20140273 Ver 1_Complete File_20140321

3A-, He Al V101
.0`
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
??r?N®S?4afi rROUE
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. OCr 2 4 2003
North Carolina Department of Transportation Vf/gr
Project Development and Environmental Analysis "Y Q0A4l7ySEC
1548 Mail Service Center ?10AJ
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
October 16, 2003
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 10, 2003 letter requesting comments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
widening of SR 1616 (Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road) in
Nash County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3331). These comments are 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).
Two almost identical build alternatives are described in the EA, with the only difference
occurring at the Stoney Creek bridge crossing. Both alternatives would provide a five lane
facility with widening generally occurring symmetrically from the existing alignment. Both
alternatives would replace the existing 160 feet long bridge over Stoney Creek with a 180 feet
long bridge. Alternative A would widen the bridge on the west side, while Alternative B would
widen the bridge on the east side. Alternative B is the preferred alternative due to its zero
impacts on wetlands (as opposed to 0.16 acres for Alternative A). The Service supports the
preferred alternative. Both alternatives have minimal impacts to streams (40 linear feet impact
each to Stoney Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Stoney Creek).
Almost all of the project will occur in a suburban and residential environment with minimal fish
and wildlife habitat available. The only natural terrestrial community within the prof ect area is
the forested area in the vicinity of Stoney Creek. Alternative B would avoid all impacts to
bottomland hardwood forest along Stoney Creek, but would impact up to 1.77 acres of mixed
pine hardwood forest. However, the impacts to forest habitat will occur in previously fragmented
forest in which the terrestrial habitat value has already been degraded by adjacent development.
For this reason, the Service generally prefers widening existing roads to constructing new ones.
There are three federally endangered species listed for Nash County: red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana). The EA renders a "No Effect" conclusion for each of these three species. Due to
,49?
the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with the "No Effect" conclusion for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. However, the Service does not concur with the "No Effect" conclusion for the
dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. The EA states that mussel surveys were conducted on
July 23, 1999. These surveys are inadequate for two reasons. Firstly, the surveys are now more
than four years old. New surveys should be performed. Secondly, the surveys only extended 200
feet below the bridge crossing of Stoney Creek. The EA states that the stream reach within the
construction limits does not provide habitat for the two mussel species. However, since stream
impacts can affect mussels for a considerable distance downstream and upstream, simply
surveying within the project footprint is inadequate. A new mussel survey, which extends at
least 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the bridge crossing, should be
conducted. Please note that dwarf wedgemussel has been known to occur in Stoney Creek
several miles upstream of the project site.
With the exception of its treatment of endangered mussels, the Service believes that this EA
adequately addresses the existing fish and wildlife resources, the waters and wetlands of the
United States, and the potential impacts of this proposed project on these resources. Future
documentation and correspondence should correct the deficiency regarding the federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. The Service appreciates the opportunity to
review this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary
Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
Q /;)#&# AV
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
eYA)D) W&L PUG.-96K)?-
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
PAUIJ PP01-67A
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?
FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS /
V FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
IMA)07Ff
t Q r2 U - 33,3/
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601,
TIP U-3331.
Reference your correspondence dated May 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3331. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the project will cross at least two perennial
streams; the Stoney Creek (Index Number 28-68, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters) and the Goose Branch
Creek (Index Number 28-70, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Both streams are located in the Tar-
Pamilico River Basin. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to determine the
presence of other streams in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
N
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/09/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/09/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Central Files
Personal Files
C:\ncdot\TIP U-333 1\U-3331 scoping comments.doc

I
y?'?w STAIg
J
c T TC T, , JLINA
STATDEPARTMENT OF TP\ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. RUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
March 9, 1999
t? 'thy ??Ap ? ? •?.
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NoRRIs TOLSON
SECRETARY
Scoping Participants
Mark Davis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Notes, Country Club Road (SR 1616),
from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541) in
Rocky Mount, Nash County, Federal Project No.
STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.232160 1,
TIP No. U-3331
The scoping meeting for the subject project was held on Wednesday, February 17,
1999 at 2:00 p.m. in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Conference
Room. The following people were in attendance:
Douglas Petray
Betty C. Yancey
Ed Eatmon
Vang Moua
Keith Honeycutt
Dan Duffield
Jimmy Goodnight
Jim Morrison
Leon Oliver
Leilani Paugh
Brian Mayhew
Stephen Lowry
Richard Davis
Teresa Hart
Mark Davis
Tasha Johnson
Structure Design
Right of Way
Division
Traffic Control
Location and Surveys
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Natural Systems
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
PD&EA
PD&EA
PD&EA
PD&EA
lax
The major topics of discussion at the meeting were as follows:
1. Traffic Engineering wants consideration directed at realigning Jeffrey Road so
that it is the main move. They asked for an examination of a divided section.
Dual or triple left turn lanes may be required at West 864. A right turn lane onto
Country Club road from North 864 may also be required. Right turns will be
needed in most quadrants, but no dual lefts.
2. Location and Surveys pointed out that the toe to toe slope distance for the US
64 Bypass overpass is 63'. There are high utility conflicts involved with the
proposed project.
3. The division suggest tapering the road under the bridge and removing the turn
lane at this location. Also, the bridge should be rebuilt and not added to. The
division would like to close the road while constructing the new bridge
4. Hydraulics would like for any construction to not alter the grade of the facility
during construction as to not cause drainage problems for people upstream. Two
72' pipes exist south of the US 64 Bypass. These pipes could be retained and
extended. There is a 16' vertical clearance under Stoney Creek Bridge.
5. Roadway Design will make all attempts to not alter the grade.
6. Planning will request a right of way abstract to be done for the project.
7. No control of access is proposed along project; however the issue will be
discussed with Army Corp of Engineers before a final determination is made. The
proposed right of way width is 100 feet.
IA
q? ?STATFo
?? Ww1?tia
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, F. A. Project to
STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.232160 1, T.I.P. No. U-3331
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2002 and construction in fiscal year 2004.
The project calls for widening Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to
Jeffreys Road (SR 1541). The cross section under consideration is a five-lane curb and gutter
section.
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 federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by June 30, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Davis, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 207.
WDG/plr
Attachment RECEIVED
MAY i 11999
M,C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Not

FIGURE 1
ROCKY MOUNT
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB ROAD)
US 64 TO SR 1541 (JEFFREYS ROAD)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO MULTI-LP,?\ES.
NASH COUNTY, B-3331

d„a. SiATp o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
E. NORRIS TOLSON
S ECRETARY
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, F. A. Project to
STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.23 T.I.P. No. U-3331
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2002 and construction in fiscal year 2004.
The project calls for widening Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to
Jeffreys Road (SR 1541). The cross section under consideration is a five-lane curb and gutter
section.
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 federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by June 30, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Davis, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 207.
WDG/plr
Attachment RECEIVED
MAY x 11999
N;,C. BTATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Nq:l*
K
FIGURE 1
ROCKY MOUNT
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB ROAD)
US 64 TO SR 1541 (JEFFREYS ROAD)
WIDEN ROADWAY TO MULTI-LA??ES.
NASH COUNTY, B-3331
0--N*
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. Steve Hall
NCDENR - Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks and Recreation
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hall:
October 10, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
OCT 14 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Rocky Mount, SR 1616 (Country Club Road),
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road), Nash County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601, WBS No. 34927.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3331
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources Technical Report
for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a
"Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide planning
agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as discussed
in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded to:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by December 1, 2003. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of
No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Gregory J. Thorpe,
Project Developme
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
Analysis Branch
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
VMS No. 34927.1.1 WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
TIP Project No. U-3331
OCT 14 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation

;%ove03
Date,
Date
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
.f.
- Gregory J. Thorpe, .D., En ironmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
john F. Su11i , III, Division Administrator
Federal i hwav Administration
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
August, 2003
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and
I 1?-- e 1?;2
Charles R. Cox, P.E.
Project"Development U It Head
Ax?/Jxr-- 7
Robert P. Hanson, P.E. '
1 sis Branch by:
SSin.?.'1
SEAL
19328
Assistant Manager
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
VMS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
Division 4 Design Unit. Structure Design Unit. Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will replace the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge over Stoney Creek with a
180-foot (55-meter) long bridge to allow for additional hydrologic trespass.
Program Development Branch, Division 4 Design Unit Division 4 Construction
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
project. At the request of Rocky Mount, a sidewalk will also be included -along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk; such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility.
Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 1
August, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................. i

A. Type of Action ...................................................................................... i
B. General Description .............................................................................. i
C. Project Benefits .................................................................................... i
D. Alternatives Considered ....................................................................... i
E. Recommended Alternative .................................................................. ii
F. Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................... ii
G. Permits Required ................................................................................. ii
H. Coordination ........................................................................................ ii
1. Additional Information ..........:............................................................iii
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .....................................1
A. General Description ............................................................................ I
B. Transportation Plan ............................................................................. I
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .....................................2
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ..............................................................2
B. Accident History ................................................................................... 2
C. Regional Planning .:........................................:..................................... 3
D. Purpose of Project ................................................................................ 3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ..........................................4
A. Length of Project :................................................................................. 4
B. Route Classification ............................................................................. 4
C. Existing Typical Section ...................................................................... 4
D. Project Terminals ................................................................................ 4
E. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 4
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures .................................................................. 4
G. Speed Limit .......................................................................................... 5
H. Access Control ..................................................................................... 5
I. Intersection and Type of Control .......................................................... 5
J. Utilities ................. :................................................................................ 5
K. School Buses ........................................................................................ 5
L. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................... 5
M. Sidewalks .................................................................................:............ 5
N. Parking .................................................................................................. 5
0. Bicycle Provisions ................................................................................ 6
P. Greenways ............................................................................................ 6
Q. Other TIP Projects in Area ................................................................... 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................... 7
A. "No Build" Alternative ....................................................................... 7
B. Mass Transportation Alternative ......................................................... 7
C. Widening Alternative ........................... ............................................... 7
V
Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 8
E. Recommended Alternative .................................................................. 8
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................9
A. Design Speed ...................................................................................... 9
B. Typical Section ................................................................................. .. 9
C. Right of Way ..................................................................................... .. 9
D. Access Control .................................................................................. .. 9
E. Bridge/Drainage Structures ............................................................... .. 9
F. Parking .............................................................................................. .. 9
G. Sidewalks ................................................. 9
......................................... ..
H. Bicycle Provisions ............................................................................ 10
1. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ..................................... 10
J. Estimate of Costs .............................................................................. 10
VI. HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................11
A. Human Environment .......................................................................... I l
1. Community Profile/Effects ..........................................................11
a. Geographic Location ............................................................. I l
b. Race, Ethnicity and Age .......................................................11
c. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment .........................13
d. Housing Characteristics .....................................:..................13
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers ...............................14
f. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions .............................14
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services .................................14
h. Existing/Future Land Uses ....................................................14
(1) Present/Future Zoning ..................................................14
(2) Development Plans ......................................................15
i. Impact Assessment ................................................................15
(1) Local Plans ...................................................................15
(2) Economic Development ........................................... 15
(3) Greenway Considerations ............................................15
(4) Accessibility Considerations ..............................:.........15
(5) Business, Institutional, and Residential Relocation
Impacts .........................................................................16
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion..... 16

(7) . Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment ..............16
(8) Farmland Impacts .........................................................16
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds ..............17
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice .............................17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ................................:..18
2. Cultural Resources ......................................................................19
a. Compliance Guidelines .........................................................19
b. Historic Architecture .............................................................19
c. Archeology ............................................................................19
3. Air Quality ..................................................................................19
a. Carbon Monoxide ................................................................. 20
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides ...................................... 21
c. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide .................................. 21
d. Project Effects .......................................................................21
4. Traffic Noise ............................................................................... 22
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................ 22
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................... 23
c. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................... 24
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ...................... 24
e. Traffic Noise and Contour .................................................... 25
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................... 25
(1) Highway Alignment .....................................................26
(2) Traffic System Management Measures ........................ 26
(3) Noise Barriers .............................................................. 26
g "Do Nothing" Alternative ..................................................... 27
h. Construction Noise ................................................................ 27
i. Summary ............................................................................... 27
5. Geodetic Markers ........................................................................ 28
6. Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 28
B. Natural Environment ......................................................................... 29
1. Methodology and Definitions ..................................................... 29
2. Physical Resources ...................................................................... 29
a. Soils ...................................................................................... 30
b. Water Resources .............................................................. :.... 30
(1) Waters Impacted .......................................................... 31
(2) Best Usage Classification ............................................ 31
(3) Water Quality ............................................................... 31
(4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 33
3. Biotic Resources ......................................................................... 33
a. Biotic Community .........................................:....................... 34
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype) ................................................... 34
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest ...................................... 34
(3) Maintained/Disturbed .................................................. 35
b. Aquatic Community ..............................................................35
c. Wildlife ................................................................................. 35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna .......................................................... 36
(2) Aquatic Fauna .............................................................. 36
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................................... 36
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................... 38
a. Waters of the United States ................................................... 38
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 38
(2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 39
(3) Permits ......................................................................... 39
(4) Mitigation ..................................................................:.. 39
(a) Avoidance ........................................................... 40
(b) Minimization ....................................................... 40
(c) Compensatory Mitigation ................................... 40
b. Rare and Protected Species ................................................... 40
(1) Federally-Protected Species ......................................... 41
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species.. 43
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................................................... 44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................... 45
A. Comments Solicited .................................:........................................45
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop ................................................... 45
C. Public Hearing .................................................................................. 45

