of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines and
interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the 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 which 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 siltation. Temporary erosion control
measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation 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".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the
State Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object
that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow
source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes.
30
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no potential
hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land uses observed reveal it is
primarily agricultural and a low risk for hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any
underground storage tanks regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
VIII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, a State Environmental Assessment/Finding of no
Significant Impact is applicable for this project.
RJB/plr
APPENDIX
castaiia
Gold Roc
Red 0 -,•>:
?l V G As' Dor tcn C
NORTH CAROLINA - Momeye
all
hv'll
NASH COUNTY "°°`
v
97 1,?
23, 6 3 J Jj
.J
1 5 s Stanhope
6 6 $41
,. s
le 0-
a
7
3
133-
_:
i1b
O,
m
PROJECT
LIMIT
O OQd
_ ?O Qv?'
.::< yr= g ? ?'
uj 13
N \ d k;
Z SR 1678,_
SR 1677>.

efvo ° ,py DNS;' ` f.\ JJr _ E%T.• .d ;_:5:_j}:::::..
Oy ?J?/14y1 ?? i
= NORTH. CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ea r ,
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
wm.
a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13RANCH
NC 43
WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613) TO
SP. 1535 PEELE ROAD
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U, 2561 B STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8093119
0 mute V.0 FIG. 1
a ?
m
m LLI
tit 4c =
' ?- o w e N = c7 C4 w FW-
o „
CL < cc
'o ti Eta v c p Z w z Li.
0
ZO tL C vi Q K "' LO LO F.. Y o
C `? m U I-? b 0?cr) ? O ° F 1 of.-
m
CL o ~ CJ x k T T IQ ` 1 d a m
O p 0- p a ny `e/ JI ` U d
if E z 5 of O} I y 05 N¢ V
0 o a ?. ? co z
d N ?G
0
CL
Z wy? rs °'? ? `
p?p
N (p ? - O
co
C)l
i-
J
ry?? W
cud ae -?
o O
o
o
o
0
co
0
c_
T ?d ?9
cr) C:
C\J a 1. to
r? al
C0O
N
N_
Q o? ??21 p (D
O 44y (D T
Q ?9 cc
? O
O
C\j
N O
• d?oc
S ?
a
CD
t.7 O rO
oN
co
T

> a W

' O
LL ?
C ?
Y ?? y C riVn
??
p
Y
Y -Q O .
i
O C 6 > ^ >

? i,- p r{ $ Y
G d C ? ? M

11 O
11
G
2 fi
> 11 c z

0
z LY)
L
57< u Z
rz LO
0 c) 0 C)
C 7 -C co
O (h Co
C
N
r
O
CC)
2
r
m
CD
?i
?2 Q
C tom)
29
vd or O??
co
O 1
rl-

U

O W m

Cl)
C
"3- $ Z

U
z l
FIZ d
a` -
C
N
h
J ?
0
l?
N ° CV (ud? vy
INC'
C)
T C'H
p?
0
?O
N
O O ?
N wed '?` o? C
t` N
L.7
T
O O
N
1+ CTS I ( O
c0 ) O
•? 09
A
O Q'rv
c ?
h
b
ti
C N
O T
CJ?
cn
o
p N
W
J W
C W
uLL C7
v o c
a%Y• Q
n ?
O
Q
U
?O
N Q
U
(V?J
r
J
U
W
cr-
a.
r
G7
O
LJ
C
C
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:29
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D)
LINX VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998, Build
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *------------------------------- --------- *-- --------------------------------- ---------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------ *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 13.7m CL * -8,3 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-256IB: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 1998, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REKARXS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGB)* REC1
------*------
MAX * 2.4
DEGR. * 2
,THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.40 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:30
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 2020, Build
20 = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 2
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------- ----- ----------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 838. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 838. 10.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
-------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 13.7m CL * -8.3 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 2020, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR,) * REC 1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 12
.THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 12 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:29
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = 0.0 C4/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998,NoBuild
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *------------------------------- --------- *--------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
RECEPTOR * X
------------------------- -------
1. R/W, 9.1m CL
JOB: U-25613: NC 43, ;lash County
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998,NoBuild
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * . (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 5
.THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
COORDINATES (M)
Y Z
--------------------------
3 0.0 1.8
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:19
RUN: NC 43, Year 2020,NoBuild
PAGE 4
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------
-
-
-----------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -605.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 838. 14.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 838. 14.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
RECEPTOR
--------------------
1. R/W, 9.1m CL
* COORDINATES (M)
* X Y Z
*-------------------------------------*
* -7.3 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-25618: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 2020,NoBuild
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DECR)* REC1
-------------
MAX * 3.0
DEGR. * 10
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM RE-C1 .
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m 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 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m 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 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
• Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(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 rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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.
TABLE N3
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Description
NC 43 From Winstead Avenue (SR 1613) to Peale Road (SR 1635),
Nash County, Project # 9.8043119, TIP # U-2561 B
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
15 m 30 m 60 m
Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Distances Receptors According to
(Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
From SR 1613 to SR 1635
70 66 60 15. lm 30.8m 0 6 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 43 From Winstead Avenue (SR 1613) to Peale Road (SR 1635),
Nash County, Project # 9.8043119, TIP # U-2561 B
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(l) Criteria(2)
From SR 1613 to SR 1635 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2

?4y?W.?ars•A???_ ? ?J V ?? I?1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc FEB 1 4 1995
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Divisi ? Atktil(f?iy istory
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary willi pi ctO ^
February 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
,C?(? ,
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Ffistoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 43 from Winstead Avenue to
Peele Road, Nash County, U-2561 B, 9.80931 19, 95-
E-4220-0456
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Rick Mattson conducted a survey of historic architectural resources in Nash
County in 1985. 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:
Jeffrey's School, south side of NC 43.
John Lindsey Bell House, north side of NC 43.
John Bell House, north side of NC 43.
There are no properties within the area of potential effect that are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
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.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
7-
?=`
1C9 Fast Jones StTePt • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick
February 10, 1995, Page 2
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
State of North Carolina JEWL IV,
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources r*40PA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H
_---A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 7, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihartv;,Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0456; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
NC 43, SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele
Road), TIP 9U-2561B
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
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
Melba McGee
February 7, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind-mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10827.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
NCWRC.HCP,FRLLS LRKE
TEL:[phone] Feb 06'95 12:23 No.003 P.O-.,
North Carolina Iildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ,e 1?r?orvla'
DATE: February 6, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for NC 43 improvements from SR 1613 to SR
1535, Nash County, North Carolina, TIP No., U-25611, SCH
Project No. 95-0456.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin
Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project.
Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and 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).
At Lhis time, we have no specific recommendations regarding
the subject project. To help facilitate document preparation,
our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant species can
be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
• NCWRC,HCF,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Feb 06'95 12:24 No.003 P.04
Memo Page 2 February 6, 1995
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27511
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. .Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COB), If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential,
borrow sites should be included.
5 The extent to which the project will result in loss,
. degradation, or fragmentation of, wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the improved road access.
+ 9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated
with other state, municipal, or private development
projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL-919-528-9839
Memo
Page 3
Feb 05 ' 95 12:24 NCB. 005 P.05
February 6, 1995
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. It I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
Department of Environment, Health, and Nsturaf Resources
El Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form ((4?
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
JAN 1.O Y97.
EWIRONMENTALgelpNCES
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt ? Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater iIdIife ?-Solid Waste Management
/
ED Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? 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 incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-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
PS-10-4
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
December 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: NC 43, SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele Road),
Nash County, State Project No. 9.8093119, TIP No. U-2561B
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to U-2561B. The project is included
in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and construction in fiscal
year 1999.
NC 43 is a two lane shoulder section and is proposed to be widened to a
64 foot curb and gutter section with 100 feet of right of way.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency.
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a state funded Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact Statement. This document will be
prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It is
desirable that your agency respond by February 10, 1995 so that your comments
can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Bob
Booker, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
RECEIy
JAM 0 5 Ift
K041141

NORTH CAROUNA
NASH COUNTY
h
1 .13
1174
OORiGHES
?., Np93 pop.885
y, uu c°grct-
:a y
BOG
4q?
.39
4 m
4? , r
Q
io? y
PROJECT
s \, `-.
? Aventon
t
9 K t .

3
C7shha 4

Gold Rock

t
I 00 0 ,
58 0i
i l3 y Dar
S, .
n0 kbmeve t
lope , islermlle ,
+
1
6 3

3 i
5 6 Stanhope

A t n?.uun,,?
t
ue
1iI!
T.2

UMIT

v
4
tL
m
Z' v
***4* PROJECT
:;
-W, ig
YWCO ,$,y ...4 +in• . tC ?" lal;<
= 3 ? U ?`R•:p.
SR 1678,
`O
t
SR 1877 <
>•Y
Ali
tip..
;Tr ao iq3 n

? g \ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?
h
Mum _ ?••: i? t
TRANSPORTATION
Milt DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONNTAL
BRANCH
NC 43
WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613) TO
SR 1535 PEELE ROAD
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U - 2561 B STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8093119
0 mile 0.5 FIG. 1
?r
February 7, 1995
0FJMVM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0456; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
NC 43, SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele
Road), TIP #U-25618
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.

Melba McGee
February 7, 1995
Page 2
RECEIVED
FFR n 91995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
gRetliCH
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the'maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10827.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON WIDENING NC 43 FROM SR 1335, PEELE ROAD, TO SR 1613
Project 9.8043119 U-2561 B Nash County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above citizens
informational workshop on May 24, 1995 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
in the Benvenue Middle School Cafeteria, 1551 Benvenue Road.
Interested individuals may attend this informal drop in workshop at their
convenience between the above-stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be
available to provide information and answer individual questions regarding this project.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen the existing roadway to a five-lane
curb and gutter section.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Bob Booker at P. 0.
Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone], Extension 207.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the meeting to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Booker at the above address and phone number or
fax [phone] to provide adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements can be made.
F /' FO
No"?? p?199
y ci`c'Lc
FS
:? ww Hw'•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 31, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 ` 1997.
ENVIRpNMENTA uSCENCES
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Rocky Mount, NC 43, From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue
(SR 1613), Nash County, State Project No. 9.8043119, TIP No. U-2561B
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State Environmental
Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed
highway improvement. This report records the determination that implementing the
proposed action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the human
environment.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
2-11141

NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
C
ry ?6
'ate/ .Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
December 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Research Branch By:
r f ??
Robert James Booker, III
Project Planning Engineer
?Jt?a'_ - a_
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
Deft
f"•? 4r.
? • . CARP,
. °
...... 4L /il.
/Z SEAL
Richard Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch
G1 i
•. ?S,?R•......•• gyp. .•
D `?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary ...................................................................................................... i
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................... 1
A. Economic Development ................................................................ 1
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ....................................................... 1
C. Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................... 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY .................................................. 2
A. Existing Cross Section .................................................................. 2
B. Existing Right-of-Way .................................................................. 2
C. Speed Limit .................................................................................. 2
D. Access Control ............................................................................. 2
E. Structures ..................................................................................... 3
F. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................................................ 3
G. Intersections and Type of Control ................................................. 3
H. Sidewalks ..................................................................................... 3
1. Utilities ......................................................................................... 3
J. Bicycles ........................................................................................ 3
K. Railroad Involvement .................................................................... 3
L. Terminals ...................................................................................... 3
M. School Buses ................................................................................ 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
ALIGNMENT .......................................................................................... 4
A. Project Length .............................................................................. 4
B. Project Termini ............................................................................. 4
C. Cross Section Description ............................................................. 4
D. Design Speed ................................................................................ 4
E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................ 4
F. Access Control ............................................................................. 4
G. Sidewalks ..................................................................................... 4
H. Parking ......................................................................................... 4
I. Bicycles ........................................................................................ 5
J. Landscape ..................................................................................... 5
' K. Bridge Work Required .................................................................. 5
L. Special Permits Required .............................................................. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
M. Speed Limit .................................................................................. 5
N. Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 5
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .......................................................... 5
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended) ......................................................... 5
B. Reduced Facility ........................................................................... 6
C. Public Transportation .................................................................... 6
D. No-Build Alternative ..................................................................... 6
VI. LAND USE PLANNING ......................................................................... 6
A. Status of Local Planning Activities ................................................ 6
B. Existing Land Use ......................................................................... 7
C. Existing Zoning ............................................................................. 7
D. Project Compatibility With Local Plans ......................................... 7
E. Future Land Uses .......................................................................... 7
F. Farmland .......................................................................................7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ................................................................ .. 8
A. Social and Economic .................................................................. .. 8
B. Cultural Resources ...................................................................... .. 9
C. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................... .. 9
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ................... 12
E. Ecological Analysis ..................................................................... 17
F. Construction Impacts .................................................................. 28
G. Hazardous Waste ........................................................................ 30
VIII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .......................................... 30
APPENDIX
Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
All standard procedures an measures, including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission concerning
any stream channel relocation and/or modification.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the
State Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object
that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow
source.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613 in
Nash County (See Appendix, Figure 1). The 1.8 kilometer (1.1 mile) long project
will widen the existing two lane roadway to a five lane curb and gutter section.
The proposed cross section will consist of a 3.6 m (12-foot) center left turn lane
and two 3.6 m (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction. The total estimated cost is
$2,300,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive
overall impact on the area by improving the safety and traffic handling capacity of
this major thoroughfare. No significant impacts to plant or animal life are expected
and no recreational facilities or historic sites will be involved. A small amount of
wetlands (less than 1.0 acre) will be impacted by the project. No residential
dwellings or businesses will be displaced by the proposed improvements. Noise
level increases for this project range from +5 to +9 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an
existing facility, no alternative corridor alignments were considered; however, in
addition to the recommended five lane cross section, a reduced facility alternative
was considered, but eliminated. The "Do Nothing" Alternative was also
considered, but rejected because of the need to increase the traffic carrying
capacity along this section of NC 43. The five lane cross section is recommended
because it provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes and provides increased safety benefits due to the separation of traffic
movement with a center turn lane.
4. Coordination - Several State, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Comments from the following were
received during the preparation of this assessment:
Town of Rocky Mount
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
Permits Required - Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
will be required for this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. No major stream crossings are involved on the project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
Nationwide Permit is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
NC 43, Rocky Mount,
From Peele Road (SR 1535) to Winstead Avenue (SR 1613)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043119
TIP No. U-2561B
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 43 from SR 1535 to SR 1613 in Nash County (See Appendix,
Figure 1). The proposed improvement will widen the existing roadway to a five lane,
19.5m (64-foot), curb and gutter section. The total project length is 1.8 kilometers (1
miles). The current estimated cost of this improvement is $2,300,000.
This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with an estimated right-of-way cost of $1,000,000 and a construction cost of
$1,500,000. Right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997, and construction scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1999.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Economic Development
Development is occurring and is anticipated to continue in this area of Rocky
Mount. Increased development in an area creates an increased transportation demand.
The proposed project will aid in the economic development of the area by improving
accessibility from I-95 to Rocky Mount. The improved access to the area, savings in
operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community, as
well as the State.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1994 and projected 2020 traffic volumes are shown in the
Appendix. Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1994 range from a low of 7960 vehicles
per day (vpd) to a high of 8,000 vpd. The estimates include 2% dual tired vehicles, and
1% TTST. Projected average daily traffic (ADT) estimates for the year 2020 range from a
low of 16,700 vpd to a high of 16,800 vpd. These estimates include 4% dual tired
vehicles, and 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Presently, NC 43 is operating at a level of service D. However, as traffic volumes
continue to increase the traffic service will deteriorate. By the year 2020, NC 43 will
operate at Level of Service F if no improvements are made. Level of service A, the
2
highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not
stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of
service B, traffic operation is stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher
levels of delay. Level of service C is characterized by stable operation with drivers
occasionally having to wait through more than one red indication. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial
during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F
represents over saturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to
most drivers.
The proposed project will operate at a level of service of B when constructed, and
based on traffic projections should continue to operate at level of service of C or better
through the design year (2020).
C. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 43 is a major thoroughfare in the 1988 mutually adopted thoroughfare plan.
The construction of this project will be a step toward the implementation of this
thoroughfare plan.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross section on NC 43 consists of a 5.5 m (18-foot) roadway with
1.9 m (6-foot) unpaved shoulders.
B. Existing Right-of-W
aX
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 18.8 m (60 feet). The
right-of-way is symmetrical about the existing centerline.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project is 34.1 kph (55 mph).
D. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
3
E. Structures
There are no structures along the project.
F. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
The existing horizontal alignment in the project area is good. The vertical
alignment is flat. No grades over 3% exist along this section of roadway.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
The two intersections located at the beginning and end of the project are at grade
and stop sign controlled.
H. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the project.
1. Utilities
High tension electrical towers exists along the west side of the project and then
shifts to the east side (see aerial, Appendix). No water or sewer lines exists on the
project, the utility impact is median. A power substation exists on the east side of the
existing right of way.
J. Bicycles
The subject section of NC 43 is not a designated bicycle route. There are no
exclusive bike lanes or trails along the existing roadway.
K. Railroad Involvement
No railroad crosses or parallels the proposed project.
L. Terminals
The north end of the project begins at SR 1613, a to lane facility intersecting at
grade. At the south end of the project, SR 1535 (a two lane facility) intersects with an at
grade with NC 43.
M. School Buses
There are five school buses that travel this section of NC 43 in the morning and
five in the afternoon.
4
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Project Length
The proposed project is approximately 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles) long.
B. Project Termini
The proposed project begins at SR 1535 and ends at SR 1613.
C. Cross Section Description
A five lane, 19.5 m (64-foot), curb and gutter facility is recommended for NC 43.
This cross section will provide two through lanes 7.2 m (24 feet) in each direction, and a
3.6 m (12-foot) continuous center left turn lane.
D. Design Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing roadway development
or a minimum of 31.1 kph (50 mph). Design speed is a
correlation of the physical features of a highway which influence vehicle operation and
reflects the degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to
be interpreted as a recommended posted speed limit.
E. Right-of-Way
An 18.2 m (60-foot) symmetrical right-of-way width exists along the subject
section of NC 43. The proposed right-of-way width is 27.3 m (90 feet) asymmetrical to
the existing center line, (35 feet east of existing centerline and 55 feet west).
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
G. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
H. Parkins
Parking will not be provided for or permitted along the project.
5
1. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles are not recommended for the proposed
project.
J. Landscape
Landscape funds will be provided if justified, up to 0.5% of the project
construction cost.
K. Bridge Work Required
No bridge work is required along the project.
L. Special Permits Required
Nationwide permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be needed for
this project.
A 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management in NDEHNR will be required for fill activity in
wetlands and surface waters where a federal permit is required.
M. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the project is 55 mph. The speed limit is expected
to remain the same after completion of the project.
N. Cost Estimate
Construction* $1,700,000
Right of Way 600,000
Total $2,300,000
* Includes 10% for engineering and contingencies.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternate widens NC 43 to a five lane, 19.5 m (64-foot), curb and gutter
section. The proposed widening is asymmetrical throughout the project and provides for
two 3.6 m (12-foot) travel lanes in each direction and a 3.6 m (12-foot) center lane for left
6
turns. The asymmetrical ROW shift is 55 feet to the east and 35 feet to the west of the
existing centerline to avoid high tension power poles. This alternate is recommended since
it provides increased safety benefits and adequate traffic service throughout the design
year.
B. Reduced Facility
This four lane alternative is somewhat less expensive than the recommended five
lane cross section; however, it is not considered to be a viable alternative. Left turning
traffic generated by the anticipated development will clog the center lanes of a four lane
roadway reducing the effective capacity to two lanes. For this reason, this alternate is
therefore rejected.
C. Public Transportation
The Town of Rocky Mount does not run a public transportation system along this
section at the present time. The privately owned automobile is the major form of
transportation for the residents. The development of a public transportation system is not
considered to be a prudent alternative to the construction of a facility that will provide a
direct connector from I-95 to Rocky Mount.
D. No-Build Alternative
If the "No-Build" alternative were chosen, it would avoid the adverse effects
arising from the project. However, it would have a definite negative impact on
transportation in the proposed corridor. Not constructing the proposed project will
hamper commercial and residential growth in the area.
As traffic increases, safety for both motorists and pedestrians will decrease.
Without the proposed facility, it will require longer travel times and increased road-user
costs for cross town travel. Since the advantages of the project outweigh the
disadvantages of not constructing it, the No-Build alternative was rejected.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Status Of Local Planning Activitie
As of July 1, 1994, all of the project area, except for the area from SR 1589 to
SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) is in the jurisdiction of the City of Rocky Mount. The
section from SR 1589 to SR 1613 is in the City of Dortches's jurisdiction. Rocky Mount
enforces zoning ordinances within their jurisdictions and is in the process of updating their
1975 land use plan. A component of the plan update will be the Benvenue Corridor Plan,
a study of the area from NC 48 to I- 95, which encompasses the project area.
7
Dortches has no official land use or planning documents but is using the Nash
County Land Use Plan, Heritage 2001, (updated 1992), as a planning guide.
B. Existing Land Use
The area in general appears to be in transition from rural land uses to a suburban
area. Land use in the vicinity of SR 1535 remains relatively rural with some residential
development. The Benvenue Forest sub-division is located at the intersection of SR 1535
and NC 43. The primary land use is A-1, Low-Density Agriculture with active farms
located on both sides of the roadway. According to Rocky Mount planning officials, the
project area is currently in a "holding pattern" because of the expected land uses changes
addressed in the FUTURE LAND USES section of this document.
The Rocky Mount Municipal Airport is located approximately three miles to the
southeast of the project area.
A privately owned country club and golf course are located southeast of the
project area on the west side of NC 43. The golf course is situated between SR 1617 and
SR 1618. A green is located near the intersection of SR 1617 and NC 43.
C. Existing oning
The land in the project area is zoned A-1, Low-Density Agricultural.
D. Future Land Use
The Heritage 2001 plan describes the area on the southwest side and most of the
northeast side of NC 43 as an area in transition. Transition areas are at least eight percent
developed and changing for rural to urban uses.
E. Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The project will serve the new growth expected in the general area. The project
appears to be compatible with recent development trends and the 1975 Rocky Mount
comprehensive land use plan which is in the process of being updated.
F. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime Agricultural
and Forest Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils. Farmland soils, as determined by the US
Soil Conservation Service, that have previously been converted or committed to
non-agricultural uses are exempt from consideration. As the Rocky Mount and Nash
County land use plans indicate urban development is anticipated in the project area, further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is not required.
8
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Social And Economic
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Nash County is in the northeastern section of the State and is bounded by
Edgecombe, Wilson, Johnston, Franklin, and Halifax counties. The County has a
population of 76,677.
The proposed project is located in the city of Rocky Mount. Rocky Mount
has a total population of 48,997.
The proposed widening will take place along Dortches Boulevard that is
sparsely populated and runs through an area that is mostly farmland on either side
of the existing highway facility.
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary
Data for August 1995) indicated that Nash County had a Civilian Labor Force of
42,340. Out of this number 39,850 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 2,490 or 5.9 percent.
The proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the economy.
Public Facilities
There are no public facilities in the path of the proposed action; therefore,
the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on public facilities
4. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
The proposed project will probably not have any relocations.
5. Social Imnacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, interfere with
the accessibility facilities and services, and will not relocate residents and
businesses.
9
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute
121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI which require 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.
The area of potential effect (APE) on properties for this project was determined
and the area was reviewed by an NCDOT staff. The North Carolina State Preservation
Office (SHPO) was consulted as part of the process for identifying historic architectural
and archaeological resources located in the APE. On February 10, 1995, the SHPO
concurred that there were no properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places located within the projects (APE), therefore no further compliance is required (see
memorandum in Appendix).
C. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of
emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the
local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
10
Automobiles are 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. 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. However, regarding area-wide
emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of
cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally 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 regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate
matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g.,
industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on
the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning
of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead
which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per
liter. 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 make 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.
II
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. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year of 1998 and the design
year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be the right-of-way line at a
distance of 13.7m from the proposed centerline of the roadway. For the no-build
alternative, the right-of-way line is at a distance of 9.1 m from the center of the existing
roadway. The one-hour CO concentrations for the these receptor points for the years of
1998 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
1-Hour CO Concentrations (PPM
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1998 2020 1998 2020
R/W 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.0
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for I-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case I -hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al and A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Nash County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
12
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 will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. HighwU Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
NC 43 from SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele Road) in Nash County on
noise levels in the immediate project area (See Appendix, Figure N1). This investigation
includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted
noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be
expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from
the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics Of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
13
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1.
. Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things: 1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the
background noise and the intruding noise, and 3) The type of activity occurring when the
noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level
of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background 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 existing Leq noise level along NC 43 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway was 64.5 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic
noise prediction model in order to calculate the existing noise level for comparison with
the noise level actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was 3.2 dBA of the
measured noise levels for the location where the noise measurement was obtained.
Difference in the dBA level can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
14
Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
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.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing roadway of NC 43
to a five lane section. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2020. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30,
60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The
result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3. These are noted in terms of
those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. No receptor is
expected to experience a substantial noise level increase. Other information included in
Table N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
15
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the
proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N4 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range
from +5 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change
is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels 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 earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
16
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access 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 high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier
120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the widening did not occur, 5 residences are predicted to experience a
traffic noise impact in the year 2020. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an
increase in exterior noise levels in the range of 5 to +8 dBA. As previously noted, it is
barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
17
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
E. Ecological Analysis
Water Resources
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality
by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality;
thus, the species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No
BMAN information is available for Hornbeam Branch (CNSW 28-72-1)*, Goose
Branch (CNSW 28-70)* or their unnamed tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any discharger is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists no
dischargers in the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major anticipated
impacts to water quality. Scouring of the intermittent stream bed and drainage
channels, and soil compaction (increased runoff are also potential impacts.
Increased sedimentation from lateral flows along with erosion is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water quality resources in
the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to prevent increased sedimentation to
the three ponds.
* Best usage classification
18
2. Soils and Topography
Two dominant soil series are found within the project boundaries: Norfolk
Sandy Loam and Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam. Rains Fine Sandy Loam is found in
association with Norfolk Sandy Loam.
Norfolk Sandy Loam is the major soil series present within the study area.
Norfolk soil is described as well drained, nearly level to gently sloping, and with a
seasonal high water table of 1.2-1.5 m (4-5 ft) below the surface. The soil has slow
surface water runoff. Wind erosion is a hazard for this soil. The Norfolk soil is
used almost exclusively as cropland which is apparent within the study area.
Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam is moderately well drained, nearly level and
has a seasonal high water table of 0.6-0.9 m (2.0-3.0 ft) below the surface. The soil
has slow surface water runoff. Wind erosion is a hazard. Goldsboro soils are used
mostly as cropland.
Rains Fine Sandy Loam is poorly drained and nearly level. The seasonal
high water table is at or near the surface. Surface water runoff is slow and water
can pond for brief periods in some areas. Rains Fine Sandy Loam is included in
the list "Hydric soils of Nash County" (USDA, 1991).
TABLE 1. MAPPING UNITS FOUND ALONG THE U-2561 B PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Soil Percent Hydric
Symbol Series Name Slope Classification
NoA Norfolk Sandy Loam 0-2 B
NoB Norfolk Sandy 2-6 B
Goa Goldsboro Fine Sandy Loam 0-2 B
Ra Rains Fine Sandy Loam - A
NOTES: "A" denotes inclusion on the list of hydric soils of the United States.
"B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots.
Nash County lies within both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic
provinces. The project area is situated in the vicinity of the two physiographic
provinces. This area can be described as transitional between the rolling hills of the
Piedmont and the broad flat plains of the Coastal Plain. The topography within the
study area is relatively flat with 0-6% slopes.
19
Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife
communities that occur on the U-2561 B Project site. It also discusses potential
impacts affecting these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study
area: (1) Man Dominated and (2) Mixed Hardwood Forest. Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of both terrestrial
communities. Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an
asterisk (*).
Man Dominated
This disturbed community is found along road shoulders and existing
highway right-of-way. This community also includes agricultural field, roadside,
and lawn habitats. The more well-maintained (mowed) areas are dominated by
fescue (Festuca sp), buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), henbit (Lamium sp.),
field pansy (Viola rafinesquii), and vetch (Vicia sp.). Less well maintained areas
are occupied by broomstraw (Andropogon sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and wild
radish (Raphanus raphanistrum).
Agricultural field is the dominant terrestrial community where it occupies
approximately 60% of the road frontage. At the time of the survey the agricultural
fields were being prepared for planting. Normal crops for the soils in this area are
corn, soybeans, tobacco, cotton, small grains peanuts, sweet potatoes, and
cucumbers.
Residential homes and small business comprise approximately 23% of the
road frontage. These areas include lawns dominated by fescue and landscaped
areas that include willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), azaleas (Rhododendron sp.), and ornamental
Arbor Vitae (Thuja occidentalis).
The man-dominated landscape offers habitat for many faunal species
adaptable to agriculture activities and residential settings. Opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk* (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridaus) are found
within this landscape. Avian species observed during the field survey include
mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), mocking
bird* (Mimus polyglottos), common crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American
robin* (Turdus migratorius), American kestrel (sparrow hawk)*
(Falco sparverius), and redtail hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis).
20
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed hardwood forest community is found in one location in the eastern
portion of project area on the southwest side of NC 43. The canopy is dominated
by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
red maple (Acer rubrum). Species found throughout the understory include black
cherry (Prunus serotina), privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The mixed hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. Reptilian
species that may inhabit this community include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and ground skink
(Scincella lateralis). These species forage on small plants and insects such as
crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and harvestmen. The Black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and copperhead (Ankistrodon contortrix) serve predatory roles by
feeding on numerous small reptiles, birds, mammals and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for species such
as the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) , tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), northern flicker* (Colaptes auratus), and downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources
will impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the requested study area of
15.2 m (50 ft.) on each side of the centerline. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire study area or even right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
21
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Impact
Man Dominated 4.1 (10.1)
Mixed Hard Wood Forest 0.4 (0.2)
TOTAL
4.5 (10.3)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres)
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented and man-dominated,
relatively little impact will occur to species that live along the edges and open
areas. However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. Mobile species will be temporarily displaced. Increased predation will
occur as a result of habitat reduction.
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of the United States and Rare and
Protected species.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of he
United States"' as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Two wetland systems will be impacted by proposed project construction.
Each wetland is described below and rated in accordance with methodologies
recommended by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Wetland #1 This wetland is located on the west side of NC 43 and is
approximately 518 m (1700 ft) north of SR 1535 (Peele Road). This wetland is
associated with a drainage system for NC 43, and it is upstream to a small pond.
22
The wetland is dominated by soft stem rush (Juncus effusus) with scattered
patches of cattail (Typha latifolia). Woody vegetation is largely restricted to a
ditch area and includes sweet gum, black willow (Salix nigra), and red maple
(Acer rubrum). Several crayfish (Cambaridae: Procambarus sp. and/or Cambarus
sp.) chimneys were dispersed within the wetland area. Hydrologic indicators
include areas of surface water ponding to a depth of 5 cm (2 in) and free water to a
depth of 5 cm (2 in) in the core hole (non-ponded area). Soil color in this
community is 10 YR 4/3 (dark brown). According to the COE'S definition for
hydric soils, the soils within this wetland meet the requirements of saturation and
ponding to be considered hydric soils. The Cowardin Classification of this
community is PEM1B (palustrine emergent persistent saturated). The DEM rating
of the wetland community is 29.0 out of a possible 100.0 points. Approximate
amount of impact is 0.02 ha (0.05 ac).
Wetland #2 is located on the eastern side of NC 43, and is approximately 152 m
(500 ft) south of SR 1589. This wetland is associated with drainage from NC 43
and an intermittent stream. The wetland boundary is approximately 13 m (43 ft)
from the center of NC 43. Emergent vegetation is dominated by soft stem rush,
with small amounts of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), while woody vegetation,
restricted to the ditch area, includes black willow. Crayfish chimneys were present
within this wetland community. Depth to free water was 18 cm (7 in). Soil color
is 10 YR 3/1 (very dark gray). The Cowardin Classification of this community is
PEM1B (palustrine emergent persistent saturated). The DEM rating is 29.0 out of
a possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.01 ha (0.025 ac).
A third wetland is located within the mixed hardwood forest community.
Hydrologic indicators include free water at 7.6 cm (3.0 in) and drift lines. Soil
color is 2.5 yr 4/2 with the presence of oxidized root channels. Vegetation is
dominated by tulip poplar, sweet gum, Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle.
This wetland can be described as PFO1 (palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous). It is located approximately 18 m (60 ft) west of NC 43 road edge.
This wetland is outside of the proposed project boundaries.
5. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) 26 is applicable to the proposed project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are met:
23
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4 hectares
(10 acres) of Waters of the United States;
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would
cause the loss of Waters of the United States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in
accordance with the "Notification" general conditions (for discharges in special
aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also include a
delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is also
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
Nationwide Permit is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Both wetlands can be
avoided by project realignment. Areas on the opposite side of the roadway from
each wetland, are nonwetland areas. However, project realignment may trigger
other major considerations such as additional land acquisition and utility
relocation.
24
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States should be minimized
by modifications in design such as, steepening of side slopes, use of structural
retaining walls, etc.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions
and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of he Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
25
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of he Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28 1995 the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Nash County (Table 3).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and
protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species
in or near the project study area.
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR NASH COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spiny mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterdon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Vance,
Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found
in various drainage systems within the Neuse and Tar River basins. The dwarf
wedge mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
26
No suitable habitat (no permanent water features) exists for the dwarf
wedge mussel within the project boundaries. Therefore, no impacts will occur to
the dwarf wedge mussel as a result of construction.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, Pitt,
Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, and
has been reported from Falkland in Pitt County north to Granville County.
Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be found in streams of the Tar River
Drainage Basin and of the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated,
circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and
coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a
species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is named
for its spines which project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally. As many as 12 spines can be found on the shell which is generally
smooth in texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No suitable habitat (permanent water feature) exists within the project
boundaries. No impacts will occur to the Tar River spinymussel as a result of
construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven,
Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery,
Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange,
Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson,
Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
27
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large
white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively
in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years
of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This
acreage 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 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m
(30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based upon extensive field reconnaissance, no suitable habitat in the form
of stands containing at least 50% pine, with appropriate habitat is present for the
red-cockaded woodpecker in the surrounding areas of the proposed project.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of
project construction.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 7 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Nash County. Federal
Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although
no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species state status (if afforded
state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study
area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
28
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR NASH COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habitat
STATUS
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance mussel T N
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe mussel T N
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater mussel E N
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T N
Lilum iridollae Panhandle lily - N
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly - N
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina trillium E N
pusillum *
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Nash County in the past twenty
years.
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as a Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
F. 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.
Measures will be taken to mitigate these effects to the extent possible.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's 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 imposed on the public 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 decreases regarding
the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land disposal
site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
29
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction, and land
clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with applicable air pollution and solid
waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Divisions of Highways will be held to discuss
various construction procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken
during the time of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines and
interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the 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 which 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 siltation. Temporary erosion control
measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation 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".
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the
State Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object
that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing anywork on the proposed borrow
source.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding
areas for mosquitoes.
30
G. Hazardous Waste
Based on records maintained at the Solid Waste Management Branch no potential
hazardous waste sites are known to be in the project area. Land uses observed reveal it is
primarily agricultural and a low risk for hazardous waste. There was no evidence of any
underground storage tanks regulated under 40 CFR 280 along the project corridor.
VIII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, a State Environmental Assessment/Finding of no
Significant Impact is applicable for this project.
RJB/plr
APPENDIX
• NORTH CAROLINA
NASH COUNTY
oy
-l?
1.13
31Z DORTCHES
NC9 • POP.885
3
iiz?
1527
ustux
/, \v 1
1
• •! y.
?r
43 48
?Cast&ha '
Gold R«h 4
, ® til?F
/ 58 Red 0
30
.S t? h P
_ e
mg "eye 7
ode
? a3t1VIR
7 3:\
?e
6 113 3
S 5 Stannooe
t ... 5 /
Uak
to Q of"3 ?
it 01 4 PROJECT
w OMIT "" 'a))
im i.- c?
SR 1678,
\\ SR 1677
to \ C P
/-4'j F-7 RTY CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?RANSPORTATiON
IVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RANCH
NC 43
WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613) TO
SP. 1535 PEELE ROAD
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U - 2561 8 STATE PRO ECT NO. 9.8093119
0 mue a - FIG. 1
APPENDIX