TABLES
Table 1 Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road) ............ 3
Table 2A 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline ........................... .. 8
Table 2B 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections ..................... .. 8
Table 3 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co.)_ 12
Table 4 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.) ...................................... 12
Table 5 2000 Income measures and Persons Living
Below Poverty Level (Nash Co.) ............................................ 13
Table 6 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co.) .............................. 14
Table 7 Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters .................................. 33
Table 8 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......................... 37
Table 9 Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas .... 39
Table 10 Federally-Protected Species for Nash County ........................ 41
Table I 1 Federal Species of Concern for Nash County ........................ 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic of Project Area
Figures 3A, 3B 2002 and 2020 Traffic
Figure 4 Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figures 5A, 5B Intersection Improvements
Figures 6 - FEMA Floodplain Map
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Noise Analysis
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This Environmental Assessment action is being taken because the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed
project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation (likely a
Finding of No Significant Impact document).
B. General Description
The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes to widen SR 1616
(Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road) in Nash County.
The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-
lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide
12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for most of the project. The bridge over
Stoney Creek will be replaced. The total project length is approximately 1.4 miles
2.2 kilometers).
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost-of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition, and $6,700,000 for construction.
The current estimated cost is $14,225,000. Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 and construction in FY 2005.
C. Project Benefits
The proposed widening of Country Club Road to a multi-lane facility will provide
an overall positive benefit for this section of Rocky Mount. This improvement will help
reduce travel times, and improve traffic flow and safety along Country Club Road.
D. Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the project consist of "no-build", mass
transportation, and two widening alternatives.
E. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative proposes to widen the existing Country Club Road
to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the entire length
of the project. The alignment is a combination of symmetrical widening and widening to
one side for a "best fit" to minimize impacts. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for the entire length of the project. The
recommendation includes the replacement of the existing bridge with a bridge 180 feet
(55 meters) long and 69 feet wide (55 meters by 21 meters) to accommodate the five
lanes of traffic and a sidewalk on one side. The intersection of Country Club Road and
Jeffrey's Road will be realigned as part of this project.
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
No adverse effect on the air-quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a
result of the project. The proposed project will not impact any historic structures eligible
for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended alternative
will not encroach upon any archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National
Register. It is anticipated no residential or business relocations will occur as a result of
this proposed improvement. Future noise levels are expected to increase up to +11 dBAs.
G. Special Permits Required
Approximately .16 acres (0.06 hectares) of wetlands and 80 feet (24 meters) of
stream impacts are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit will be required with the US Army
Corps of Engineers. A Water Quality Certification will be required by the NC Division of
Water Quality.
H. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
ii
Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*)
Copies of the written comments received are included in Appendix B.
1. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting either of the following:
John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
iii
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A.. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes
to widen SR 1616 (Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's
Road) in Rocky Mount, Nash County (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The proposed
project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and
gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a 12-foot (3.6-meter), center-turn lane for
the entire length of the project. The existing bridge over Stoney Creek will be replaced
with a 5-lane, 180-foot (55-meter) structure. The total project length is approximately
1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers).
B. Transportation Plan
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 and
construction in FFY 2005.
H. NEED FOR. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
. The need for the project is based on three main areas: traffic volumes/capacity;
accident history; and regional planning.
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
In 2002 the average daily traffic volumes on Country Club Road ranged from a
low of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near Jeffrey's Road to a high of
approximately 16,900 vpd near US 64 Business. Based on traffic modeling and current
growth, the traffic is anticipated to increase to a range of 7,500 vpd to 24,400 vpd by the
year 2020 (see Appendix A, Figures 3-A, 3-B).
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Level
of service range from LOS A to F. Level of service A, represents unrestricted maneuverability
and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal
operating speeds. Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds
close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and
unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel, this occurs at level
of service F.
With the present traffic volumes, the intersections along Country Club Road are operating
at LOS C and D. If no improvements were made to Country Club Road, the roadway would be
expected to operate at Level of Service E by the design year 2020.
B. Accident History
During the sample period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000 a total of 91
accidents were reported on the studied portion on Country Club Road. This resulted in a
total crash rate of 1059.66 accidents per 100 million vehicles kilometers (ACC/100MVK)
which is considerably higher than the statewide average or similar rates of 163.40
(ACC/100MVK) for two-lane urban primary routes. There were 0 fatalities during the
period, and 46 accidents resulted in injuries. The primary accident types were left-turn
and rear-end collisions with slowing or stopping vehicles.
Table 1 represents a comparison between accident rates along the project and the
statewide rates for all similar secondary routes. The average statewide rates were obtained
from studies conducted during the same period of 1997 to 2000.
2
Table 1: Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
(Accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers)
Accident
Type Rates Along
SR 1616 Statewide
Average
Fatal 0.00 0.41
Nonfatal Injury 535.65 77.65
Nighttime 174.67 37.27
Wet Conditions 291.11 38.75
Total Rate 1059.66 154.23
C. Regional Planning
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Proposed improvements are in conformance with
this plan. Development in this area is continuing to increase.
D. Purpose of Project
Due to increased development each of end of this route, future traffic growth will
create longer travel times, and an increase in accidents. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the facility and to improve safety due to high year-
end and left turn accidents.
3
M. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Project
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 1.4 miles (2.2
kilometers) .
B. Route Classification
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
C. ' Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section of Country Club Road is a two-lane, 20-foot (6-meter)
roadway with 6-foot (1.8-meter) wide soil shoulders.
D. Project Terminals
At the southern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with US 64
Business. Across the intersection, Zebulon Road exists as a three-lane road.
At the northern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with Jeffrey's
Road. At this location, both Country Club Road and Jeffrey's Road continue as two-lane
roadways with unpaved shoulder. There are no plans to improve these roadways north of
this intersection.
E. Right of Way
The existing right of way along Country Club Road is 60 feet (18 meters).
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures
Bridge Number 112 carries Country Club Road over Stoney Creek and is located
0.3-mile (0.5 kilometer) north of US 64 Business. It is 160 feet (49 meters) long and has a
clear deck width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). This bridge has a sufficiency rating of 47.1 out
of 100.
SR 1616 runs under the dual US 64 Bypass bridges. The bridges were constructed
in 1980. The clear width under these bridges is 70 feet (21.3 meters).
A pair of 72-inch (1800 mm) corrugated metal pipes is located at the crossing of a
small tributary to Stoney Creek.
4
G. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the studied section of Country Club Road is 35
miles per hour (mph) (56 kilometers per hour).
H. Access Control
The existing roadway has no access control.
I. Intersection and Type of Control
All roads currently intersecting the project alignment are at-grade. The following
intersections are signalized: US 64 Business, Hunter Hill Road and Jeffrey's Road. The
following intersections are not signalized: Overton Drive and Cove Drive. A grade
separation carries US 64 Bypass over Country Club Road.
J. Utilities
The project is expected to have a high utility conflict. The following utilities are
located within the project corridor: aerial cable, underground fiber optic cable, water,
sewer, gas and telephone.
K. School Buses
During the school year, two school buses use this portion of Country Club Road.
These buses travel along Country Club Road both in the morning and afternoon.
L. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along this project.
M. Sidewalks
A small section of sidewalks currently exist along between Hunter Hill Road and
Jeffrey's Road.
N. Parking
There is no on-street parking along Country Club Road.
5
O. Bicycle Provisions
This section of Country Club Road is not a designated bicycle route.
P. Greenways
No greenways exist along this section of Country Club Road.
Q. Other TIP Projects in Area
U-3330 (US 301 Bypass from NC 43-48 to SR 1836):
Scope - Add additional lane in each direction
Right of way and Construction - Post Year
U-3621 (SR 1604 from SR 1616 to NC 43-48):
Scope - Widen to multi-lanes
Right of Way - Fiscal Year 2008
Construction - Fiscal Year 2010
6
IV.. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for this project consist of the: no-build; mass
transportation; and two widening alternatives.
A. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facility. This
alternative would not improve capacity or safety along Country Club Road with the
project area which is the stated purpose and need of the project. Road capacity would
remain unchanged while the traffic demand substantially increases. Therefore, the "no-
build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative
does however, provide a basis for comparison of other alternatives.
B. Mass Transportation Alternative
The mass transportation alternative includes the expansion of bus and/or rail
service in place of increasing the capacity of the roadway. The Rocky Mount Transit
System serves the City of Rocky Mount, operating fixed-route buses for the city,
including a portion of Country Club Road from Jeffrey's Road to Hunter Hill Road as
part of its route. The City of Rocky Mount also has a para-transit service, otherwise
known as the Dial-A-Ride Transportation Service (DARTS), which operates dial a ride
para-transit service for certain authorized residents for the City of Rocky Mount who
begin and end their trips within 3/4 mile (1.2 kilometers) of Rocky Mount Transit's fixed
routes. Riders must be certified to be eligible for para-transit service. Greyhound Lines
Inc. has a terminal in Downtown Rocky Mount providing scheduled inter-city bus
service, providing service for both urban and rural areas (Nash and Edgecombe counties)
for a total of 9 routes. Also, located in downtown Rocky Mount, AMTRAK provides
scheduled daily rail service including three northbound and three southbound routes.
Long term transportation solutions for Country Club Road will likely consist of a
mixture of roadway expansion and increased bus service. Therefore, widening this section
of Country Club Road can be viewed as one part of the overall transportation plan for the
area. However, expansion of bus service is not expected to reduce traffic volumes
sufficiently to eliminate this project's need. The mass transportation alternative, without
increasing the roadway capacity of Country Club Road, does not meet the purpose and
need of this project and was therefore eliminated from further study.
C. Widening Alternatives
The highway construction alternative consists of widening the roadway. The
anticipated traffic increase to over 24,000 vehicles per day by 2020 warrants widening to
include two lanes in. each direction to improve the level of service. The five-lane section
with center turn lane was also chosen as the best typical section because of the high left-
turn and rear-end collisions.
7
Two widening alternatives were considered, Alternatives A and B. Both involve
generally symmetrical widening of the roadway for a "best fit". Both alternatives are
identical, except in the vicinity of the Stoney Creek bridge crossing. Both also include
replacing the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The
bridge width of 69 feet (21 meters) will accommodate the five lanes and a sidewalk on
one side. Both include the realignment of the intersection of Country Club Road with
Jeffrey's Road.
Alternative A consists of widening the roadway to the west as it approaches
Stoney Creek and phase-constructing a new bridge on this west side. Alternative B is the
same concept as Alternative A, except that the new bridge will be constructed to the east
to allow for east-side widening of the roadway.
D. Capacily Analysis
The future traffic volumes (2020) for the mainline and intersections for two
conditions were evaluated: "no-build" condition, which assumes that no improvements
are made; and "build" condition, which assumes that the roadway is widened to five-
lanes. Tables 2A and 2B list the level of service. To achieve acceptable levels of service,
the intersection improvements described in Section V.I are proposed.
Table 2A: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline
Country Club Road
From/ To No Build /Build
US 64 Bus / Hunter Hill Road E / B
Hunter Hill Road / Jeffrey's Road E / B
Table 2B: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections
Intersection of Country Club Road
with.... No Build l Build
US 64 Business E / D
Hunter Hill Road E / D
Jeffrey's Road D / C
E. Recommended Alternative
Alternative B is recommended because it allows for the increased capacity,
minimizes overall impacts to the area, and avoids wetlands on the east side of the existing
roadway in the vicinity of Stoney Creek.
8
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 40 mph for the entire length of the project. Design
speed is a correlation of 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 the recommended or posted speed.
B. Typical Section
The recommended typical cross section is a five-lane, 64-foot (19.2-meter) curb
and gutter section with 8-foot (2.4-meter) berms (see Figure 4). This cross section will
provide for two 2-foot (0.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a center-turn lane for
left turns.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way will range from 84 to 100 feet (26 to 30 meters).
D. Access Control
No access control is proposed along the project.
E. Bridge/Drainage Structures
The 160-foot (49-meter) bridge carrying Country Club Road over Stoney Creek
will be replaced with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The bridge will be replaced rather
than widened because of current design requirements relating to minimum setbacks from
the top of creek bank to the fill slope of the bridge.
The two 77-inch by 52-inch (2000 by 1400 mm) corrugated steel pipes arches
carrying a tributary to Stoney Creek will be extended to accommodate the planned
roadway cross section.
The US 64-Bypass bridges will not be altered.
F. Parking
On-street parking will not be provided.
G. Sidewalks
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
9
project. At the-request of Rocky Mount, a sidewalk will also be included along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk, such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility.
H. Bicycle Provisions
No special bicycle provisions are proposed.
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Intersections with Country Club Road that are currently signalized will remain
signalized. All other intersections are proposed to remain stop sign controlled.
In addition, the proposed improvements are as follows (also see Figures 5A and
5B):
• US 64 Business - Dual left-turn lanes on the southbound Country Club
Road approach and an exclusive right-turn lane on the northbound
approach. Also recommended is an exclusive right-turn lane on the
westbound US 64 Business approach.
• Hunter Hill Road - Exclusive right-turn lanes on the northbound and
southbound County Club Road approaches.
• Jeffrey's Road -realignment of intersection, with Jeffrey's Road as the
major movement with southbound Country Club Road. Two through
lanes on northbound Country Club Road will taper down to one lane
when it becomes Jeffrey's Road.
Estimate of Costs
* Construction $6,400,000
**Right of way $7,825,000
Total Cost $14,225,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs
10
V1. HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Human Environment
1. Community Profile / Effects
a. Geographic Location
Rocky Mount is the largest city in Nash County. Much of the land in the
surrounding area and counties is primarily rural and has agriculture as the basis for much
of the economy.
b. Race, Ethnicity, and Age
In the 2000 Census, the project area (Census Tract 105.02) contained a population
of 25.3% black, which was slightly lower than the percentage of black population in the
County (33.9%) and- slightly higher than the percentage of black population in North
Carolina (21.4%) (see Table 3). The project area contained a population of .9% Hispanic.
This was slightly lower than the percentage of Hispanics (3.3%) in the County and the
percentage of Hispanic population (4.6%) in North Carolina.
Regarding age, approximately 25.1 % of the population in this project area is
above the age of 65 (see Table 4)..
11
Table 3: 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co )
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total:Population-
1990 6,287 100 87,420 100 8,049,313 100
Total Hispanic** 59 .9 2888 3.3 372,964 4.6
White 4,558 72.5 53,244 60:9 5,648,953 70.2'`
White Hispanic 16 795 153,212
Black 1,590 25.3 29,607: 33.9, 1,720,197. 21.4`
Black Hispanic 0 58 13,957
American Indian/
Alaskan 10 0.2 237 .3 97,289 1.2
American Indian/
Alaskan Hispanic 12 37 3,667
Asian 62 1.0 413 .5 110,367 1.4
Asian Hispanic 0 0 1,125
Pacific Islander 0 - 23 .03 3,081 0.04
Pacific Islander
Hispanic 0 0 618
Other 0 _-' 142 .2 8,481 .1
Other Hispanic 31 1,874 176,657
Two or More Races 8 0.1 866 1.0 88,181 1.1
Two or more Races
Hispanic 0 124 23,728
Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
* * Hispanic and Latino Ethnicity is calculated by the U.S. Census as being of any race.
Table 4: 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Total Population -
1990 6,287 100 87,420 100 8,049,313 100
0 to 64 4,712 74.9 76,445 87.4 7,079,491 88
65 or above 1,575 25.1 10,975 12.6 969,822 12
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
12
C. Income, Poverty Status, and. Unemployment
The 2000 median household income for Nash County was $37,147 comparable
with $37,064 for the project area. Per capita income for the county was $18,863, which
was lower than the per capita income for the project area ($22,335). Because median
income for the project area and Nash County are comparable, but per capita income for
the project area is higher, this may indicate that the project area has a higher percentage
of smaller sized families and/or individual households.
The project area had 588 persons (9.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom
235 (3.8%) live at or below 50% of the poverty level. Nash County had 11,478 persons
(13.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom 4970 (5.8%) live at or below 50% of the
poverty level. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the project area
(9.4%) in Census 2000 was an increase from the percentage of persons living below the
poverty level (5.3%) in Census 1990 (see Table 5).
Table 5: 2000 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Median Household $37,064 94.6 $37,147 94.8 $39,184 100
Income
Average Household N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Income
Per Capita Income $22,335 110 $18,863 ' 92.9 20,307 100
Persons below 588 9.4 11,478 13.4 958,667 12.3
poverty level - total
Persons below 50% 235 3.8 4,970 5.8 431,894, 5.5
of poverty level -
total
* Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
d. Housing Characteristics
The project area had a higher median home value ($102,800) than Nash County
($95,800). The project area homeownership rate was 50.5%. In Nash County the rate of
homeownership was 61.5%. The median rent in the project area was $530 and median
rent was $494 in Nash County. The homeownership rate of 50.5% in the project area in
2000 was notably lower than the homeownership rate for Nash County (61.5%) and was a
decrease from the 1990 homeownership rate of 54.1% for the project area (see Table 6).
13
Table 6: 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Median'Home Value $102,800 $95,800 $108;300
Homeownership Rate 50.5% 61.5%0 61.6%
Median°Rent $530 $494 `$548
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers
The land use within the general vicinity of the project, along both sides of the
road widening project, is comprised of a variety of land uses and varying densities of
residential, commercial, and office activity.
Much of the land immediately adjacent to the road is commercial in nature, with
much of the businesses being service related, such as insurance offices, restaurants, and
retail. There are no large-scale employers along the length of the project.
f. Public Facilities, Schools.and Institutions
There are no schools or other public institutions located within. the general
vicinity of the proposed project.
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
There are no emergency-related services located along the project route.
h. Existing/Future Land Uses
(1) Present/Future Zoning
The existing zoning along the project corridor is primarily a mix of varying
densities of residential, commercial and office categories. Much of the zoning directly
adjoining the road is business related zoning, with residential areas set back behind those
properties zoned for commercial activity.
As most all of the land along the road is currently developed, there is little
opportunity for significant changes in the overall land use or zoning along the road. In
addition, the City of Rocky Mount has no plans to direct changes to the zoning or land
use in this part of town.
14
(2) Development Plans
Planning documents for this part of Rocky Mount forecast no broad changes to
land use patterns or trends along Country Club Road.
i. Impact Assessment
(1) Local Plans
As the land use within the general vicinity of the road is residentially mature and
stable, the City of Rocky Mount has no long-term plans for changing the pattern of
development along Country Club Road.
(2) Economic Development
As the land surrounding the project is nearly built out, there is little opportunity
for new economic development. The proposed project improvements will not increase or
curtail specific economic activity/opportunities in the immediate project vicinity, as the
project improvements are not expected to attract new levels of traffic, or provide new
access to developable lands. In addition, the project will not generate new development or
alter existing patterns of development that might disrupt the surrounding community.
(3) Greenway Considerations
Greenways and greenway crossings are considered in the roadway planning
process. Critical corridors, which have been adopted by local governments for future
greenways, are not to be severed by roadway construction. There are no current
greenways along this section of Country Club Road.
(4) Accessibility Considerations
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the
1964 Civil Rights Act to be disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
The project will not impose excessive barriers to accessibility, though widening
the road from two lanes to five lanes will increase the distance required to cross the road.
Sidewalks are being considered for the north side of the road, between Hunter Hill Road
and Jeffrey's Road, in order to accommodate pedestrian activity in the general vicinity.
15
(5) Business, Institutional and Residential Relocations and
Impacts
There are currently no relocations associated with the widening of Country Club
Road. The most likely areas of impact to existing development appear to be to those