A,emom
d8

.

43
' f• v
ACastalu v
.//
Gold Roc
• I ~'i.-t_ ( J
` ??
D
?Red 0 ='}F
-

• NORTH CAROLINA
?
Q Abme.e

NASH COUNTY Hope asnrlu
64A i

.5. 23, 3
0
`75tI ? 7 %1
.
St
h
ope /
an
5 6
6 6
17
'I
eSe
a, e
?
7

oiy
t 13
1334

?? SAIL DORTCHES
'yc POP-885 %?1
i
ul:
a 117
3
T3
.211
'Jj
1309 ... _. ..
.34

i1ap
01
4b 10

w PROJECT
OMIT

a

qy 4 PROJECT
LIMIT
a te/ .r.: ?.;) o sz

`?
-°--
3 Z SR 1678.
SR 1677
.
0
14!! '?
A
?i, .OS \
?C.

s iH,! i e f?\ ?pJr IXr.' \`? .°o _?>.^;a?>`..
/
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH
UaaAN r A- ^ ^ ^O
TRANSPORTATION
!?.: ,s.. ? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
}<>>>;;
ti PLANNING A\D ENVIRONVIE\TAL

• <::.I 4tt?? I3RANCH
NC 43
WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1513) TO
SP. 1535 PEELE ROAD
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U - 2561 8 STATE PRO :cCT NO. 9.8093119
j 0 Mile -*.5 FICA. 1

a
m
A
4
O Q S
?. } d ti LU 0'7
o ? ? Et
~ a, h ? g
r x $ vi
v a, ? o o?
CL.
O m ?
4

0 o a ?.
CT)
U
Z ?
(13 LO
T ('7 N
Al ? T A??ti
W ? T T 1
CO
ca
C.
CD .: O
OO O
O
L
CL O s \i°;.l ? \
Z wy? rs O ? ? ?
N O s?, O
b
?? rr
O O
co
?T
^ I
? O
? J
and °` 0 1
0
?n
0
C
0
co 0 CD
O
O
0
c_
( N
?CCO O ?
o T (ri?? °9 CO C.
N
?I
bo
/ O
{ O
N
_N
co O
as CC
t-
O 1'V
0 Ul)
V/
V
LLI 0)
C) 444M
D.
~ W
H
U
0.S
m
LO
N
i-
Z
O
Li
J
F-
U
W
O
x
a
N
W
1 W
9 W
Y LL
m
F Z
`? a a
in
toaM
V
N Q _
z?
vo3
Z
5Q) o
O ?
Q
O
O
( O
N
T Jl ? °1 ???
wd °9
A
4

5 ay ? a

a
D
o
1 4
c
S z

_0 a

0 c x
4 d C ? y p
ti p 11 C' 2

0 0 ?? r"
Z to
d•
L
X Z
W

cl) C)
co
O ? (7 q
C)
N
r
C
q
O
q
L7 C7
Q
c
ql
O

U
LU

C') 0
?$
Q
Z 7 U)
O
O
?7
/-O
r O O
? ?11•Zj ?
'O
N kd? 09 C
c rh Cl)
!/,
?o
/ N
C O CO
N wd os u) C
T
0
N
INC,
t+
` C7 O
I
• o°?`r Ll
O O
•? oy
a
c
h
e
ti
C N
OQ T
p N
•w
has
-? W
w
vU-C7
0
too
Q U
O
N
X03
U r
1cc?
G
J
W
7
a.
U
G7
O
INC,
W (ii
C)
C
LM.i
J L;
J /-;
C
:n Z
O L
~ <
L
O L
F ?? O
I
h N
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:29
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998, Build
PAGE 1
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
----
---------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) *
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 *
LENGTH
(M)
BRG TYPE
(DEG)
VPH EF
(G/MI)
H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- * ----------------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 *
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610.
1610. 360. AG
180. AG 467. 15.7
467. 15.7 0.0 13.2
0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------------------------f-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 13.7m CL * -8.3 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-25618: NC 43, Nash County
RUN: NC 43, Year 1996, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGB)* REC1
------*------
MAX * 2.4
DEGR. * 2
'THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.40 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 2
JOB: U-25618: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 2020, Build
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:30
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---------
----------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--°----------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) - (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *- --------------------*---------- ----------- -------------- ---------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 838. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 838. 10.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------------------------*----=--------------------------------*
1. R/W, 13.7m CL * -8.3 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 2020, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR.) * REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 12
.TBE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 12 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-25618: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:29
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998,NoBuild
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
------------------------ ------------------------------- --------------------- ----------- ------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 467. 15.7 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 9.1m CL * -7.3 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-25613: NC 43, ;lash County
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC 43, Year 1998,NoBuild
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.5
DEGR. * 5
.THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County
DATE: 10/20/95 TIME: 11:19
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
RUN: NC 43, Year 2020,NoBuild
PAGE 4
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Yl X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-----*- ------------------------------------------
------------- ---------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -605.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 838. 14.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 838. 14.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
.: -------------------------------------
1. R/W, 9.1m CL * -7.3 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-2561B: NC 43, Nash County RUN: NC 43, Year 2020,NoBUild
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : in search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1

MAX * 3.0
DEGR. * 10
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m 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 7Average truck 65 km ph 15 m away
E 80 restaurant, garbage disposal
C factory, vacuum cleaner
I er car 80 kmph 15 m away MO DERATELY 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 VER7QU
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
• Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
• (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(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 rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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 Lea(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
• Source: North Carolina. Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
FRWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 43 From Winstead Avenue (SR 1613) to Peele Road (SR 1635),
Nash County, Project # 9.8043119, TIP # U-2561 B
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
From SR 1613 to SR 1635 70 66 60 15.1m 30.8m
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 6 1 0 0
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 43 From Winstead Avenue (SR 1613) to Peele Road (SR 1635),
Nash County, Project # 9.8043119, TIP # U-2561 B
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(l) Criteria(2)
From SR 1613 to SR 1635 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
•
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Ttransportation`
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Ffistorlc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 43 from Winstead Avenue to
Peele Road, Nash County, U-2561 B, 9.8093119, 95-
E-4220-0456
1* C IE ; 1??
f EB 14 1995
ki ?Fy? tstory .<??
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Rick Mattson conducted a survey of historic architectural resources in Nash
County in 1985. 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:
Jeffrey's School, south side of NC 43.
John Lindsey Bell House, north side of NC 43.
John Bell House, north side of NC 43.
There are no properties within the area of potential effect that are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
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.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
='r
109 Fast Janes Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27W,1-2807
H. F. Vick
February 10, 1995, Page 2
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
State of North Carolina A 11T Department of Environment, LTR*A
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C
Jonathan B., Howes, Secretary H
_...A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 7, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihartv' Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0456; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
NC 43, SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele
Road), TIP #U-2561B
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
February 7, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind.mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10827.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
N('IdPC . HC'P. FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Feb 06'95 12:23 No.003 P.0
0 N_ orth Carolina Wildhfe Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program DATE: February 6, 1995

SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for NC 43 improvements from SR 1613 to SR
1535, Nash County, North Carolina, TIP No.,U-2561B, SCH
Project No. 95-0456.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin
Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project.
Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and 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).
At Lhis time, we have no specific recommendations regarding
the subject project. To help facilitate document preparation,
our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant species can
be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation

• NCWRC,HCF,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Feb 06'95 1224 No 006 F.04
Memo Page 2 February 6, 1995
P. O. Box 27667
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. n. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. .Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COB). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
.should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential.
borrow sites should be included.
5 The extent to which the project will result in loss,
. degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7 A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
. the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8 A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
. resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated
with other state, municipal, or private development
projects, a description of these projects should be
• included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] FeO 05'95 12:24 110.403 P.05
Memo Page 3 February 6, 1995
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
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
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
A
. . !
Widenine of NC 43 (Dortches Boulevard)
From SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) to
SR 1535 (Peele Road)
Nash County
TIP No. U-2561B
State Project No. 9.8043119
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
U-2561B
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BRUCE 0. ELLIS. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
May 9, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
.........1
Introduction ....................'...................1
1.1 Project Description ..,,,1
1.2 Purpose....•..........•• .....................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ............. ,..............2
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator.
Physical Resources ........:.....•.............•..••.2
2.1 Water Resources ••••
2,1,1 Best Usage Classification........ ;:::3
2.1.3 Water Quality........
Impacts........3
2.1,4 Summary of Anticipated
.•....••.•.•.•..4
2.2 Soils and Topography ....... *'• "
Biotic Resources .... •••••••" •..• ................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities . . , • ......5
3.1.1 Man Dominated... . • • . • • • • . • • • • . . . ..•..6
.••.,..••..6
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest .......
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts. . •
Jurisdictional Topics........ .••••••......:•..••.,,7
4.1 Waters of the United States........
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wet-lands ..•••.....•.•8
and Surface Waters..... . • • .... 8
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ........9
4.1.3 Mitigation............ • ..............10
4.1.3.1 Avoidance....- ....•••.10
4.1.3.2 Minimization--.......
Mitigation. ..11
4.1.3.3 Compensatory ............ ,•10
4.2 Rare and Protecte
4.2.1 Federallyd-Protected and 4,2,2 Feder Staten Listed Species.... o-13
.....•.•......•.14
5.0 References .........................
Table 1. Mapping Units Found Along the •.•..•.••••••••••.4
U-1-51B Project Area.. 7
Table 2. Estimated impacts to Biotic Communities...... . •
•••••.•••••••.•••„11
Table 3. Federally Protected species
for Nash County.
County ............... 14
Table 4. Federal Candie
Sp
Appendix A, Wetland Data Sheets .........................

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening NC 43 (Dortches
Boulevard) between SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue) and SR 1535
(Peele Road), in Nash County, from an existing two lane
shoulder roadway to a 19.5 m (64 ft.) curb and gutter
facility. This will expand the existing 15.2 m (50 ft)
right-of-way to 30.5 m (100 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to,these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The project study area is located along the southeastern
city limits of Dortches and extends approximately 1.9 km (1.2
mi.) southeast towards Rocky Mount (Figurexl). The study
area consists mainly of agricultural fields. Residential
homes, religious organizations and small business comprise
most of the remaining road frontage. Project elevations range
from 38 m (125 ft) to 44 m (145 ft) above mean sea level.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rocky Mount), National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) Map (Rocky Mount), NCDOT aerial photomosaic of the
project area (1:4800) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
soil maps of Nash County. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and 'natural Resources (DEHNR. 1993) and from the \C
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis publication
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Nash County.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study* area was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on March 28, 1995 by NCDOT
biologist Bruce Ellis to evaluate natural resources. General
field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques including one or
more of the following: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Organisms captured during these searches were identified and
then released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis; Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS degree Agriculture/Environmental Science
Rutgers University, College of Agriculture and
Environmental Science
Employment: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc. N.J.
March 1976-April 1994
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations; wetland
delineations; and NEPA investigations.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area
are discussed below. The availability of water and soils
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.,
2.1 Water Resources
Project U-2561B is located within the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. Generally, waters draining to the east of NC 43 will
be in the Hornbeam Branch sub-watershed, while waters
draining to the west of NC 43 will fall within the Goose
Branch sub-watershed of the Tar River. No perennial streams
cross NC 43 within the project boundaries.
One intermittent stream (Figure 2) crosses NC 43,
approximately 152 m (500 ft) south of SR 1613 (Winstead
Avenue). During periods of flow the stream travels to the
east and empties into a small farm pond. At the time of the
survey the stream channel was dry to the west of NC 43. but
did contain some standing water in sections east of INC 43.
The.streambed was 0.9 m (3 ft) wide and composed mainly of
sand. The stream crosses NC 43 via an 18 in. reinforced
concrete pipe. Areas of standing water contained heavy
densities of filamentous algae.
There are three ponds that receive runoff from drainage
ditches associated with NC 43 (Figure 2). One pond is located
to the east of NC 43 in the northern portion of the project.
The other two small ponds are located west of NC 43 in the
southern portion of the project area.
The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map reveals that the
nearest water supply intake is 15 km (8 mi) south in Rocky
Mount. The project.study area does not lie within a critical
area (CA) water supply watershed.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
unnamed tributary to the Hornbeam Branch of the Tar River is
classified as C NSW. The best usage of "C" class waters is
"aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental
classification "NSW" is defined as "nutrient sensitive waters
which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), nor WS-I/II (Water Supplies) exist within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project site.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient.Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information is available for Hornbeam
Branch, Goose Branch or their unnamed tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists no
dischargers in the project area.
NOTES: "A" denotes inclusion on the list of hydric soils of
the United States.
"B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils
or wet spots.
Nash County lies within both the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain physiographic provinces. The project area is situated
in the vicinity of the two physiographic provinces. This area
can be described as transitional between the rolling hills of
the Piedmont and the broad flat plains of the Coastal Plain.
The topography within the study area is relatively flat with
0-6% slopes.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife communities that occur on the U-2561 B
Project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting
these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: (1) Man Dominated and (2) Mixed
Hardwood Forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and
may populate the entire range of both terrestrial
communities. Faunal species observed during the site visit
are noted with an asterisk (*).
3.1.1 Man Dominated
This disturbed community is found along road shoulders
and existing highway right-of-way. This community also
includes agricultural field, roadside, and lawn habitats.
The more well-maintained (mowed) areas are dominated by
fescue (Festuca sp), buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
henbit (Lamium sp.), field pansy (Viola rafinesauii), and
vetch (Vicia sp.). Less well maintained areas are occupied
by broomstraw (Andropoxon sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum).
Agricultural field is the dominant terrestrial community
where it occupies approximately 60% of the road frontage. At
the time of the survey the agricultural fields were being
prepared for planting. Normal crops for the soils in this
area are corn, soybeans, tobacco, cotton, small grains
peanuts, sweet potatoes, and cucumbers.
Residential homes and small business comprise
approximately 230 of the road frontage. These areas include
lawns dominated by fescue and landscaped areas that include
willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), azaleas
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the requested study area of 15.2 m
(50 ft.) on each side of the centerline. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire study are or even
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 2. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Impact
Man Dominated 4.1 (10.1)
Mixed Hard Wood Forest 0.4 (0.2)
TOTAL 4.5 (10.3)
VOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres)
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the
form of habitat reduction. Since the project area is already
fragmented and man-dominated, relatively little impact will
occur to species that live along the edges and open areas.
However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will
decrease in numbers. Mobile species will be temporarily
displaced. Increased predation will occur as a result of
habitat reduction.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of
the United States and Rare and Protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of he United States"' as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (.33 U.S.C.
1344).
c
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the'Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5(a) 26 is applicable to the proposed project.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
from the proposed project. This permit authorizes discharges
of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are
met:
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 4
hectares (10 acres) of Waters of the United States;
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the
discharge would cause the loss of Waters of the United
States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance
with the "Notification" general conditions (for
discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also
.include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) -the discharge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC
2745) is also required for any activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a certification is required.
Certifications are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE-has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he
United States, specifically wetlands.- Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts,.reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR.1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
10
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
pra.cticable possibilities of averting impacts to waters of
the 'United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Both wetlands can be avoided by project
realignment. Areas on the opposite side of the roadway from
each wetland, are nonwetland areas. However, project
realignment may trigger other major considerations such as
additional land acquisition and utility relocation.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction to median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States
should be minimized by modifications in design such as,
steepening of side slopes, use of structural retaining walls,
etc.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration.
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the- 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
1?
sensitive to agricultural, domestic. and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with
well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
No suitable habitat (no permanent water features) exists
for the dwarf wedge mussel within the project boundaries.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the dwarf wedge mussel as
a result of construction.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax,
Nash, Pitt, Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, and has been reported from Falkland in Pitt
County north to Granville County. Populations of the Tar
River spinymussel can be found in streams of the Tar River
Drainage Basin and of the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires
oxygenated, circumneutral
of uncompacted gravel and
relatively silt-free. It
freshwater fish to act as
larvae.
a stream with fast flowing, well
pH water. The bottom is composed
coarse sand. The water needs to be
is known to rely on a species of
an intermediate host for its
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This
mussel is named for its spines which project perpendicularly
from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12
spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in
texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white
(posterior).
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
No suitable habitat (permanent water feature) exists
within the project boundaries. No impacts will occur to the
Tar River spinymussel as a result of construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
i -r
Threatened (T). or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR NASH COUNTY
Scientific Name
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lasmigona subviridus
Lampsilis cariosa
Lilum iridollae
Speveria diana
Common Name NC Habitat
STATUS
Yellow lance
mussel T N
Atlantic pigtoe
mussel T N
Green floater
mussel E N
Yellow lampmussel T N
Panhandle lily - N
Diana fritillary
butterfly - N
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina trillium E N
pusillum *
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Nash County in the
past twenty years.
1191 Species not affored state protection but listed
as a Federal Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and.M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
i6
Weakley. A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
1 I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATiON
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
Project/Site:Z -/a 4&07-, T.•d. u?s"G/ v'? Data: 8h
Applicant/Owner. Qum: yrsy '
Investfoator. ' ze"fe '-!q' E :S State:
Do (Normal Clrcumstancas exist on the site? •• Yes a Community ID: iye?"?
'
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact 10,.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yesg Plot 1D: _
(if needed, explain on reverse.) aF?

VEGETATION -
or
eiies stratum Indicator
et+i ant plant 5 e Oeminent Plant Soeeies Streturn Indicator
a?
f

2.

oP nebnez
d 13-
g.
?
4.

14-
6.

.
is
1

ls.
a.
Percent of Dominant Species that an OBL. FACW or FAC
O
(excluding FAC-).

!I

HYDROLOGY

Data (Describe in Rarnarksl:
dod
R"of
Wadsrd HYdMag1/ It cacoa:
-
S&*&v . lake. or Tide Gouge PrkrAry Indicators:
F
E
Aerial Photograph
cow Inundated
Saturated In upper 12 Inches
ded Data Available Water Meeks

Deposits
vations: s6 ?Jo,;.$
ob • _Orainape Patterns in Widsnds
ser Secondary k dieators (Z w mom required):
(InJ Oxidized Root Ch uncle in Upper tZ mows
Depth of Surfaes Waters WirerStained Lorne
Depth to Free Water In ft ?z QnJ _
Loea( Sal Survey Data
-Z FAC•t)eutrai Test.
Depth to Sauaated Sat _ QnJ Other Main in Rwnwks) .
Rowunita ,

.
.J
1/1/Bt`.L? J3 WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION).
Project. Name: ?3 iiD: G(,2.fG/13 County:.
Nearest Road: Q,Z?3 Date:
Wetland Area (ac) • , < 2 Wetland Width (ft) :.
,c'K?e
Name of Evaluator(s):
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
o t h e r & .1SNzVXe *7YaxJ sdii?t a?i 6; [l? e-
fi7i p-?
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. tiro
agriculture/urbanized iE
impervious surface -4- ro
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
Soils
Soil Series owl
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
kC freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width.?. 100 feet.
Dominant Vezetation
.(1 ? us?S
'(2)
(3) = - " L?_??4;OX2=
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
X' intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Type (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
A H dwood Forest surface water
Bottomlan ar
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
x1 Freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION
POLLUTANT REMOVAL
WILDLIFE HABITAT
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE
RECREATION/EDUCATION
* Add I point if in sensitive watershed
or
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, o

x 4.00. =
/ x 4.00 = 4e
2 * x 5.00 = /O
x 2.00 =
.2 x 4.00 =
1 x 1.00 =
WETLAND SCORE _
(TOTAL)
d and >10a nonpoint disturbance
radius.
L;

d??itvcQ y DATA FORM
S? ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Y
i.
T'
ProlectlSite: ?l= l`oo' GC-,Zs?l-?3 Date: .z 1s?
Applicant/OWner. County:
Investigator. '?_ e _ S State: It" -PV
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? • • Yes Community 10:
13 the site Significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes Plot I0:
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
gominsnt Plant Soseies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Specie* Stretum Indicator
2. e S
.
10
3. kmee" ':gA'wie* ?, G Are- 11.