areas immediately adjacent to the existing road, such-as business and commercial parking
lots. There appear to be few structures located in proximity to the existing road, but there
may be conflicts with driveways, fences and other such appurtenances, due to the
addition of travel lanes.
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
The road-widening project will not split or isolate the community or the
surrounding neighborhoods along the project route.
The proposed project will not alter existing patterns of development, which might
disrupt the surrounding community.
There may be some disruption for various pedestrians, in that the wider road may
create some difficulty for various residents who might routinely. cross the road for various
purposes. Therefore, attention to theses needs in the planning and design of the new
roadway would be prudent for assisting pedestrians and bicyclists in safely using the
roadway.
(7) Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment
There are no relocations associated with this project, there should be little change
in the local tax base, either positive or negative, as the project does not impose new
intersections or interchanges, or alter the existing development patterns in the general
vicinity- of the project.
The employment base for the area within the vicinity of the road will not likely
change quickly. However, over the long term, as the proposed road improvements will
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the road, there may be changes in land use due
local development decisions and growth of the local economy.
(8) Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils,
as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils
are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
16
economic resources. Land, which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in an urban area, planned for commercial and
residential activity, and currently devoid of any agricultural activities. Therefore, the
project will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations and farmland mitigation or
avoidance will.not be necessary.
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
No river, stream or creek within the project area has been designated as a Wild
and Scenic River.
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides
that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its
provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental
justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with
respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
This project will not place disproportionately high or adverse impacts upon any
areas having low income and/or minority populations which may be located near the
project. Census data does not indicate that there are any such areas within the immediate
vicinity of this road-widening project.
This assessment has not found any evidence or indication of discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. This project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Secondary effects are indirect impacts, which are caused by or result from the
project. These may be later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of the project,
when added to other past, present, and. reasonably foreseeable future activities, regardless
of which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor, but collectively, significant activities taking place over a period of
time.
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be - depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and
other factors - encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl. Improvements to
levels of service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
The likelihood of secondary/cumulative impacts is low for this project. On its
own, the project is not expected to attract additional traffic or development. As the
project consists of widening the existing road in order to alleviate traffic congestion to
improve flow and safety, the proposed improvements will not dramatically alter the
surrounding land use, provide or impose new intersections/ interchanges, increase access
to undeveloped lands, or alter development patterns.
Many of the ultimate consequences of road improvement projects are dependent
upon various issues and decisions which are not part of the actual road construction
process, but have much to do with a myriad of decisions made by the local government(s)
at a later point in time.
Many of these issues and decisions relate to such items as local land development
regulations, planning and zoning, development demand, availability of utility
infrastructure (water and sewer), local economic development efforts, and other factors
which are part of a local economy.
In addition, improvements to a particular road's level of service, better
accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements, and reductions in travel times
can have impacts to surrounding land use which lie beyond the immediate project area.
However, as the project will result in the widening of Country Club Road from a
two lane section to a five lane section, this corridor will have an expanded capacity for
traffic flow. While expanded traffic capacity and enhanced mobility may benefit the area
in general, the larger road facility may pose the possibility of some negative aspects in the
future in terms of accessibility and congestion. This may especially be true if local land
use and development decisions for this road contribute to increased levels of traffic, and
thus reduce levels of service along the length of the project.
18
2. Cultural Resources
a. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertaking.
b. Historic Architecture
The area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was
reviewed by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. The NCDOT, NCHPO, and FHWA
agree that the eight properties older than fifty years of age within the APE are not eligible
for listing in the National Register. There are no other properties within the APE over
fifty years of age and no properties less than fifty years of age that meet eligibility
Criterion G for listing in the National Register. No further compliance with Section 106 is
required for historic architectural resources.
C. Archaeology
The NCDOT conducted an archaeological survey of the project area in February
2000. The majority of the project area was determined to be disturbed from previous
residential and commercial development. Three areas within the APE were subjected to
subsurface shovel testing. No archeological sites were recorded, and no evidence of
cultural use or occupation of the project area was encountered during the survey. This
work was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. No further
compliance with Section 106 is required for archaeological resources.
3. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
highway facility. Federal Standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), are required to set levels that protect human health. There are currently
NAAQS for six pollutants. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein
19
is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project due to traffic flow.
a. Carbon Monoxide
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway,
both local and background concentration components must be used. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operation on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 328 feet (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
component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
A micro-scale 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 near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level-roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025, using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILESA 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 (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment Health
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits of
the right-of-way approximately 15 meters from the centerline of the proposed roadway.
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005
and 2025 are 2.6 and 2.7 ppm, respectively. The predicted 1-hour average CO
20
concentrations for the evaluation no-build years of 2005 and 2025 are 2.7 and 3.4 ppm,
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; eight-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case one-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the eight-hour
CO level does not exceed the standard.
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides
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 6.21 to 12.42
miles (10 to 20 kilometers) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as 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
that forms in Los Angeles, California.
C. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide
Automobiles are not 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 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 exceed the NAAQS.
d. Project Effects
The project is located in Nash County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because the
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This
21
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
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 practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed 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.
4. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determined the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the widening of Country Club Road from two
lanes to a multi-lane facility between US 64 and Jeffrey's Road. 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 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 must be considered for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts.
a. Characteristics of Noise
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
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this repor t, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 ( see Appendix Q.
22
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.
3. The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others,
and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For
example, noises that occur during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background
noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car
horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
In a 60-dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible while sleep might be
difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by
loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises that 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.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
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 (see Appendix Q. 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.
23
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. 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 levels
along the roadway facilities in the project area as measured at 49.2 feet (13 meters)
ranged from 60.7 to 62.2 dBA. The ambient measurement locations are presented in
Table N3 (see Appendix C).
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model in order it calculate existing noise levels for comparison
with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged
approximately 1.6 dBA higher than the measured noise levels for the location where
noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the
prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that
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, physical road
characteristics (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and
can consider barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation if applicable.
In this regard, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use in
this noise analysis. The project proposes the widening of Country Club Road from two
lanes to a multi-lane facility from US 64 to Jeffrey's Road. 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
24
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 2025. 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 Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4
(see Appendix Q. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors
in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
e. Traffic Noise and Contour
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 (see
Appendix Q. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
that fall in either category.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix C). These
are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 15 residential receptors and 8 businesses will
be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 57.4 and 114.2 feet (17.5 and 35 meters),
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This 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 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 N6 (see Appendix C) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for
the identified receptors by roadway section. The maximum number of substantial impacts
anticipated is 21 receptors. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up
to +11 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to 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.
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
25
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors.
(1) 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. The highway alignment has been selected to
minimize impacts and cost; alignment revisions specifically for noise abatement is not
considered feasible.
(2) Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that 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.
(3) Noise Barriers
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement. Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of Categorical
Exclusions, Findings of no significant impacts, Record of Decision, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge
date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often 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.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the
proposed roadway, and all intersection 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
26
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 49.21 feet (13 meters) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 360 feet
(110 meters) long. An access opening of 39.37 feet (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, pages 5-27). Hence, this type of control of
access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation
measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishment 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.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative was also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 8 receptors would still experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range up 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.
h. 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.
i. Summary
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were
considered for noise mitigation. 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.
27
5. Geodetic Markers
This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.
6. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along existing Country Club Road
between US 64 Business and Jeffrey's Road. In addition to the field survey, a file search
of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any known problem
sites along the proposed project alignment.
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, three (3) facilities with the possibility
for underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified. These sites are described below.
• Fuel Doc # 9 (Citgo) is a gas station/convenience store located on the west side of SR
1616, approximately 200 feet (60 meters) north of the US 64 Business. According to
the field reconnaissance and Division of Waste Management (DWM) UST Section
registry, four (4) UST's are currently in use on the property. The pump island is
approximately 68 feet (20.7 meters0 from the centerline of US 64 Business, while the
main tank bed is approximately 109 feet (32.3 meters) away behind the building. The
proposed improvements will not impact the tanks or pump islands. One monitoring
well was noted near the tank bed. Free product was identified in this monitoring well
in March of 1998, but no follow-up work has been performed. The regulatory agency
will require further work at this site.
• Triangle Alternator Starter is located on the west side of SR 1616, just south of Weed
Road. The facility has been in operation for about 25 years. According to the
property owner, Mr. Sherrod, no other businesses have operated at the.site. There is
an in-ground hydraulic lift in the garage area, about 70 feet (21 meters) from the
centerline of SR 1616. Behind the building, approximately 34 feet (10.4 meters) from
the centerline of Weed Road, there is a heating oil UST. The proposed improvements
will not impact either tank. Both tanks are not regulated unless contamination is
identified. No monitoring wells were noted and it does. not appear that the site is
currently under remediation.
• Stoney Creek Volunteer Fire Department is located in the southwest quadrant of the
SR 1616 and Overton Drive intersection. According to fire chief, three (3) UST's
were removed from the site about 12 years ago. No registry information could be
located for the tanks. The former UST area is near the rear of the building
approximately 142 feet (43 meters) from the centerline of SR 1616. The proposed
improvements will not impact this area of the property. A monitoring well was noted
in the former tank area, but no information could be located at the DWM UST Section
in Raleigh, NC concerning the removal of tanks or the monitoring well. It does not
appear that the site is currently being monitored by the regulatory agency.
28
Research of files and databases shows no regulated or unregulated landfills
or dumpsites exist within the project area.
B. Natural Environment
1. Methodology and Definitions
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rocky Mount), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map (Rocky Mount), Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
soil maps (Nash County, 1989), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1000).
Water resource information was obtained from the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources•(DEHNR, 1994) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species
in the study area was gathered from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and species of concern (March 23, 2001), and the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists on April 7, 2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracs and
burrows). Mussels and other aquatic life were surveyed using tactile and visual
techniques by NCDOT biologists on July 23, 1999. Jurisdictional wetland determinations
were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed by the "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending .5 mi. on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with
the project occupying the central position.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
. The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Nash County is characterized by broad flat uplands between
wide, sandy drainage ways. Topography in the project area is nearly level to gently
29
sloping, partially located in the floodplain area associated with the Tar River. The project
elevation is approximately 100 feet (30 meters) above mean sea level (msl).
a. Soils
Five soil phases occur within project boundaries: Altavista sandy loam, Bibb
loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Meggett loam, and Urban land. Altavista sandy loam is
moderately well drained and nearly level to gently sloping, occurring on low terraces
along large streams. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow. The major _
limitation on development is a high water table during the winter and flooding hazard
after prolonged periods of rainfall.
Bibb loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on bottomlands of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is very slow. The water table
is at or near the surface during most of the year. Bibb loam is not suitable for
development because of flooding and wetness.
Goldsboro fine sandy loam is moderately well drained and nearly level, occurring
on broad, smooth divides in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface
runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is between 2 and 3 feet (0.6-0.9 meters)
during the winter and early spring. Wetness is a moderate limitation on silvicultural
practices and subsurface structures.
Meggett loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on flood plains of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is slow and surface runoff is very slow. A high water table is
at or near the surface for most of the year.. The major limitation on development is the
high water table and frequent flooding.
Urban land consists of land covered with roads, buildings, parking lots, and
commercial yards. The soil has been altered by grading, filling, and manipulation for
urban development. Runoff is excessive and increases flooding on adjacent low-lying
areas. Soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways are major hazards associated with
urban land.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy
clay texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low
areas of the stream flood plain and in small depression areas. Therefore, hydric soil
indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, -
were observed within the project study area.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
30
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
(1) Waters Impacted
Stoney Creek (DWQ Index No. 28-68) and an unnamed tributary to Stony Creek
are surface water resources that will be directly impacted by the proposed widening
project. Both streams are located in Sub-Basin 03-03-02 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Stoney Creek feeds into the Tar River approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers).,
downstream of the proposed widening project.
Stoney Creek, within the project boundaries, is approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters)
wide and has banks up to 20 feet (6 meters) deep. The banks are steep with a soft mucky
substrate. A pipe crosses Stoney Creek just to the east of the bridge. Upstream of the
pipe, Stoney Creek was covered with algae and duck weed on the day of the site visit.
The unnamed tributary to Stoney Creek crosses the project to the north of Stoney
Creek, just south of the US 64 overpass. The channel is approximately 2 feet (0.6 meter)
wide with 1-foot (0.3-meter) banks. Water levels in the creek varied from 2 - 6 inches
(50-150 mm). Sediment deposition was evident and little or no vegetation was present in
the channel.
A drainage ditch is located just to the north of the US 64 bypass. The ditch runs
at the toe of the fill slope and passes through a single 18-inch (450 mm) concrete culvert
under Country Club Road. The ditch varies in depth from 1 - 3 feet (0.3 - 0.9 meter), is
full of vegetation, leaf litter and debris, and shows no signs of flowing water.
(2) Best Usage Classification
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Stoney Creek (Index No. 28-68) is CNSW.
The C classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses. NSW
classification denotes waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds; or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of project study area.
(3) Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. The basin-wide approach allows for more intensive
sampling of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basin-wide
31
assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled
for specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator
of water quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a
relatively long life cycle, are non-mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse.
The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health
of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in
water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review.
A Benthic macroinvertebrate collection site is located on Stoney Creek upstream
of the project area at SR 1603. This station was sampled in 1992 and received an EPT
taxa richness value of 9 and a bio-classification of Fair (DWQ, 1993). Stoney Creek was
listed a partially supporting in North Carolina's 1998-303(d) list (DWQ, 1998). Sediment
was identified as the problem parameter. Benthos data collected from the Tar River
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) downstream of its confluence with Stoney Creek
indicate generally Good/Fair water quality with no long term changes.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1997). The closest monitoring site to
the project area is located on the Tar River at NC Hwy 97 at Rocky Mount. Ambient
water chemistry data indicate that nitrate/nitrite nitrogen values and total phosphorous
values increase substantially from the NC Hwy 97 site to the site downstream of the
Rocky Mount WWTP.
Point source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharge
is required to register for a permit. Two NPDES permits are registered within 1.0 mi. of
the project area. Permit No. NCG510155 is held by Stallings Oil Company for discharge
into an unnamed tributary of the Tar River. Permit No. N00072133 is held by Sunset
Avenue Water Filtration Plant for discharge into the Tar River.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use
activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution, including land
development, construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediments and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off
the ground and carried into surface waters. Road and parking lot runoff were the only
identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during the site visit.
32
(4) - Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of project construction. The
impacts were calculated using the full proposed right of way for each bridge alternative
(see Table 7). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 7: Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters

Stream Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
(feet) (meters) (feet) (meters)
Stoney Creek 40 °(12) 40(12)
UT to Stoney Creek 40(12) 40(12)
TOTAL ' 80(24) 80(80)
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills, and increased traffic volume.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
33
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described-and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Community
Four communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest,
Maintained/disturbed, and Aquatic Community. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. The
Bottomland Hardwood Forest has wetland communities associated within its boundaries.
Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those fauna restricted
to the aquatic environment.
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater
Sub e
This community is located on the west side of the project to the south of Stoney
Creek. Periodic flooding during high flow periods drives the bottomland hardwood
forest. Sediment deposition may supply limited nutrient input in blackwater systems.
However, periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils. The bottomland hardwood forest community
grades to the Disturbed Pine forest community.
The woody, species in this community consist of red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The shrub layer consists of saplings of
the canopy trees, American elm (Ulmus americana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera).
, The herbaceous layer was very sparse, consisting of river oats and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest community is located in uplands throughout
the project area, fragmented by residential and commercial development. This community
34
is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with a thick understory of hardwood saplings
and herbaceous vegetation. The understory includes white oak (Quercus alba), tulip
poplar, sweetgum, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), loblolly pine, river birch, winged
elm (Ulmus alata), and Southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The herbaceous layer
consists of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), Virginia creeper(Parthenocisus quenquefolia), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
(3) Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community is the largest community type within the
project area. This includes the road shoulders along Country Club Road, the area around
the bridge, and the residential and commercial yards. Periodically maintained areas
include the sewer line easement along Stoney Creek and the unnamed tributary and the
power line easement parallel to Country Club Road near the southern end of the project.
Flora within this community includes: fescue (Festuca sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
dock (Rumex sp), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum),
wild onion (Allium stellatum), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), dog fennel
(Eupatorium spp.), and honeysuckle. The powerline easement, which is less intensively
maintained, also contains pokeweed, chinese privette, blackberry, horsenettle (Solanum
carolinence), and catbrier. Small depression areas under the powerlines contained
juncus, sedges, jewelweed, hibiscus, cardinal flower, and river oats. However, there were
no hydric soil indicators found on the day of the site investigation.
b. Aquatic Community
The Aquatic community consists of Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary.
Physical descriptions of these communities are included in the previous section. Stoney
Creek was covered with duckweed above the cross-pipe on the day of the field
investigation. The northern banks extend approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) above water
level. They were steep and eroding, with little herbaceous cover and few trees or shrubs.
The southern banks, ranging from approximately 1 - 4 feet (0.3 -1.2 meters) above the
water, were covered with herbaceous vegetation such as jewelweed, river oats, fescue,
dayflower, and ragweed. Stoney Creek flows along side the bottomland hardwood
community on the west side of the project, and bisects the mixed pine hardwood
community on the east side of the project.
The unnamed tributary has little bank vegetation, grading immediately into the
mixed pine hardwood community.
C. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes the golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species utilizing these areas include the Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
(2) Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and amphibians such as
cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) and chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) may use the
shallow, fairly disturbed habitat found in the unnamed tributary. Invertebrates that are
likely present include crayfish (family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and
damselflies (Order Odonata), and caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera). Stoney Creek may
support these species in addition to silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Fauna identified in
Stoney Creek during the field review included mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies
(Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum, Physella sp.). The N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats recorded the
occurrence of three species in the Tar River approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers)
downstream of the project area: Eastern lamp mussel (Lampsilis radiata), Roanoke
slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), and creeper (Strophitus undulatus) also known as
Squawfoot.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the
two project alternatives. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well. .
Calculated impacts on terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternative are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
36
Table 8: Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Alternative A
Alternative B
Community type (Acres) (Hectares) (Acres) (Hectares)
(Recommended)
Bottomland.Hardwood Forest. < 0:35 (0.14) 0
Mixed Pine Hardwood 1.51 (0.61) 1.77 (0.61)
Maintained/Disturbed 5.0 (2.0
Aquatic Community 0.03 (0.012) .03 (0.012)