S. 13.
6.
.
14

s- 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that we OSL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC•).
Remarks:
NYDFIGLnGY -
Recorded Data (Desenbe in III. ): and Hydrology Indicators:
Susan. Lake. or Tide Gauge inileators:
_
Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other _ cantered In Upper 12 inches
?/
Z HO Roraedad DateAveiiab4a -W Marks
Drift
-
-sediment sits
Real Observedons: Drainage Pau* in Wadands
Secondary kxfieatoa (2 or aquirad):
Depth of Surface Water ArxJ _ oxidized Root Upper 12 Inches
_ WatsaStairxed Leaven
Depth to Fee Water in ft Qn.! _ Loess Soul Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depot to Saturated Sal: _
-Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
i
-. I !I
3
... 1
Lv DATA FORM
51Xzr 2 ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: t f/3 - a! aC fF10
B' of
Date: L314
Applicant/Owner. County:
Investigator: Zpleeee?a :S State: A)&-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® Community ID:./1/&t-(f
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact ID:
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed. explain on reverse.)
_ •. _ side
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ? Ll?lLtGS ?GSetS /'iC? . ll?f Dominent Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator
9.
2.5.4?.SrNigd?l S / 10.

4.
S. .S hlezz - 13.
6. 14.
7. is.
•. 1 a

Percent of Dominant Species that are Ca" FACW or FAC ??AA
- lexeludinp FAC.). F
Rentswi: e s2? M S??CIPS /eIJQ/
HYDROLOGY ' . '
Recorded data (Deseaba in Rerttarks):
_SCrsam. Lake. or Tide Gouge
_ Aerial Phowgapt"
Gthat
Ne Recorded Oats Available Weiland Hydrology "Caton:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Z CS*turst*d In Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marie '
Drift Lines

Field observations: =Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Ind cators (2 or mote requiredi:
Depth of Surface Water: oxWized Root Chon teis In Upper 12 Inches
/? _ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - 8n.) ? Lod Soil Survey Data
e< FAC-Neimai Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: other (Explain In Remarks) .
Rwnwks*.

V
r.IRL-° WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
5.Fe
Project. Name: County:. ?.Gf
Nearest Road: P f2t?13 Date: 51AZ A-5
Wetland Area (ac): 42,ge_ Wetland Width (ft):. ZZs 1--r- =
Name of Evaluator(s) :
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on• intermittent stream
within interstream divid
6•M!_ e
K o t h e r ?,c1 4Ssoe,*A( , i-0
Bottomland Hardwoo 0
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
_Cx Freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt
stream channels. DEM RATING
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. S %
agriculture/urbanized ro
_« I
impervious surface S o
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
_?-e intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
f f
Wetland Tyne (select one)* no evidence olooding or
d F rest surface water
Hydraulic Factors
freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet.
Soils / / Dominant Ve etation
/?G?'o
S o i l Series
predominantly organic ?3)
(humus, muck or peat) '
predominantly mineral (non-sandy) Flooding and Wetness
predominantly sandy semipermanently to
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION
POLLUTANT REMOVAL
WILDLIFE HABITAT
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10a nonpoint disturbance
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

z*
l
z
x2.00 = __Z--
x 4.00 = 8
RECREATION/EDUCATION 1.00 =
WETLAND SCORE _ __L---
(TOTAL)
or brackish marshes or
x 4.00.
x 4.00 =
x 5.00 = A0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Proiect/Sitei y3 ,41wi e°D. 9-zral-s Date: 8/1 14t-,
County: 0al-f
lnvestloator: ?••?P O-A4s State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes (WO-) Community 10:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes a Transact 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10:
of needed. explain on reverse.)

l •, ? I
a?rr??-rw rtnat
porninant Plant Soeeiea Stratum Indicator
he'dk
Qe/.-i lmdl- ynxC 5e
1 Dominant Plant Soocies Stratum Indicator
.
..
rti ?°
4.t/C?BO?
4•?'is/ h?
1)`
'D ?
L ??A
4. .?
10.
_
.
i
.
w
.
4
4 -Tsai-
?
? 11.
3. V
U
1
T ?
4 1•Z
.
s
13.
. 14.
15.
7.
i
te.
.
Percent of Dotrrnsnt Spas that we OSL. FACW or FAC
(exckiding FAC-).
Rernarks:

HYDROLOGY I
- Reaerded Data (Desonbe in Rernarkal:
_Sweern. Lake. er Tide Gauge
Aerial Phatogreatm
Other
No RZ; ded Data Avadebte dand Nydrd*jW (ndioatans-.
(ndlt.atora:
Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 intahes
Water Masks
Unoe
_
i
D
ts
epos
-s
Field observations: _ Dr ' e P Uwrw In Wedattds
secondary hugest (2 or more mWrsdl:
Depth of Surface Water. M.1 -Oxidized Cherweis In Upper 121mehaa
_ Wear-S Leaves
Depth is Free Water In PIt: RtL1 _ Loom Sad Su Data
_ FAC Neutral Tea
Depth to saturated Sod: Other (Explain In ft &21
Remsrlts:
c po..h e y,

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 17, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?v
RECEIVED
"JAN 2 ' 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL Si?,IEN`:ES
This responds to your letter of December 31, 1996, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(SEA/FONSI), dated December 13, 1996, for the Widening of NC 43,
Nash County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2561B). This report is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
According to the SEA/FONSI, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 43 from SR 1535 (Peele
Road) to SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue). The existing two-lane road
would be enlarged to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. The
total length of the proposed project would be 1.1 miles.
Alternatives Analysis
The SEA/FONSI (pp. 5-6) considers
widening of an existing facility
alternatives, and we consider the
adequate.
Wetlands
alternatives for the project. The
allows for a limited range of
analysis of alternatives to be
The SEA/FONSI considers project impacts on wetlands. Preliminary
plans indicate that wetland impacts would be minimal and consist of
less than 0.1 of an acre. Based on data in the SEA/FONSI the
Service believes that the NCDOT has endeavored to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts associated with this project.
Federally Protected Species
The SEA/FONSI evaluates (pp. 24-27) potential project impacts to
species protected by the ESA. Nash County is known to contain three
species protected by the ESA. These are the red-cockaded woodpecker

(Picoides borealis), dwarf wedge mussel (Alismidonta heterodon), and
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The document states
that the project area has no permanent water features and that this
conditions precludes the occurrence of the two protected mussels.
Due to this lack of habitat, the NCDOT has determined that the
project will have no effect on these two mussel species. The
document also states that an "extensive field reconnaissance" found
no suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker, and the NCDOT
concluded that the project would have no effect on this species.
Based on the information supplied by the NCDOT and the assumption
that stringent water quality and erosion control procedures will be
employed during construction, the Service concurs that this project
is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered
and threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat,
or species currently proposed for Federal listing under the ESA, as
amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; and/or, (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the SEA adequately describes the purpose
and need for the project, the alternatives considered, and the
environmental impacts of the project. Based on information
contained in the SEA/FONSI, the Service supports the finding (p. 30)
that the project will not have significant adverse effects upon the
human or natural environment.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning
process, including your official determination of the impacts of
this project. If our office can supply any additional information
or clarification, please contact Howard Hall at (919)-856-4520 (ext.
27).
Sincerely,
Mike Wicker
Acting Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:1/17/97:WP:A:nasu2561.197
oaSGT[o
`,O ?,n n n+a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 10, 1994
? 'PFcFi
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb y?y 9I
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
'r? 99?
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 43, from SR 1535 (Peele
Road) to SR 1613 (Winstead Avenue), Nash County,
T.I.P. No. U-2561B, State Project 9.8093119
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for December 15, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Bob Booker, Project Planning Engineer, at
of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
733-7842.
RJB/plr
Attachment

l
10=4 Ad00-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date MOO 1 o q L(
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP #
Project ?? - 9• 8 6 q.?//
F.A. Project # h(!q
Division
County{ S
Route N C Lf 3 Functional Classification 'yl4gpfL Coll.
Length
Purpose of Project: crtu Ca C. ?.? Jet
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
Gr>tcfe'h PIC Gf.3
D -C;1-6. rv 1-1 1):!n¢ Rd •Q-Z I.??.r) fa wih /' J'/L/d l?

Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
, or (x)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1

iOGON- AJoO
I
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility:
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None _ X
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges O Grade Separations O Stream Crossings d
Typical Section of Roadway:
Traffic: Current Design Year Zn Z o Z Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: s0 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ / -Poo Oo r7
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
.Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEETi A4W'fZ
lVer • ¢3
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST Z-
7-Estimated Costs.of"Improvements:

avement
--
Surface $
-
Base. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .
Milling & Recycling . . . . . .
Turnouts . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . $ - -
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. , , , , . . . . , $
Earthwork . . , . . . . . ?0 7 py
Subsurface Items: , . . . , . . , . . . . ,
j,,--Subgrade and Stabilization, . , . . . .. , . ?1?CJo
_
_L/ Drainage (List any special items) . , , , $ _
Sub-Drainage. , . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation
x
_
New Bridge X. $
_
Widen Bridge n C -- --
-- - Remove Bridge --
-- New Culverts; Size Length ---- -----
-- Fill Ht, ----- ----------
Culvert Extension $
_ Retaining Walls: Type _ Ave. Ht,
-
----- s
----------- -
Skew

Noise Walls . . . . . . , . - - .- ;,
--- Any Other Misc. Structures. s --- ---
---
_1,---Concrete curb &.Gutter. . , , , . . . , . . _
_
-?QQ
Concrete sidewalk ti
---- Guardrail , . . . . .. . . . . . . . ----- --
-- Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L.
_&.--Erosion Control ----,
--
Landscape . , . . . , . . . . . , . . ,
-- -
Lighting. . . , . $
?/ Traffic Control , , . . , . , . . .
Signing: New. . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . , , , , . ,
Traffic Signals: New . . . $
Revised . . . . . , , $
RR Signals: New . . , ., . , . $
Revised . . . , , . . . $
With or Without Arms. , . . $
_
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
t/Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo - $ ¢1JU
Markers
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
,. y
Delineators $
_,,,?ther clearing, grubbing, mobilization, misc.. $ 3 _
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal), $ S??p? ?
Contingencies & Engineering .
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account . . . . . . . .
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width:

New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type _
Width Est. Cost $
Utilities:
Right of Way Subtotal: 81
Total,Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design --
Roadway
Structure
Design Services -- -----
Geotechnical --- ---
Hydraulics ---- -_-
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry -- -
Prel. Est. Engr. _
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Landscape ---- --- -
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance _
Chief Engineer _
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
. $ _
$
Subtotal: $
Yes No
Page 4
9.80431 1 ?
A1: 2 390 TIP NO. FED f- ID NO. PROJECT COUNT
U-- ? 561 B 9.8043119 NASH
NC 43 5 -LANE C & G
FROM W INS TEAD AtrE. (SR4 61 3) TO I»'I: ELE RD Y SR-153S) CON STRUCTION C OST
WIDEN EXIST. 20' TO 6 4' F--F (5--1._N C & G)
$1,700,000
PREPARED BY: DOUG L_ AIDE 1 1 '-04--94
-REQUESTED BY: BOB BOtil:E 11-04-94
I...:I NE/DES/SE'C ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRIC E AMO UNT

•i
G #:31»`
CLEARING & GRUBBING
1.7 _.._.._-_ --..___..-..
12,000.00 ._._...______.____..___
20,400 _......_..
.00
rtC:R

2
G SP
EAR'TI"IWCif'{I!,
26,800 ................._ -_.._.._ -...
4.00 --_...-•----.. -... --
107,200 -.._...._
,00

..............
...........-__....-_.._......
....._......_.......................................................... CY

3
D SP ............. -..
DRAINAGE ..-_.......................................-....
1?2 ................................._..._....
170,000.00 ....... -..........................__.
204,000 .........._
.00
111

4
F' SP
PAVEMENT WIDENING ---------
20,200 -----------
17.00 -----------
479,400 -----
.00

.........- ..........
..........................-------------- SY

F- ., ---
RI::SURFAC.E li X.1:Sf., -------------
1?,100 -----------
4.00 -----------
'w6,40tom, ----
.,00

----
--------- PAVEMENT
--------------- SY

._
._ ---------
,.:UB{:r 1'{ t..l ... I». STABILIZATION -------------
32,400 -----------
3.50 -----------
113,400 ------
.00

...............
......................................
......................................................................................
. S Y

.. .
......
2'-6n CURB AND CUTTER .....................................................
12,600
I._ 1= .... .... .... .... .... .... ....._ -.... ....
8.00 ......-.......... .... :... .-.. .... ... -
1 1) 0, ii (•) % -.......-
oo
..............
8 ......................................
IL }1:} ........................................................... ......................- ...........
EROSION CONTf?OL.. .....................................................
`> ............................................
4000.00 ........................................ _..
20,000 .........._
.00

...............
............. _..............._.......
................................_ .............
........ ACR

`i}
Y sF' .
................................_ -
TRAFFIC CONT'ROI... _........-.......................................
i. 2 ..............................-.............
40 , 000., 00 ....................................- -
48,000 ............
.00

..
-..- ................-................_.......
...
.
. MI
.
.
.
.........................-_..... ..................................................... ............................................. ...................._..............__ ............

.... .... .... ...
. .... .... .... ........ ----
------------- ml

i1
SI:' -----------
MISC. & MOB. (30Z) -------------
1_.UM1°' M -------- _.............
L. S. ._............._....................
353.000
.00
LENGTH ALONG I»'ROJ 1.200 i•i:[I...ES CONTRACT COS T .......... :I} 1 , 5?9 , 000.00
C . & C. 1 ) ! .......... 171,000 .0o
CONSTRUCTION COST ...... $1,700,000 .00
NOTE: UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOT INCLUDED IN r't:C+OVE COST.
i
NORTH CAROLINA
NASH COUNTY
,0
Aventon
u
9 48
43 ?
CastaNa ? 5//,.vr ,
/ Gold Roc 1 3
k 4
, ap A
/ 58 Red 0 i