Total
6.89 (2.79)
_T
6:89 (2:79)
-1
Selection of Alternative B will result in the lowest impact on the bottomland
hardwood forest biotic community in the project area.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening of Country Club Road will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the
small size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be
minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from construction-related work will affect water
quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, indirect
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of Benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish, and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover and repopulate a stream.
37
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the stream bank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds, and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Defined in 33 CFR §328.3, wetlands 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).
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used, where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
The wetlands in the project area are described in as Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Soil cores taken in this area revealed soils with a Munsell color notation of 2.5Y8/1 with
mottles of 2.5Y6/8, at a depth of within 1 foot (0.3 meter) of the soil surface. Vegetation
present within this area includes red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, river birch, tulip
poplar, and black gum. The herbaceous species, where present, consist of river oats and
greenbrier.
Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary are jurisdictional surface waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,
physical, and water quality aspects of this channel and associated waterways are
presented in previous sections of this report.
38
(2) - Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 9 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface water area in the
proposed road widening project area. Anticipated impacts to these areas are determined
by using the entire ROW width for each alternative. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 9: Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas
Feature Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
Bottomland Hardwood- -.16 acres (0.06 ha)_ - 0 acres (0 ha)
Stoney Creek 40 ft. (12 m) 40 ft. (12 m)
Unnamed'Tributary ; 40 ft. (12 m) 40-ft. (12 m)
(3) Permits
Minimal impacts to "Waters of the United States" are anticipated. As a result,
permits will be required under the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). In
accordance with provisions of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit is
required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or. fill material into "Waters of the
United States". In accordance with Section 401, a Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality is required prior to the issuance of the Section
404 permit. Section 401 Certification ensures that the state's water quality standards are
not violated. Because of the minimal impacts anticipated from the proposed project,
a Nationwide Permit # 14 is suggested along with the corresponding General Water
Quality Certification.
(4) Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters).
Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts,
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.
39
(a) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the United States". A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE states that 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.
Avoidance can include selecting the project alignment alternative that presents the least
impact to wetland and surface water areas. Avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is
unavoidable due to these resources being located on both sides of the roadway.
(b) 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 of median widths and fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms to minimize
impacts to "Waters of the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life to the project, reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, reduction/
elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of runoff velocity, re-establishment
of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide use, minimization of
"in-stream' activity, and litter/debris control. Minimization specific to this project
include the bridge replacement utilizing a longer bridge and widening to the east in
the proximity of Stoney Creek (Alternative B).
(c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 wetland and stream functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States". Such
actions should be undertaken in area to or contiguous to the discharge site, if possible.
Due to the minimal impact of the proposed project, the need for compensatory
mitigation is not expected.
b. 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 human activities. Federal law
40
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
(1) 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 (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists the following federally protected species
for Nash County (see Table 10). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
Table 10: Federally-Protected Species for Nash County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS

Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Elli do steinstansana Tars in mussel E
Picoides borealis Red=cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
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
Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and Stoney Creeks of the Tar River system. This 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
Stoney Creek, within the project study area, does not provide optimal habitat for
the dwarf wedge mussel. Upstream of the project, the stream banks are eroding and the
stream was covered with duckweed. Flow was sluggish and didn't appear to be well
oxygenated. Downstream of the project, the banks were covered with a thick mucky
layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No dwarf wedge mussels
were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
41
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma -decisum,
Physella sp.). The stream is subject to pollutant inputs of residential and commercial
areas. In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any
records of the dwarf wedge mussel within the study area. This project will not affect the
dwarf wedge mussel.
Elli do steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) E
The Tar River spiny-mussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from
Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County.. Populations of the Tar River
spiny-mussel 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 noncompacted 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 spiny-mussel 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
Habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel in the form of fast flowing, well-oxygenated
waters are not found within the project study area. Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary
are subject to sediment and pollutants in the area runoff. The banks are covered with a
mucky layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No Tar River spiny
mussels were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum,
Physella sp.). In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain
any records of the Tar River spiny mussel within the study area. This project will not
affect the- Tar River spiny mussel.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
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 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.
42
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 500.0 acres (202 hectares). 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 12 -100 feet (3.6 - 30 meters) above the ground and average 30 - 50 feet (9 -15
meters) 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 and the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the form of old growth stands of pine
with an open understory is not found within the project study area. Wooded areas consist
of young pines and hardwoods with a dense shrub layer. Residential and commercial yards
fragment the forest throughout the project area. Furthermore, the NCNHP database,
reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any records of the red-cockaded woodpecker
within the study area. This project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 11 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the presence
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.
43
Table 11: Federal Species of Concern for Nash County
n n angere species is one w ose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora
is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Nash County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program (see Figure 6). The project is not within a water supply watershed area or high
quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures. The project will not significantly impact any major
wetlands. Groundwater resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway
approaches are primarily on fill. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practicable.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods, shiner SR No
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T/PE No
Fuscona a=masons Atlantic pigtoe 1 :T/PE No
Lampsilis cariosa , Yellow lampmussel T/PE No
Lasmigana subviridis Green floater E No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* No
Lilium.'ridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Trillium pusillum var.

pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
`E"--A E d d h
44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Solicited
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed
in this document.
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
On May 20, 1999, a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and
suggestions about the improvements. The workshop was held at Englewood Elementary
School Cafeteria located in Rocky Mount. Ten people attended to express their interest in
the project.,
C. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the circulation of
this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public
about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional
comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
CRC/cc
45
APPENDIX A
Figures

velar ++
c Saoa
Ise
LIMITS

z \

Duos a? = ?e
BUS
8/
?? 1616

e n, PROJECT L5

///.•; 1836 u:
•
BYP
act
a tb • 1lYO /:•
1804
i .i
d• ?
e o 1604
? trA•1t , ? Y -1:E
6i.
•z sync - -
?2
N .?
Battle- ,
-Park
1 '.Y
r a
/UU
\:' ( 4Ai
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
G? TRANSPORTATION
Lr/" PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
w
ROCKY MOUNT
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (SR 1616)
FROM US 64 BUSINESS
TO JEFFREYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
US COUNTRY BIESS ROAD f?R 1616) WIDENING
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
b?
r?
o SR 1541
eon ? ° (JEFFREYS FtD )
10176
1? j1 TO 612 156 228
356 9848
osM a 10164 2832 1200 10708 SR 1544
1948 124 a ? 10 (HUNTER HILL RD.)
rO??
US 64 BYP

7_6?
107$8 G
10
?
55 21)
LEGEND
0000 .= vpd
DHV - Deftft Hourly Volume (%)
D . DkvcdonW %)
-- w DkecdonofD
(5,1) Duel Truck TTST (%)
em/pm AM or PM Peak
DHV (0? D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DHV S D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-A: ESTIMATED 2002 ADT
US ? BUSINESS CLUB ROAD R 1616) WIDENING
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
60
cs v
10-70
($1) 900 Milt-TO
500 12800
PM
N;:! g 4200
rz 1) 14700 1200 11500
4900 I J4'700 05 ( 1 1°
DO
ba` Q`?jG
ry ?ry
US 64 BYP
ab/
ry
e
10
12300
56;(2,0io

13200
SR 1544
(HUNTER HILL RD.)
1
(?EF?RD•)
LEGEND
0000 - vpd
DHV s Design Hourly Voko w (%)
D . DUecbonW(%)
-- 0- Di scrim of D
(s 1) DusI Thock 7TST (%)
envpm AM orPM ~
Pm
0
DHV ( 1 D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DHV d D /F NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-8 : ESTIMATED 2020 ADT
Z
O
V
J
Q
V
CL
Q
Q
O
ad
0
to
O
O.
O
I.f
CL
a
3
LL.
0
a
O
O

I
N
r
N
N

c
W
0
l?
?CL
r?z-
LU
W

z
P
N
X
W
W
W
a
W
N
O
0
ce
0.
zz I= u i
0 EE
2 =iii
? il=
z 4u=
o
2
Q
Z
N O
d
" m0
M
oSOVHQD
=??ZZ?
?o?f-y V
?zzZ?O?
oo??mQ0

ot?c -.0
U
_
LU
. c
< LL
0 w
Z N
c v
U.
?

i ti4•, W

U-
0
C O ?.
v c
m W
E V
N >
.c •`-
c 0
.N
C C
E "v m
i5 C -0
C C 3
? V
? ? m N
3 > E
? E
E E •.
Z o c Z
00
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND US 61 BUSINESS
(SOUTHERN PROJECT TPRMINEQ
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
II
II
II
1414
US 64 BUSINESS
•
hlf
i
i
I
ZEBULON ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND HUNTER HILL ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I
I
III
III
III
+j ?Ifly
- - - y HUNTER HILL ROAD
Z
hitl?l?
III
III
III
III
FIGURE 5-A
-- J
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND JEFFERYS ROAD (REALIGNED INTERSECTION)
(NORTHERN PROJECT TERMINEL)
JEFFREYS ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
i I
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
FIGURE 5-8
APPENDIX B
Comments from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies

t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 4, 1999
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID 199920381; State Project No. 8.2321601, TIP
No. U-3331.
William D. Gilmore, P.E.,. Manager
Project Development and 1999
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your January 12, 1999 letter requesting comments
on the proposed improvements to SR 1616 (Country Club Road), in
Rocky Mount, in Nash County, North Carolina (State Project No.
8.2321601, TIP No. U-3331).
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for any discharge of excavated or fill material into waters
and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the
disposal of construction debris.
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may.
involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States. Potentially affected water bodies include Stony
Creek, below headwaters.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our
Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. If there are only minor impacts to waters,
including wetlands, it is probable that the work could be authorized
under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such
activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department
of the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fill activities
requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no
practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review
emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the
natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is
considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in
greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred.
In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland and stream impacts
will be satisfied prior to the final permit decision. A
Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a final
plan for compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream impacts
is approved.
We recommend that you coordinate with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service unddr Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
regarding potential impact to the endangered Alasmidonta
heteredon (Dwarf wedge mussel), which has known populations in
Stony Creek.
I am responsible for processing your application and I am
available to assist you if you have any questions or comments, at
telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
c Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section
September 9, 1999
ur?t V ED
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
SEF 131999 Z v'
or,. 0
This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting our comments on
"Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division commented on wetland issues for this
project by letter to you dated February 4, 1999. Enclosed are our comments on flood
plain issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
September 9,1999
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381)
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
The proposed roadway improvements are located within the jurisdiction of the city
of Rocky Mowit, which is a paiucipant ii-,the National i-lood linsurance Program, (INF111"').
Based on a review of Panel 5 of the January 1982 Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map of the same date, the roadway crosses Stony Creek, a
detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a Foodway
defined. Reference is made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your office.
The Improvements should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP,
administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific
questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be
referred to the local building official.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
geCE o
. Jet
S
w : i+R?I.YL"'I"EVEL0?11
i
ANAL!
This responds to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP # U-3331). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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). This report also serves as initial
scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Country Club
Road.to a five-lane curb and gutter section from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road.
't ...- ' ?. a
Ti:c ?CiiSSiiiil Of tlic Sci Jl%: iS "w'G.ti_ ni ilg wJ tlGa 1.1 S ? w ?Yu J'dc leadersliit) iri ?l"ic^. CunSei': dtion,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you-in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Rocky Mount 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Nash County. At this time. there are three species listed as endangered. In addition,
there are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. In
particular, the endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in Stony Creek
which is crossed by Country Club Road. A field survey for this species should be performed and
the results forwarded to the Service for evaluation. Environmental documentation should include
survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should
be included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects.of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. T he environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
3
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manna in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although.FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, an d to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Violin M. H er
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
4
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Mark Davis)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/21/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-3331.tip
5
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Series In NASH County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
?8'15' 78' 77045'
36'
35'45'

%?
?1 7

n I.
/ ) ?^?? --" *,-..
s /
e _
r 1
c?
.1c sr? /
11000,
r N
u S
/ z
. /
.Y a
„? .. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service °1' ? 3 4 5 MILES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program o 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
expires 1/31/99
Mapping
Threatened and
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Q Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
(5 Waccamaw Silverside
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
Eastern Cougar
(D) Red Wolf
Symbols for
Endangered Species
Plants
? American Chaffseed
<<<, Harpere l la
<s> Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
?.;., Seabeach Amaranth
_*,-.,Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
` Smooth Coneflower
Seaturtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
A
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commi.ssion®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Ilighway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 11, 1999
SUBJECT:. Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1616 (Country Club
Road) widening, from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffreys Road) in
Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3331, SCH
Project No. 99-E-0695.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore 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 improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, 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
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Memo
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
June 11, 1999
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.
Wedand 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 (COE). 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.
S: 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Depnrtment of Enviro>;iment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Protest Time
(Statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPUCA77ON PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site impection. Poo-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters
(90 Sys)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 190 days before begin activity. On-site impection. Pro-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to eruct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate.4ir Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)

O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect.) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or par must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Pertnit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater 30 days
Um one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before acnial bum is planned"
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin eomtruction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, impect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also rewire 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A (60 days)
.
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cast will be required
upon completion.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
June 21, 1999

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping - Widen Country Club Road, Rocky Mount
REFERENCE: 99-E-0695
The proposed project crosses Stony Creek a short distance from its confluence with a
reach of the Tar River identified as the Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat by the
Natural Heritage Program. The following rare species have been recorded in this
reach close to the confluence with Stony Creek:
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), state listed as Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), state listed as Special Concern
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
_ These species and other aquatic organisms are potentially vulnerable to water quality
M ...r_, degradation resulting from this project. We therefore strongly recommend that:
..
• All best management practices be followed for the control of erosion and
sedimentation
roject be fully cured before coming into contact
ed in this
t
ll
p
e us
concre
That a
• .:
z with the waters of Stony Creek.
_ • That weep holes used in the bridge crossing Stony Creek not be located above
the channel of the creek.
"r

P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
0 FA
NCDENR
May 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Projectevelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water QualityC/ C.
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601,
TIP U-3331.
Reference your correspondence dated May 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3331. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the project will cross at least two perennial
streams; the Stoney Creek (Index Number 28-68, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters) and the Goose Branch
Creek (Index Number 28-70, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Both streams are located in the Tar-
Pamilico River Basin. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to determine the
presence of other streams in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structurestmeasures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-333 1\U-3331 scoping comments.doc
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 17, 1999
dp STATE o? - '!
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trarispo ation
FROM: David Brook f
eserva on 61`r -b-?
Deputy State H?sto
SUBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky
Mount, Nash County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1616(4), State Project 8.2321601, TIP,
U-3331, 99-E-4220-0695
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. Two archaeological sites, 31NA18
and 31NA24, are in close proximity to the project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that
may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown
resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National -Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration: If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ct. 31' s, ?SU1E °
r+?wrnw`a-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

April 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook i - D?r?'C i DEL
Deputy State Hist `c Preservation Officer
M'
t?
• A
Archaeological Survey Report, SR 1616 from US 64 to SR 1541, U-3331, Nash i
ER 99-8094

We have reviewed the subject archaeological survey report and find that it meets the guidelines of this
office and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We note that no archaeological sites were located and
agree with the conclusion of the report that a finding of no historic properties would be appropriate.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National'Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: R. Shelton, FHWA
T. Padgett, NCDOT
N. Sheehan, NCDOT

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] - 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] - 715-4801
i

TIP # () ?i331 Federal Aid # :sf County P k.,(4
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

On .4- , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
?- Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultatior
Utner
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less thati fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/ Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properuz.-
identified as I -#'ovgk 8 are
/ considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
y there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
(/ ?? Jar c /? i 1
Representati e, NCDOT Date
12- / 192
• FHwA, f the Divi ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
l 1:_? /e,t,- 17 off

Kttve,
?l

Preservation Officer

7
If a survey report is prepared. a Final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

May 21, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.
Manager
Project Development and Analysis Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541)
Rocky Mount, Nash.County, F.A. Project STP (1616-4),
State Project No. 8.2321601, T.I.P. U-3331
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
EMTMENT OF
ENGINEERING
The City of Rocky Mount supports the widening of Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541) from two lanes to five lanes with curb and gutter. We believe
this project will be an asset to the community.
The project is included in the City's Transportation Plan and has been approved by the Rocky
Mount MPO Technical Advisory Committee. The project is included in the MPO Transportation
Improvement Priority List.
The City of Rocky Mount does have some existing utilities within the right-of-way of Country
Club Road. We will be glad to assist your design staff in locating the utilities within the right-of-
way-
We are not aware of any other information that will be helpful in the evaluating the
environmental impact of this project. The City of Rocky Mount is delegated review for Sediment
and Erosion Control Permits by NC DENR but for governmental projects, the permit must be
issued by the NC DENR.
We look forward to progress on this project. If you have any questions or need our assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
incerely,
Pierce, P.E.
Director of Engineering
IVE45
MAY 241999
OH??j?YS-

CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT
APPENDIX C
Noise Analysis
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

a
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
-1 110
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 at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m 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 at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10-
0 1 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
a
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "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
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
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
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
F RLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
oise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
50 >=15
50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
M
aM
h+?l
H
W
W
1?1
z
z
W

U
t-
N
N
ce.
4t
a
H
c
O
Uc?
O
U
O
3
a?
z
CAi
CA
M
Q
d'
10

w
<
E2 o
i ° %° v
O r
z??-
z

a H
t0 Rt ? y
U V C7 C7 ?
?
W
O
N
? ?
YY
O
Li N
t y

3? a, v
Im N O

q
qtr
N
N
o
z x N v?
s o
F o s
U O z 0
o z
U

o
° 0
°

o c
v a
b 4

? y
L L

u
C/) O o9 ?
M b0
(N _
N T?
N
U
?
Er to
tC/) ee

E- - N M C7

W
F
O
z
U
an
a
w '
-? ¢ r- a` :00 00 00 r t t.- t- it- 't- 't- t- t- tl- t- t- 00 r- t- t- 00 !00 :00
W w
>
Ul U + + + + + + + '+ + !+ + + + + + + + + + .+ + + + +
i

-I
M
M
M
a
rr^^ H
(V7ryNll
C
1?1
0 U
z?zA
rT?rT _?
F?1
0
U
?O
l? 0% "O .\ IC No An h M h i0N itn h h %O AD 't :?,o IN An Tn MT t` r-
\0 1?10 ID Ao 1\0 '\o b NO !1.0 AID 1\0 ?o AD :?o ?o ''o 'gyp :\O :\0 ?o I :D :%O \0
W ,
W
U ,
a

Q !O i0 i0 :O
N :O 'O
- O IO 10 jO .O ;O •O 'O :- !. i0 i0 :O !O O ;O :O O

3
Q .. :t
:N -- 'N 'N n0
:t
N N '00 .? °: !O !H !- 1 ip Ivi
N N .M -- '
i
'N
! p ?j : (y
'
?
;
M iM
M
N N ;en en
N M iN
N N N

OC W

z O .
¢
CL ?z

? I
I
? i
W Z? W
M

O

W O N oo 100

In
V1
\0 A
D :00 i?

In 'kn 00 .00 loo i0o :N 00 0o 10o !a\

to 'kn An n :•?o 4n
t ? !00 00 00 i0o i0 i
!O?
A
14
A
?t
t
10+
'W
W !
:
I : !h I
n n h
n
n
n :
n No n

Q

W z 3 i? j
- - - - - - - - - - -
-

l?
Z W 0: '?' !

O,

; °
O c7 vyi u U ;im m :m ;m M M
:m IM m m :U m ;Q :m
IM .U U iV U 'U ' c 'U m
.

IM: -4
G
L f .
O
' V] : U
V V U Q; V U :(U; U' U U V U _ !Q A
G+ : _ y iy lU -U U '.U V 'U U -U !y iU V : V U V y V1V1 ?y y "3 y
, Q . U . V . U . U N. U ; U'U U' 4) U' U U U . U U '. U• N U' U ' U
Z
O
E- : Q
W ° '? '? a 'a
LIE 00 ,CU c14 oC 'a a
:w ,0. a a a a a 'a 'a a
t4 a ?oC oC ,C7 .cG ,? _oG a a r/l '?
C IM `1M ;M ;GC 'GO 'tr..
M 'Q
Q
. _
W ^ 'N 'M i--tr :h
\ t- 00 O :O !^ ;N !M 4 w) -'o t- 100 .42% ;N
N
N Q
'N
' M

Vf ?
lO 00
p ,O
N ?
y =
O C
w X
y d
O lC
: s
= y
O
U U
y >
+Ui ?
O ?
M O
1 t:.
>' W
O
tn
cc
U
O n
Q
a?
H w
p U
y M
y N
>? L
V
3 °'
? U
O
L a.
O .y
o °
a
o. ?
Q Q
0
x
s
7
M
M
? a
? H
EW-•+ U
z U z A
a z 's ?
F w ,? 0
al U
W
M?1
z?
Con
O w o 0 0
Q
az ---
?pF?„ C o ! o 0

w Q a
c?. u o 0 0
Q ? U
M

O N

W ?

N

0
X W

12.
a 0
. -- - - - ---
94 U
W E"
? Q O O O
Q

O Q F
Q
U p IM O
r
M O
W
W
w

c

a?+ R
O
z
z ?,
E-

m o ?
Ix
CC ?
?o -

0 0
I
I
-
-
L7. LL
N
3
O
h
0
?o
a
w
?- o
:r
d ?
? U
O ?
L y
b?+ GU O.T.
br
N .d
L
3
O y
i
R N
8
L y
R
'A f.
O
c ?
R .?
E R
O m
h N
N
• r
Q
W
Q
z?
Wz
a
a
W
z°
U
w
fs.
H
M
M
M
a,
0
C? Q
z
o O
?z
U
0
w
a
0=
a

F
Cl)
w N
Q ?O . c
O O
O
U

a W w
z
w;?
,
^
a
o o
a
=
z
z
cn
O O O
w
u
Z
N

a
W

N o 0 0
..a
w
c O O O

a c o 0 0

? N
a
U ? o 0 0
w
o 0 0

z
a_ 3
y
y
V
w
Q 0

O O
v a
..,
Lr. LL
N
N
z
w
a
w
0
0
M
a?
u
y N
yz
?w
c m
F
y cc
? L
.3 N
H ?
l0 0
? t
r
0 -0
A A
? .C
C C
N ?
to VJ
a a
N
,Y eaSTAIE°
?7Y d y??
?Q vw,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
NCDENR- Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele:
October 10, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
OCT 14 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Rocky Mount, SR 1616 (Country Club Road),
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road), Nash County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601, WBS No. 34927.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3331
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources Technical Report
for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a
"Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide planning
agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as discussed
in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded to:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by December 1, 2003. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of
No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Gregory J.
Project De
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
Analysis Branch
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
r
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
OCT 14 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)

r
Approved:
Zz o3
Da e.
vk - 5
Date
-
Gregory J. Thorpe, .D., En ironmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
JVhn 1'.
Federal
o
III, Division Administrator
Administration

E?
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
August, 2003
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and
N94= ie- C442
Charles R. Cox, P.E.
Project Development U /tHead
Robert P. Hanson, P.E. '
1 sis Branch by:
rJum
SS?nt ??
SEAL
19328
Assistant Manager
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
VMS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
Division 4 Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will replace the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge over Stoney Creek with a
180-foot (55-meter) long bridge to allow for additional hydrologic trespass.
Program Development Branch, Division 4 Design Unit Division 4 Construction
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
project. At the request of Rocky Mount; a sidewalk will also be included along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk; such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility.
Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 1
August, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................. i
v
1
A. Type of Action ...................................................................................... i
B. General Description .............................................................................. i
C. Project Benefits .................................................................................... i
D. Alternatives Considered ....................................................................... i
E. Recommended Alternative .................................................................. ii
F. Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................... ii
G. Permits Required ................................................................................. ii
H. Coordination ........................................................................................ii
1. Additional Information ..........:............................................................iii
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .....................................1
A. General Description ............................................................................1
B. Transportation Plan ............................................................................. I
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................... 2
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................................................. 2
B. Accident History ................................................................................... 2
C. Regional Planning ..........................................:..................................... 3
D. Purpose of Project ................................................................................ 3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ..........................................4
A. Length of Project .................................................................................. 4
B. Route Classification ............................................................................. 4
C. Existing Typical Section ...................................................................... 4
D. Project Terminals ................................................................................ 4
E. Right of Way ....................................................................................... 4
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures .................................................................. 4
G. Speed Limit .......................................................................................... 5
H. Access Control ..................................................................................... 5
1. Intersection and Type of Control .......................................................... 5
J. Utilities ......... :....................................................................................... 5
K. School Buses ......................:................................................................. 5
L. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................... 5
M. Sidewalks .............................................................................................. 5
N. Parking .................................................................................................. 5
0. Bicycle Provisions ................................................................................ 6
P. Greenways .........................................................................................:.. 6
Other TIP Projects in Area .............................................................:. 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................... 7
A. "No Build" Alternative ....................................................................... 7
B. Mass Transportation Alternative ......................................................... 7
C. Widening Alternative ......................................................................::.. 7
D. Capacity Analysis 8 •
................................................................................
E. Recommended Alternative ............................................................
...... 8
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................9
A. Design Speed ...................................................................................... 9
B. Typical Section ................................................................................... 9
C. Right of Way ....................................................................................... 9
D. Access Control ................................................................................... . 9
E. Bridge/Drainage Structures ................................................................. 9
F. Parking ................................................................................................ 9
G. Sidewalks ............................................................................................ . 9
H. Bicycle Provisions .............................................................../............ 10
1. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ..................................... 10
J. Estimate of Costs .............................................................................. 10
VI. HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................11
A. Human Environment .........................................................................11
1. Community Profile/Effects ..........................................................11
a. Geographic Location .............................................................11
b. Race, Ethnicity and Age .......................................................11
c. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment .........................13
d. Housing Characteristics .....................................:..................13
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers ...............................14
f. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions ....................:........14
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services .................................14
h. Existing/Future Land Uses ....................................................14
(1) Present/Future Zoning ..................................................14
(2) Development Plans ......................................................15
i. Impact Assessment ................................................................15
(1) Local Plans ...................................................................15
(2) Economic Development ................................................ 15
(3) Greenway Considerations ............................................15
(4) Accessibility Considerations ........................................15
(5) Business, Institutional, and Residential Relocation
Impacts .........................................................................16
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion..... 16
(7) . Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment ..............16
(8) Farmland Impacts .........................................................16
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds ..............17
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice .............................17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ...................................18
2. Cultural Resources ......................................................................19
a. Compliance Guidelines .........................................................19
• b. Historic Architecture .............................................................19
c. Archeology ............................................................................19
3. Air Quality ..................................................................................19
a. Carbon Monoxide ................................................................. 20
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides ...................................... 21
c. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide .................................. 21
d. Project Effects ....................................................................... 21
.4. Traffic Noise ...:........................................................................... 22
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................ 22
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................... 23
c. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................... 24
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels .:.................... 24
e. Traffic Noise and Contour .................................................... 25
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................... 25
(1) Highway Alignment .....................................................26
(2) Traffic System Management Measures ........................ 26
(3) Noise Barriers ..............................................................26
g. "Do Nothing„ Alternative ..................:.................................. 27
h. Construction Noise ................................................................ 27
i. Summary ............................................................................... 27
5.. Geodetic Markers ........................................................................ 28
6. Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 28
B. Natural Environment ......................................................................... 29
1. Methodology and Definitions ..................................................... 29
2. Physical Resources ...................................................................... 29
a. Soils ...................................................................................... 30
b. Water Resources ................................................................... 30
(1) Waters Impacted .......................................................... 31
(2) Best Usage Classification ............................................ 31
3 Water Quality 31
(4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 33
3. Biotic Resources ......................................................................... 33
a. Biotic Community ................................................................. 34
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype) ................................................... 34
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest ...................................... 34
(3) Maintained/Disturbed .................................................. 35
b. Aquatic Community 35
c. Wildlife ................................................................:................ 35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna .......................................................... 36
(2) Aquatic Fauna .............................................................. 36
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................................... 36
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................:.. 38
a. Waters of the United States ................................................... 38
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 38
(2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
(3) Permits ......................................................................... 39
(4) Mitigation .....................................................................39 v
(a) Avoidance ........................................................... 40
(b) Minimization .......................................................40
(c) Compensatory Mitigation ................................... 40
b. Rare and Protected Species ................................................... 40
(1) Federdlly-Protected Species ......................................... 41
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species.. 43
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................................................... 44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................... 45
A. Comments Solicited .................................:........................................ 45
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop ................................................... 45
C. Public Hearing .................................................................................. 45
TABLES

Table 1 Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road) ............ 3
Table 2A 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline ........................... .. 8
Table 2B 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections ..................... .. 8
Table 3 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co.).. 12
Table 4 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.) ...................................... 12
Table 5 2000 Income measures and Persons Living
Below Poverty Level (Nash Co.) ............................................ 13
Table 6 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co.) .............................. 14
Table 7 Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters .................................. 33
Table 8 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......................... 37
Table 9 Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas .... 39
Table 10 Federally-Protected Species for Nash County ........................ 41
Table 11 Federal Species of Concern for Nash County ........................ 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic of Project Area
Figures 3A, 3B .2002 and 2020 Traffic
Figure 4 Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figures 5A, 5B Intersection Improvements
Figures 6 FEMA Floodplain Map
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Noise Analysis
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
- From US 64 Business to SR 1541. (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This Environmental Assessment action is being taken because the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed
project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation (likely a
Finding of No Significant Impact document).
B. General Description
The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes to widen SR 1616
(Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road) in Nash County.
The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-
lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide
12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for most of the project. The bridge over
Stoney Creek will be replaced. The total project length is approximately 1.4 miles
2.2 kilometers).
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition, and $6,700,000 for construction.
The current estimated cost is $14,225,000. Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 and construction in FY 2005.
C. Project Benefits
The proposed widening of Country Club Road to a multi-lane facility will provide
an overall positive benefit for this section of Rocky Mount. This improvement will help
reduce travel times, and improve traffic flow and safety along Country Club Road.
D. Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the project consist of "no-build", mass
transportation, and two widening alternatives.
E. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative proposes to widen the existing Country Club Road
to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the entire length
of the project. The alignment is a combination of symmetrical widening and widening to
one side for a "best fit" to minimize impacts. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for the entire length of the project. The
recommendation includes the replacement of the existing bridge with a bridge 180 feet
(55 meters) long and 69 feet wide (55 meters by 21 meters) to accommodate the five
lanes of traffic and a sidewalk on one side. The intersection of Country Club Road and
Jeffrey's Road will be realigned as part of this project.
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a
result of the project. The proposed project will not impact any historic structures eligible
for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended alternative
will not encroach upon any archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National
Register. It is anticipated no residential or business relocations will occur as a result of
this proposed improvement. Future noise levels are expected to increase up to +11 dBAs.
G. Special Permits Required
Approximately .16 acres (0.06 hectares) of wetlands and 80 feet (24 meters) of
stream impacts are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit will be required with the US Army
Corps of Engineers. A Water Quality Certification will be required by the NC Division of
Water Quality.
H. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N .C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
ii
Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
Copies of the written comments received are included in Appendix B.
1. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting either of the following:
John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
iii
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes
to widen SR 1616 (Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's
Road) in Rocky Mount, Nash County (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The proposed
project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and
gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a 12-foot (3.6-meter), center-turn lane for
the entire length of the project. The existing bridge over Stoney Creek will be replaced
with a 5-lane, 180-foot (55-meter) structure. The total project length is approximately
1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers).
B. Transportation Plan
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 and
construction in FFY 2005.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The need for the project is based on three main areas: traffic volumes/capacity;
accident history; and regional planning.
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
In 2002 the average daily traffic volumes on Country Club Road ranged from a
low of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near Jeffrey's Road to a high of
approximately 16,900 vpd near US 64 Business. Based on traffic modeling and current
growth, the traffic is anticipated to increase to a range of 7,500 vpd to 24,400 vpd by the
year 2020 (see Appendix A, Figures 3-A, 3-13).
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Level
of service range from LOS A to F. Level of service A, represents unrestricted maneuverability
and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal
operating speeds. Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds
close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and
unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel, this occurs at level
of service F.
With the present traffic volumes, the intersections along Country Club Road are operating
at LOS C and D. If no improvements were made to Country Club Road, the roadway would be
expected to operate at Level of Service E by the design year 2020.
B. Accident History
During the sample period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000 a total of 91
accidents were reported on the studied portion on Country Club Road. This resulted in a
total crash rate of 1059.66 accidents per 100 million vehicles kilometers (ACC/100MVK)
which is considerably higher than the statewide average or similar rates of 163.40
(ACC/100MVK) for two-lane urban primary routes. There were 0 fatalities during the
period, and 46 accidents resulted in injuries. The primary accident types were left-turn
and rear-end collisions with slowing or stopping vehicles.
Table 1 represents a comparison between accident rates along the project and the
statewide rates for all similar secondary routes. The average statewide rates were obtained
from studies conducted during the same period of 1997 to 2000.
2
Table 1: Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
(Accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers)