1.13 1336
©?
3j 337
DORTCHES i 1536
?y NC9 • POP-885
L4?t 100
:5:13 T.27
y' '9T
e
sev :Sy'
.38
%`:t?• k::';,
1636 ti co
? ,s3s t
w PROJECT
LIMIT 'S5>•
ems, 0 r7Q
? O l •''"
a z ?? R 4??v PROJECT `i +
> ? _ LIMIT
is] ,'Jys .si Q O ?v:S•i5:+::q j•••?
.21
>° tgr' : ft+i
z_ SR 1678,
so 3 SR 1677
1s1a ? JO 'p<:f
-16tlAN ??. - - ea] .. o
c::•:;? tsa2
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 43
WINSTEAD AVENUE (SR 1613) TO
SR 1535 PEELE ROAD
ROCKY MOUNT, NASH COUNTY
U - 2561 B STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8093119
0 mile 0.5
?G
ps*?a2
JAMES B. HuNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
.
'° 01, Scvr
"",
V,
DFC
Mauwvd'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEP.A,.;?TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
December 14, 1999
State Project: 9.8043143 (U-2561 B) Contract No.: C105281
F. A. Project: N/A
County: Nash
Description: NC 43 from SR 1613 (Woodruff Avenue) to SR 1535 (Peele Road) Northwest of
Rocky Mount
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi L. Oglesby, PE
Division Construction Enginee
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
We are transmitting an approved copy of minutes covering the preconstruction conference for the above.
project, which was held on November 17, 1999. These minutes were approved by the Contractor, Barnhill
Contracting Company, Inc., as recorded.
/t
attachment
c C. W. Brown, PE, RLS
W. D. Johnson
W. L. Moore, 111
NC DEHNR
US Fish & Wildlife
Multimedia Cablevision
City of Rocky Mount
J. M. Lynch, PE
Willie Bryant
US Army Corps of Engineers
Aydren Flowers
Richard Chrisawn
Sprint
Ec Randy Pace, PE
Tom Turnage
Jackson Provost, PE
Andy Pridgen
Bob Brown, PE
Dennis Jernigan, PE
Ted Sherrod
Andy Mills
Warren Walker, PE
J. E. Grady, Jr., PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3167
Telephone Number [phone] FAX Number [phone]
2
RIGHT OF WAY
At this point, Ms. Oglesby called on Lloyd Johnston with our Division Right of Way Unit, to cover the right of
way for this project. Mr. Johnston advised that Rob Arnold with the Division 2 Right of Way office would cover
the right of way.
Mr. Arnold presented a letter with copy of right of way agreements.
All right of way and easements for the construction of this project have been acquired with the exception of the
following parcels: A claim for condemnation has been filed on Parcel 004 but agreement for entry has been
secured. Agreement for entry has also been secured on Parcels 017 and 017. Deeds will be secured within the
next 30 days on these two Parcels. There are no Section 215 items on this project. There is no known asbestos
contamination, underground storage tanks or soil contamination within the right of way of the project.
Ms. Oglesby cautioned the Contractor to contain his operations within the right of way or construction limits of
the project. Should the need arise to perform work outside these limits, written authorized from the property
owner shall be acquired prior to performing the work.
UTILITY CONFLICTS
Mr. Dennis Jernigan covered this portion of the contract. The following utility companies have facilities that are
in conflict with this project:
Multimedia Cable -No cable relocation work has been done on the project. Mr. Jernigan asked the
representative if they had a time frame for completing this work. Mr. Solomon advised their relocation work
would be done in a timely manner. He was advised that the Contractor plans to begin work the 2"d week in
January and all relocation work needs to be completed prior to that time. Mr. Jernigan advised he has not
received an authorized for the Cable Company to perform work on the project.
A question was asked if plans for relocation of cables had been submitted to Raleigh. Mr. Solomon advised, to
his knowledge no plans have been done. He advised he is not familiar with what procedures to follow. Mr.
Jernigan advised that the plans would need to be sent to the Utility Section in Raleigh for authorization to be
issued. Ms. Oglesby advised Mr. Solomon if he had any questions on what needs to be done that he should
contact the Resident Engineer, Mr. Jernigan.
Sprint - Mr. Jernigan advised that no cable has been installed. Mr. Conner advised they are approximately 60
days behind on this project due to all the repairs caused by Hurricane Floyd. It will take them these 60 days to
catch up their work on the project. They anticipate completing the majority of the work before the Contractor
begins work on the project. .
City of Rocky Mount - Mr. Jernigan advised that Booth & Associates would be performing the relocation of the
poles for the City. The schedule to complete this work is March 31, 2000. Representative with Booth &
Associates advised they are waiting on poles to be delivered.
Frontier Cable - There was not a representative present to discuss their cable relocation schedule. We have not
received authorization from our Raleigh office for the utility company to perform work on this project. No work
has been performed. Mr. Rant with Booth & Associates advised they have previously met with the Resident
Engineer and they will coordinate their work with the DOT and Contractor.
Mr. Jernigan advised the Contractor in the area where the substation is located there are two underground
facilities and his personnel has tried to locate the depth. He advised he did not think there would be any
problems but cautioned the Contractor to be careful when working in this vicinity.
There were no further questions or comments regarding right of way and utilities.
EROSION CONTROL
Mr. Jason Elliott reviewed erosion control items listed on pages 79-82 in the contract.
He reviewed the kinds of seed and fertilizer and the rates of application of seed, fertilizer and limestone.
During periods of overlapping dates, the kind of seed to be used shall be determined by the Engineer. All rates
are in pounds per acre.
All areas adjacent to lawns must be hand finished to give a "lawn type appearance", and the lawn seed mix
stipulated shall be applied to these areas.
In waste and borrow locations add 30# Sericea Lespedeza January 1 - December 31.
Add 15# (18kg) Kobe or Korean Lespedeza on all seeded areas between June 1 and September 1.
Fertilizer shall be 10-20-20.
Temporary Seeding - Sweet Sudan Grass, German Millet or Browntop Millet shall be used in summer months
and Rye Grain during the remainder of the year.
Fertilizer Topdressing - Fertilizer used for top dressing on all roadway areas except slopes 2:1 and steeper shall
be 10-20-20 grade and applied at the rate of 500# per acre. Fertilizer used for topdressing on slopes 2:1 and
steeper and waste and borrow areas shall be 16-8-8 grade and applied at the rate of 500# per acre.
Supplemental Seeding - No centipede seed will be used in the seed mix for supplemental seeding. The rate of
application may vary from 25# to 75# per acre; however, the actual rate per acre will be determined by the
Engineer prior to the time of topdressing and the contractor will be notified in writing of the rate per acre, total
quantity needed, and areas on which to apply
Mowing - The minimum mowing height on this project shall be four inches.
Crimping of Straw - Crimping will be required on this project adjacent to all sections of roadway where traffic is
to be maintained or allowed during construction. In areas within 6-feet of the edge of pavement, straw is to be
crimped and then immediately tacked with straw tack.
Crimping of straw in lieu of asphalt tack will be allowed on this project subject to the conditions noted in the
contract.
Mr. Elliott advised that crimping would be limited to slopes 4:1 or flatter unless the Contractor can demonstrate
to the Engineer that steeper slopes can be negotiated without altering the typical section.
Specialized Hand Mowing - As stipulated.
Temporary Diversion - As stipulated.
Waste Areas and Borrow Sources - Payment for temporary erosion control measures, except those made
necessary by the Contractor's own negligence or for his own convenience, will be paid for at the appropriate
contract unit price for the devices or measures utilized in borrow sources and waste areas.
4
Mr. Elliott advised the DOT would like for the Contractor to perform stage seeding as they complete an area on
the project. There is a set of erosion control plans. Ms. Oglesby reminded the Contractor to perform seeding
within 15 workdays or 30 calendar days.
Holland Landscaping will perform seeding and mulching.
There were no further comments and/or questions concerning erosion control items.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Quality Management System for Asphalt Pavements - Mr. Andy Pridgen, Division QA Supervisor, covered
pages 20-55 pointing out the following.
Section 609 of the Specifications have been deleted in entirety and replaced with the specifications noted in the
contract. All provisions of Division 6 of the Standard Specifications shall apply, excepted as modified in the
contract.
Mr. Pridgen asked the Contractor what type of density testing would be used on the project. The Contractor
advised he was not sure at this time. The Contractor advised that Mr. David Glover would be their contact
person for asphalt paving.
On page 21, Mr. Pridgen called attention to the second paragraph under 609-4, reminding the Contractor that
field verification samples and normal production at the plant shall not begin until all field verification test results
have been completed and the mix has been satisfactorily verified by DOT QA personnel as meeting all mix
design criteria for the mix type being produced. The Contractor shall retain records of these calibrations and mix
verification tests and copies shall be furnished to the Engineer for review and approval prior to beginning
production of the mix. Mr. Pridgen advised the Contractor that he would need sufficient notification so these
tests can be run. He also pointed out that failure of the Contractor to fully comply with mix verification
requirements shall result in immediate production stoppage by the Engineer, and normal production shall not
resume until all mix verification sampling and testing, calibrations, and plant inspections have been performed
and approved.
The Contractor shall provide at least one certified Asphalt Technician Level I at each plant site and he shall also
have a QMS Roadway Technician with each paving operation at all times during the placement of asphalt.
On page 23, the Contractor is reminded should his testing frequency fail to meet the minimum frequency
requirements as specified in the current HMA/QMS manual, all mix without the specified test representation
shall be considered unsatisfactory. If the Engineer allows the mix to remain in place, payment will be made at
50 percent of the contract unit bid price for the mixture.
On pages 33 thru the top of page 38 testing and sampling procedures for nuclear density and cored samples and
reductions for failure to meet testing requirements is pointed out.
Final Surface Testing - Asphalt Pavements - Type of straightedge to be furnished and operated by the Contractor
to determine and record the longitudinal profile of the pavement on a continuous graph. Final surface testing is
considered to be an integral part of the paving operation and is subject to observation and inspection by the
Engineer. Proper procedures for use of the straightedge were pointed out. The Contractor was reminded, at the
completion of each day's testing, he should evaluate the graph and submit to the Engineer within 24 hours after
profiles are completed. The Resident Engineer will furnish results of the acceptance evaluation to the Contractor
within 48 hours after receipt. The Engineer shall retain all graphs.
Asphalt Bases and Pavements - Certified Weight Certificates shall also include the DOH's job mix formula
number, if the ticket is to be issued for asphalt plant mix.
Non-Strip Additive - There is no direct payment for non-strip additive.
Tack Coat - The maximum rate of tack coat shall be increased to 0.04 to 0.07 gallons per square yard.
Dust/Asphalt Cement Ration for Asphalt Plant Mix Pavements - As stipulated.
Retained Tensile Strength Ration (TSR) - As stipulated.
Asphalt Plant Mix Pavements - Superpave - Mr. Pridgen advised we have previously covered mix design
criteria. He advised he has not received any mix designs from the Contractor. He also reminded the Contractor
that his plant has to be certified for superpave mix. He asked the Contractor to advise him as soon as possible
so it can be checked out.
He called attention to the chart on page 52 listing air and road surface temperature requirements. On page 53,
he pointed out that the asphalt plant mix shall be compacted to a density of at least 92.0% of the maximum
specific gravity as determined by AASHTO T 209.
Mr. Pridgen advised there is a pay item for milling in the contract. The Contractor advised this milled material
will be taken back to his plant for stockpiling. Mr. Pridgen reminded the Contractor that it would have to be
tested before being stockpiled.
Mr. Pridgen advised the Resident Engineer to make sure his personnel get sufficient independent samples.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Liz Lorscheider advised these special provisions are standard and the Contractor should adhere to the conditions
stipulated.
There were no further questions and or/comments concerning these special provisions.
GENERAL
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages:
Date of Availability for this contract is November 29, 1999, except that work in jurisdictional waters and
wetlands shall not begin unit a preconstruction conference is held with the regulatory agencies as stipulated in
the permits. This delay in availability has been considered in determining the contract time for this project. The
permits will be covered during this preconstruction conference.
Contract Completion Date - November 15, 2000
Liquidated Damages - $500.00 per calendar day
Ms. Oglesby pointed out when observation periods are required by the Special Provisions, they are not a part of
the work to be completed by the completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the contract.
Should an observation period extend beyond the final completion date, the acceptable completion of the
observation period shall be a part of the work covered by the performance and payment bonds.
6
Intermediate Contract Time Number I and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall complete the required work
of installing, maintaining, and removing all the traffic control devices for lane closures and restoring traffic to a
two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close a lane of traffic on NC 43 during the following
time restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
Monday thru Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
In addition, the Contractor shall not narrow or close a lane of traffic on NC 43, detain and/or alter the traffic
flow on or during holiday, holiday weekends, special events, or any other time when traffic is unusually heavy,
including the schedule listed in the contract.
The time of availability for this intermediate contract work will be the time the Contractor begins to install all
traffic control devices for daytime and nighttime lane closures according to the above.
Completion time for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to complete the
removal of all traffic control devices required for the daytime and nighttime lane closures and restore traffic to a
two-lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per hour.
Recruitment of Department Employees - Ms. Oglesby reviewed these requirements and reminded the
Contractor if he did not comply with these special provisions it may be justification for disqualifying him from
further bidding.
Major Contract Items and Specialty Items - As stipulated in the contract.
Schedule of Estimated Completion Progress - The Contractor was advised if he anticipated accelerating the
progress shown, he should submit a request, and approval would have to be obtained should he want payment
for performing work beyond that progress noted. In the fiscal year 2000, 75% of the work is scheduled to be
completed and 25% in the year 2001.
Minority and Women Business Policy - Goals for this contract are established at 8.0% for MBE's and 4.0% for
WBE's. The contract was awarded with a 3.9% participation for MBE's and 1.8% for WBE's.
The Contractor presented his letter naming his Company EEO Officers and Minority Liaison Officer.
Partial Payments - As stipulated.
Contractor's License Requirements - If the Contractor does no hold the proper license to perform specialized
work in this contract, he will be required to sublet such work to a properly licensed Contractor.
Domestic Steel Products - The Contractor was advised he can use only 0.1 % of the contract amount or
$2,500.00, whichever is greater, of foreign steel in the project, except fasteners which will be domestically
produced.
Subsurface Information - There is no subsurface information available on this project.
Payments for Materials - Removable Pavement Marking Material - As stipulated.
Plant Pest Quarantines - Ms. Oglesby advised the Contractor to abide by the requirements noted in the contract.
7
Metric Documentation - Contractor shall submit all quantities on bills of lading and all other paperwork in
Standard Metric Units. The DOT will not accept any quantities on bills of lading and other paperwork, which
are in English unit only. The DOT will allow the information to be submitted with both units of measurement
being shown.
Recycled Products or Solid Waste Materials - Ms. Oglesby advised should the Contractor come up with a way
to utilize recycled products or solid waste materials on the project, he should submit to the Resident
Engineer for review and if approved, a supplemental agreement will be executed.
Clearing and Grubbing - Clearing and Grubbing shall be Method III.
Aggregate Production and Concrete Brick & Block Production - The Contractor was reminded he should use a
producer who utilizes the new QC/QA program, which is in effect on the date of the letting.
Fine Aggregate - As stipulated.
Shoulder Material - As stipulated.
Bitumen Content for Asphalt Plant Mixes - As stipulated.
Price Adjustment - Asphalt Cement for Plant Mix - The base price index for asphalt cement for plant mix is
$142.86 per metric ton.
Street Signs and Markers and Route Markers - As stipulated.
Flowable Fill - The Contractor advised he does not plan to use on this project.
Metric High Strength Bolts - As stipulated.
Iron Castings - As stipulated
Metric Roadway Standard Drawings - All existing "hard" metric sign dimensions shall be replaced with the new
"soft" metric sign dimensions shown in the contract.
ROADWAY
Select Granular Material - As stipulated. Shall be used over the previously placed fabric for soil stabilization in
the widened areas.
Fabric for Soil Stabilization - As outlined.
Sealing Existing Pavement Cracks - As stipulated.
Removal of Existing Pavement (Metric) - As outlined in the contract.
Modified Concrete Flume with Concrete Outlet - As outlined in the contract.
Pavement Marking General Requirements - As outlined in the contract. Ms. Oglesby asked who would be
performing pavement marking on this project. The Contractor advised Clark Pavement would perform this
work. _
Drainage opening in solid pavement marking lines should be spaced every 100-feet.
Department Furnished Signs - As stipulated.
Remove and Dispose of Existing Signs and "U" Channel Posts - As stipulated.
Remove and Dispose of Existing Signs and Wood Posts - As stipulated.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Kite with our Traffic Control Unit in Raleigh advised there are 4 items he would like to cover.
• In reference to Intermediate Contract Time #1 under the Holiday Schedule, the Contractor can work from
8:30 am to 4:30 pm. This is different; however, should it present any problems this time frame may have to
be adjusted.
• There has been a request from Wendi Oglesby that the -Y-Lines signing standard be used for the -L-Line on
this project. Mr. Kite advised the DOT is in a state of transition at this time and this would be fine. He
advised the Contractor to install signs just prior to beginning operations.
• Mr. Kite asked that we continue to offer our Traffic Control Section feedback so quality can be improved.
• Type II Barricades are to be used when widening operations are being performed. They improve sight
distance for public exiting driveways thereby creating safer conditions.
PERMITS
Ms. Oglesby advised that Mr. Eric Alsmeyer with the US Army Corps of Engineers and other permitting agencies
were not able to attend this conference; however, this doesn't lessen the importance of this permit. The
permitting agencies will visit the project to make sure all conditions are being adhered to. She stressed to the
Contractor, should he not be in compliance his operation may be shut down.
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
There are two permits, one issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and one by DEHNR.
Ms. Oglesby reviewed in its entirety page 106 of the permit and advised the Contractor to adhere to the
stipulations set forth.
The permit authorized certain footprints within the waters of the US (wetlands, streams, and ponds, etc.) as
shown in the plans. The Contractor cannot perform work beyond that footprint without approval from the Corps
of Engineers.
Borrow or spoil areas are not authorized in the permit for wetlands or streams. Stream crossing are not allowed
and authorization will have to be secured to do so.
If the Contractor should encounter any wetlands and/or any areas he is not sure of, he should stop operation and
contact the Resident Engineer until a determination can be made.
Ms. Oglesby called attention to the permit drawings noted in the contract, advising that Site Drawings in
relation to plan sheets are as follows:
Site 1 is on plan sheet 4; Site 2 is shown on plan sheet 5; Site 3 is on plan sheet 6; Site 5 is on plan sheet 7 and
Site 6 is on plan sheet 8. Mr. Oglesby advised, as an example, the Site 1 drawing of the permit shows specified
areas where work is to be done and the Contractor should stay within those footprints.
Wetlands are identified on the plans, but the wetlands may not be shown on the plan.
On page 120 of the permit Ms. Oglesby called specific attention to f. and g. and advised the Contractor to
adhere to the requirements set forth.
Jason Elliott reiterated should the Contractor have any questions, he should contact appropriate parties.
There being no further comments and/or discussion, the conference was adjourned.
A
BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY
I-2-- 8-99
DATE OF APPROVAL
!?q?o ct M4, Ie r-
NAME AND TITLE
11/17/99