Accident
Type Rates Along
SR 1616 Statewide
Average
Fatal 0.00 0.41
Nonfatal Injury 535.65 77.65
Nighttime 174.67 37.27
Wet Conditions 291.11 38.75
Total Rate 1059.66 154.23
C. Regional Planning
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Proposed improvements are in conformance with
this plan. Development in this area is continuing to increase.
D. Purpose of Project
Due to increased development each of end of this route, future traffic growth will
create longer travel times, and'an increase in accidents. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the facility and to improve safety due to high year-
end and left turn accidents.
3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Project
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 1.4 miles (2.2
kilometers) .
B. Route Classification
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. .
C. '. Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section of Country Club Road is a two-lane, 20-foot (6-meter)
roadway with 6-foot (1.8-meter) wide soil shoulders.
D. Project Terminals
At the southern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with US 64
Business. Across the intersection, Zebulon Road exists as a three-lane road.
At the northern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with Jeffrey's
Road. At this location, both Country Club Road and Jeffrey's Road continue as two-lane
roadways with unpaved shoulder. There are no plans to improve these roadways north of
this intersection.
E. Right of Way
The existing right of way along Country Club Road is 60 feet (18 meters).
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures
Bridge Number 112 carries Country Club Road over Stoney Creek and is located
0.3-mile (0.5 kilometer) north of US 64 Business. It is 160 feet (49 meters) long and has a
clear deck width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). This bridge has a sufficiency rating of 47.1 out
of 100.
SR 1616 runs under the dual US 64 Bypass bridges. The bridges were constructed
in 1980. The clear width under these bridges is 70 feet (21.3 meters).
A pair of 72-inch (1800 mm) corrugated metal pipes is located at the crossing of a
small tributary to Stoney Creek.
4
G. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the studied section of Country Club Road is 35
miles per hour (mph) (56 kilometers per hour).
H. Access Control
• The existing roadway has no, access control.
1. Intersection and Type of Control
All roads currently intersecting the project alignment are at-grade. The following
intersections are signalized: US 64 Business, Hunter Hill Road and Jeffrey's Road. The
following intersections are not signalized: Overton Drive and Cove Drive. A grade
separation carries US 64 Bypass over Country Club Road.
J. Utilities
The project is expected to have a high utility conflict. The following utilities are
located within the project corridor: aerial cable, underground fiber optic cable, water,
sewer, gas and telephone.
K. School Buses
During the school year, two school buses use this portion of Country Club Road.
These buses travel along Country Club Road both in the morning and afternoon.
L. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along this project.
M. Sidewalks
A small section of sidewalks currently exist along between Hunter Hill Road and
Jeffrey's Road.
N. Parking
There is no on-street parking along Country Club Road.
5
O. Bicycle Provisions
This section of Country Club Road is not a designated bicycle route.
P. Greenways
No greenways exist along this section of Country Club Road.
Q. Other TIP Projects in Area
U-3330 (US 301 Bypass from NC 43-48 to SR 1836):
Scope - Add additional lane in each direction
Right of way and Construction - Post Year
U-3621 (SR 1604 from SR 1616 to NC 43-48):
Scope - Widen to multi-lanes
Right of Way - Fiscal Year 2008
Construction -Fiscal Year 2010
6
IV.. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for this project consist of the: no-build; mass
transportation; and two widening alternatives.
A. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facility. This
alternative would not improve capacity or safety along Country Club Road with the
project area which is the stated purpose and need of the project. Road capacity would
remain unchanged while the traffic demand substantially increases. Therefore, the "no-
build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative
does however, provide a basis for comparison of other alternatives.
B. Mass Transportation Alternative
The mass transportation alternative includes the expansion of bus and/or rail
service in place of increasing the capacity of the roadway. The Rocky Mount Transit
System serves the City of Rocky Mount, operating fixed-route buses for the city,
including a portion of Country Club Road from Jeffrey's Road to Hunter Hill Road as
part of its route. The City of Rocky Mount also has a para-transit service, otherwise
known as the Dial-A-Ride Transportation Service (DARTS), which operates dial a ride
para-transit service for certain authorized residents for the City of Rocky Mount who
begin and end their trips within 3/4 mile (1.2 kilometers) of Rocky Mount Transit's fixed
routes. Riders must be certified to be eligible for para-transit service. Greyhound Lines
Inc. has a terminal in Downtown Rocky Mount providing scheduled inter-city bus
service, providing service for both urban and rural areas (Nash and Edgecombe counties)
for a total of 9 routes. Also, located in downtown Rocky Mount, AMTRAK provides
scheduled daily rail service including three northbound and three southbound routes.
Long term transportation solutions for Country Club Road will likely consist of a
mixture of roadway expansion and increased bus service. Therefore, widening this section
of Country Club Road can be viewed as one part of the overall transportation plan for the
area. However, expansion of bus service is not expected to reduce traffic volumes
sufficiently to eliminate this project's need. The mass transportation alternative, without
increasing the roadway capacity of Country Club Road, does not meet the purpose and
need of this project and was therefore eliminated from further study.
C. Widening Alternatives
The highway construction alternative consists of widening the roadway. The
anticipated traffic increase to over 24,000 vehicles per day by 2020 warrants widening to
include two lanes in, each direction to improve the level of service. The five-lane section
with center turn lane was also chosen as the best typical section because of the high left-
turn and rear-end collisions.
7
Two widening alternatives were considered, Alternatives A and B. Both involve
generally symmetrical widening of the roadway for a "best fit". Both alternatives are
identical, except in the vicinity of the Stoney Creek bridge crossing. Both also include
replacing the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The
bridge width of 69 feet (21 meters) will accommodate the five lanes and a sidewalk on
one side. Both include the realignment of the intersection of Country Club Road with
Jeffrey's Road.
Alternative A consists of widening the roadway to the west as it approaches
Stoney Creek and phase-constructing a new bridge on this west side. Alternative B is the
same concept as Alternative A, except that the new bridge will be constructed to the east
to allow for east-side widening of the roadway.
D. Capacity Analysis
The future traffic volumes (2020) for the mainline and intersections for two
conditions were evaluated: "no-build" condition, which assumes that no improvements
are made; and "build" condition, which assumes that the roadway is widened to five-
lanes. Tables 2A and 2B list the level of service. To achieve acceptable levels of service,
the intersection improvements described in Section V.I are proposed.
Table 2A: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline
Country Club Road
FrotW To No Build /Build
US 64 Bus / Hunter Hill Road E / B
Hunter Hill Road / Jeffrey's Road E / B
Table 2B: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections
Intersection of Country Club Road
with. No Build /Build
US 64 Business E / D
Hunter Hill Road E / D
Jeffrey's Road D / C
E. Recommended Alternative
Alternative B is recommended because it allows for the increased capacity,
minimizes overall impacts to the area, and avoids wetlands on the east side of the existing
roadway in the vicinity of Stoney Creek.
8
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 40 mph for the entire length of the project. Design
speed is a correlation of 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 the recommended or posted speed.
B. Typical Section
The recommended typical cross section is a five-lane, 64-foot (19.2-meter) curb
and gutter section with 8-foot (2.4-meter) berms (see Figure 4). This cross section will
provide for two 2-foot (0.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a center-turn lane for
left turns.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way will range from 84 to 100 feet (26 to 30 meters).
D. Access Control
No access control is proposed along the project.
E. Bridge/Drainap-e Structures
The 160-foot (49-meter) bridge carrying Country Club Road over Stoney Creek
will be replaced with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The bridge will be replaced rather
than widened because of current design requirements relating to minimum setbacks from
the top of creek bank to the fill slope of the bridge.
The two 77-inch by 52-inch (2000 by 1400 mm) corrugated steel pipes arches
carrying a tributary to Stoney Creek will be extended to accommodate the planned
roadway cross section.
The US 64-Bypass bridges will not be altered.
F. Parkin
On-street parking will not be provided.
G. Sidewalks
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
9
project. At the-request of Rocky Mount, a sidewalk will also be included along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk, such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility.
H. Bicycle Provisions
No special bicycle provisions are proposed.
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Intersections with Country Club Road that are currently signalized will remain
signalized. All other intersections are proposed to remain stop sign controlled.
In addition, the proposed improvements are as follows (also see Figures 5A and
5B):
• US 64 Business - Dual left-turn lanes on the southbound Country Club
Road approach and an exclusive right-turn lane on the northbound
approach. Also recommended is an exclusive right-turn lane on the
westbound US 64 Business approach.
• Hunter Hill Road - Exclusive right-turn lanes on the northbound and
southbound County Club Road approaches.
• Jeffrey's Road -realignment of intersection, with Jeffrey's Road as the
major movement with southbound Country Club Road. Two through
lanes on northbound Country Club Road will taper down to one lane
when it becomes Jeffrey's Road.
Estimate of Costs
* Construction
**Right of way
Total Cost
$6,400,000
$7,825,000
$14,225,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
* * Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs
10
VI. HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Human Environment
1. Community Profile / Effects
a. Geographic Location
Rocky Mount is the largest city in Nash County. Much of the land in the
surrounding area and counties is primarily rural and has agriculture as the basis for much
of the economy.
b. Race, Ethnicity, and Age
In the 2000 Census, the project area (Census Tract 105.02) contained a population
of 25.3% black, which was slightly lower than the percentage of black population in the
County (33.9%) and- slightly higher than the percentage of black population in North
Carolina (21.4%) (see Table 3). The project area contained a population of .9% Hispanic.
This was slightly lower than the percentage of Hispanics (3.3%) in the County and the
percentage of Hispanic population (4.6%) in North Carolina.
Regarding age, approximately 25.1 % of the population in this project area is
above the age of 65 (see Table 4)..
11
Table 3: 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total Population,-
1990 6,287 100 87,420 100 8,0499313 100
Total Hispanic** 59 .9 2888 3.3 372,964 4.6
White 4,558 °.72.5 539244 60.9 516481953 '70.2
White Hispanic 16 795 153,212
Black 19590 25.3 29,607, 33.9 197209197 21.4
Black Hispanic 0 58 13,957
American Indianl
Alaskan 10 0.2 ,237 .3 97,289 1:2'
American Indian/
Alaskan Hispanic 12 37 3,667
Asian 62 1.0 413' .5 1109167 1.4
Asian Hispanic 0 0 1,125
Pacific. Islander ` 0, --- 23 .03 3,081 0.6-4
Pacific Islander
Hispanic 0 0 618
Other. 0 -- 142 .2 8,481 .1
Other Hispanic 31 1,874 176,657
Two or More Races 8 01 866 ` 10 88,181 1.1
Two or more Races
Hispanic 0 124 23,728
Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
** Hispanic and Latino Ethnicity is calculated by the U.S. Census as being of any race.
Table 4: 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total Population =
1990 6,287 100 87,420 100 8,049,313 100
0 to 64 4,712 74.9 76,445 87.4 7,079,491 88
65 or above 1,575 25.1 10,975 12.6 969,822 12
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
12
C. Income. Poverty Status, and Unemployment
The 2000 median household income for Nash County was $37,147 comparable
with $37,064 for the project area. Per capita income for the county was $18,863, which
was lower than the per capita income for the project area ($22,335). Because median
income for the project area and Nash County are comparable, but per capita income for
the project area is higher, this may indicate that the project area has a higher percentage
of smaller sized families and/or individual households.
The project area had 588 persons (9.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom
235 (3.8%) live at or below 50% of the poverty level. Nash County had 11,478 persons
(13.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom 4970 (5.8%) live at or below 50% of the
poverty level. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the project area
(9.4%) in Census 2000 was an increase from the percentage of persons living below the
poverty level (5.3%) in Census 1990 (see Table 5).
Table 5: 2000 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level ash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Median Household $37,064 94.6 $37,147 94.8 $39,184 100
Income
Average Household N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Income
Per Capita Income $22,335 110 $18,863 ` 92.9 20,307 100
Persons below 588 9.4 11;478 13.4 958,667 12.3
poverty level - total
Persons below 50% 235 3.8 4,970 5.8 431,894 5.5
of poverty level -
total
* Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
d. Housing Characteristics
The project area had a higher median home value ($102,800) than Nash County
($95,800). The project area homeownership rate was 50.5%. In Nash County the rate of
homeownership was 61.5%. The median rent in the project area was $530 and median
rent was $494 in Nash County. The homeownership rate of 50.5% in the project area in
2000 was notably lower thanthe homeownership rate for Nash County (61.5%) and was a
decrease from the 1990 homeownership rate of 54.1 % for the project area (see Table 6).
13
Table 6: 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Median°HomeValue $102;800 $95,800 $108,300
Homeownership Rate 50.5% 61.5% 61.6%
Median'Rent $530 ; $494 $548
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers
The land use within the general vicinity of the project, along both sides of the
road widening project, is comprised of a variety of land uses and varying densities of
residential, commercial, and office activity.
Much of the land immediately adjacent to the road is commercial in nature, with
much of the businesses being service related, such as insurance offices, restaurants, and
retail. There are no large-scale employers along the length of the project.
f. Public Facilities, Schools.and Institutions
There are no schools or other public institutions located within the general
vicinity of the proposed project.
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
There are no emergency-related services located along the project route.
h. Existing/Future Land Uses
(1) Present/Future Zoning
The existing zoning along the project corridor is primarily a mix of varying
densities of residential, commercial and office categories. 'Much of the zoning directly
adjoining the road is business related zoning, with residential areas set back behind those
properties zoned for commercial activity.
As most all of the land along the road is currently developed, there is little
opportunity for significant changes in the overall land use or zoning along the road. In
addition, the City of Rocky Mount has no plans to direct changes to the zoning or land
use in this part of town.
14
(2) Development Plans
Planning documents for this part of Rocky Mount forecast no broad changes to
land use patterns or trends along Country Club Road.
Impact Assessment
(1) Local Plans
As the land use within the general vicinity of the road is residentially mature and
stable, the City of Rocky Mount has no long-term plans for changing the pattern of
development along Country Club Road.
(2) Economic Development
As the land surrounding the project is nearly built out, there is little opportunity
for new economic development. The proposed project improvements will not increase or
curtail specific economic activity/opportunities in the immediate project vicinity, as the
project improvements are not expected to attract new levels of traffic, or provide new
access to developable lands. In addition, the project will not generate new development or
alter existing patterns of development that might disrupt the surrounding community.
(3) Greenway Considerations
Greenways and greenway crossings are considered in the roadway planning
process. Critical corridors, which have been adopted by local governments for future
greenways, are not to be severed by roadway construction. There are no current
greenways along this section of Country Club Road.
(4) Accessibility Considerations
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the
1964 Civil Rights Act to be disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
The project will not impose excessive barriers to accessibility, though widening
the road from two lanes to five lanes will increase the distance required to cross the road.
Sidewalks are being considered for the north side of the road, between Hunter Hill Road
and Jeffrey's Road, in order to accommodate pedestrian activity in the general vicinity.
15
(5) - Business, Institutional and Residential Relocations and
Impacts
There are currently no relocations associated with the widening of Country Club
Road. The most likely areas of impact to existing development appear to be to those
areas immediately adjacent to the existing road, such-as business and commercial parking
lots. There appear to be few structures located in proximity to the existing road, but there
may be conflicts with driveways, fences and other such appurtenances, due to the
addition of travel lanes.
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
The road-widening project will not split or isolate the community or the
surrounding neighborhoods along the project route.
The proposed project will not alter existing patterns of development, which might
disrupt the surrounding community.
There may be some disruption for various pedestrians, in that the wider road may
create some difficulty for various residents who might routinely cross the road for various
purposes. Therefore, attention to theses needs in the planning and design of the new
roadway would be prudent for assisting pedestrians and bicyclists in safely using the
roadway.
(7) Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment
There are no relocations associated with this project, there should be little change
in the local tax base, either positive or negative, as the project does not impose new
intersections or interchanges, or alter the existing development patterns in the general
vicinity- of the project.
The employment base for the area within the vicinity of the road will not likely
change quickly. However, over the long term, as the proposed road improvements will
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the road, there may be changes in land use due
local development decisions and growth of the local economy.
(8) Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils,
as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils
are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
16
economic resources. Land, which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in an urban area, planned for commercial and
residential activity, and currently devoid of any agricultural activities. Therefore, the
project will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations and farmland mitigation or
avoidance will not be necessary.
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
No river, stream or creek within the project area has been designated as a Wild
and Scenic River.
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides
that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its
provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental
justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with
respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
This project will not place disproportionately high or adverse impacts upon any
areas having low income and/or minority populations which may be located near the
project. Census data does not indicate that there are any such areas within the immediate
vicinity of this road-widening project.
This assessment has not found any evidence or indication of discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. This project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Secondary effects are indirect impacts, which are caused by or result from the
project. These may be later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of the project,
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, regardless
of which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor, but collectively, significant activities taking place over a period of
time.
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be - depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and
other factors - encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl. Improvements to
levels of service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
The likelihood of secondary/cumulative impacts is low for this project. On its
own, the project is not expected to attract additional traffic or development. As the
project consists of widening the existing road in order to alleviate traffic congestion to
improve flow and safety, the proposed improvements will not dramatically alter the
surrounding land use, provide or impose new intersections/ interchanges, increase access
to undeveloped lands, or alter development patterns.
Many of the ultimate consequences of road improvement projects are dependent
upon various issues and decisions which are not part of the actual road construction
process, but have much to do with a myriad of decisions made by the local government(s)
at a later point in time.
Many of these issues and decisions relate to such items as local land development
regulations, planning and zoning, development demand, availability of utility
infrastructure (water and sewer), local economic development efforts, and other factors
which are part of a local economy.
In addition, improvements to a particular road's level of service, better
accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements, and reductions in travel times
can have impacts to surrounding land use which lie beyond the immediate project area.
However, as the project will result in the widening of Country Club Road from a
two lane section to a five lane section, this corridor will have an expanded capacity for
traffic flow. While expanded traffic capacity and enhanced mobility may benefit the area
in general, the larger road facility may pose the possibility of some negative aspects in the
future in terms of accessibility and congestion. This may especially be true if local land
use and development decisions for this road contribute to increased levels of traffic, and
thus reduce levels of service along the length of the project.
18
2. Cultural Resources
a. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertaking.
b. Historic Architecture
The area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was
reviewed by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. The NCDOT, NCHPO, and FHWA
agree that the eight properties older than fifty years of age within the APE are not eligible
for listing in the National Register. There are no other properties within the APE over
fifty years of age and no properties less than fifty years of age that meet eligibility
Criterion G for listing in the National Register. No further compliance with Section 106 is
required for historic architectural resources.
C. Archaeology
The NCDOT conducted an archaeological survey of the project area in February
2000. The majority of the project area was determined to be disturbed from previous
residential and commercial development. Three areas within the APE were subjected to
subsurface shovel testing. No archeological sites were recorded, and no evidence of
cultural use or occupation of the project area was encountered during the survey. This
work was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. No further
compliance with Section 106 is required for archaeological resources.
3. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
highway facility. Federal Standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), are required to set levels that protect human health. There are currently
NAAQS for six pollutants. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein
19
is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity 'of the
project due to traffic flow.
a. Carbon Monoxide
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway,
both local and background concentration components must be used. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operation on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 328 feet (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
component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
A micro-scale 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 near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level-roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025, using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILESA 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 (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment Health
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits of
the right-of-way approximately 15 meters from the centerline of the proposed roadway.
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005
and 2025 are 2.6 and 2.7 ppm, respectively. The predicted 1-hour average CO
20
concentrations for the evaluation no-build years of 2005 and 2025 are 2.7 and 3.4 ppm,
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; eight-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case one-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the eight-hour
CO level does not exceed the standard.
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides
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 6.21 to 12.42
miles (10 to 20 kilometers) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as 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
that forms in Los Angeles, California.
C. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide
Automobiles are not 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 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 exceed the NAAQS.
d. Project Effects
The project is located in Nash County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because the
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This
21
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
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 practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed 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.
4. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determined the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the widening of Country Club Road from two
lanes to a multi-lane facility between US 64 and Jeffrey's Road. 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 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 must be considered for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts.
a. Characteristics of Noise
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
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 ( see Appendix Q.
22
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.
3. The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others,
and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For
example, noises that occur during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background
noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car
horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
In a 60-dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible while sleep might be
difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by
loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises that 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.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
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 (see Appendix Q. 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.
23
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. 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 levels
along the roadway facilities in the project area as measured at 49.2 feet (13 meters)
ranged from 60.7 to 62.2 dBA. The ambient measurement locations are presented in
Table N3 (see Appendix Q.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model in order it calculate existing noise levels for comparison
with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged
approximately 1.6 dBA higher than the measured noise levels for the location where
noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the
prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that
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, physical road
characteristics (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and
can consider barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation if applicable.
In this regard, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use in
this noise analysis. The project proposes the widening of Country Club Road from two
lanes to a multi-lane facility from US 64 to Jeffrey's Road. 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
24
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 2025. 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 Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4
(see Appendix Q. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors
in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
e. Traffic Noise and Contour
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 (see
Appendix Q. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
that fall in either category.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix Q. These
are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 15 residential receptors and 8 businesses will
be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 57.4 and 114.2 feet (17.5 and 35 meters),
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This 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 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 N6 (see Appendix C) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for
the identified receptors by roadway section. The maximum number of substantial impacts
anticipated is 21 receptors. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up
to +11 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to 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.
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
25
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors.
(1) 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. The highway alignment has been selected to
minimize impacts and cost; alignment revisions specifically for noise abatement is not
considered feasible.
(2) Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that 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.
(3) Noise Barriers
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of Categorical
Exclusions, Findings of no significant impacts, Record of Decision, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge
date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often 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.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control'of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the
proposed roadway, and all intersection 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
26
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 49.21 feet (13 meters) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 360 feet
(110 meters) long. An access opening of 39.37 feet (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, pages 5-27). Hence, this type of control of
access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation
measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishment 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.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative was also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 8 receptors would still experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range up 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.
h. 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.
L Summary
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were
considered for noise mitigation. 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.
27
5. Geodetic Markers
This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.
6. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along existing Country Club Road
between US 64 Business and Jeffrey's Road. In addition to the field survey, a file search
of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any known problem
sites along the proposed project alignment.
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, three (3) facilities with the possibility
for underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified. These sites are described below.
• Fuel Doc # 9 (Citgo) is a gas station/convenience store located on the west side of SR
1616, approximately 200 feet (60 meters) north of the US 64 Business. According to
the field reconnaissance and Division of Waste Management (DWM) UST Section
registry, four (4) UST's are currently in use on the property. The pump island is
approximately 68 feet (20.7 meters0 from the centerline of US 64 Business, while the
main tank bed is approximately 109 feet (32.3 meters) away behind the building. The
proposed improvements will not impact the tanks or pump islands. One monitoring
well was noted near the tank bed. Free product was identified in this monitoring well
in March of 1998, but no follow-up work has been performed. The regulatory agency
will require further work at this site.
• Triangle Alternator Starter is located on the west side of SR 1616, just south of Weed
Road. The facility has been in operation for about 25 years. According to the
property owner, Mr. Sherrod, no other businesses have operated at the site. There is
an in-ground hydraulic lift in the garage area, about 70 feet (21 meters) from the
centerline of SR 1616. Behind the building, approximately 34 feet (10.4 meters) from
the centerline of Weed Road, there is a heating oil UST. The proposed improvements
will not impact either tank. Both tanks are not regulated unless contamination is
identified. No monitoring wells were noted and it does not appear that the site is
currently under remediation.
Stoney Creek Volunteer Fire Department is located in the southwest quadrant of the
SR 1616 and Overton Drive intersection. According to fire chief, three (3) UST's
were removed from the site about 12 years ago. No registry information could be
located for the tanks. The former UST area is near the rear of the building
approximately 142 feet (43 meters) from the centerline of SR 1616. The proposed
improvements will not impact this area of the property. A monitoring well was noted
in the former tank area, but no information could be located at the DWM UST Section
in Raleigh, NC concerning the removal of tanks or the monitoring well. It does not
appear that the site is currently being monitored by the regulatory agency.
28
Research of files and databases shows no regulated or unregulated landfills
or dumpsites exist within the project area.
B. Natural Environment
1. Methodology and Definitions
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rocky Mount), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map (Rocky Mount), Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
soil maps (Nash County, 1989), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1000).
Water resource information was obtained from the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1994) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species
in the study area was gathered from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and species of concern (March 23, 2001), and the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists on April 7, 2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracs and
burrows). Mussels and other aquatic life were surveyed using tactile and visual
techniques by NCDOT biologists on July 23, 1999. Jurisdictional wetland determinations
were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed by the "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending .5 mi. on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with
the project occupying the central position.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study, area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
. The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Nash County is characterized by broad flat uplands between
wide, sandy drainage ways. Topography in the project area is nearly level to gently
29
sloping, partially located in the floodplain area associated with the Tar River. The project
elevation is approximately 100 feet (30 meters) above mean sea level (msl).
a. Soils
Five soil phases occur within project boundaries: Altavista sandy loam, Bibb
loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Meggett loam, and Urban land. Altavista sandy loam is
moderately well drained and nearly level to gently sloping, occurring on low terraces
along large streams. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow. The major
limitation on development is a high water table during the winter and flooding hazard
after prolonged periods of rainfall.
Bibb loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on bottomlands of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is very slow. The water table
is at or near the surface during most of the year. Bibb loam is not suitable for
development because of flooding and wetness.
Goldsboro fine sandy loam is moderately well drained and nearly level, occurring
on broad, smooth divides in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface
runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is between 2 and 3 feet (0.6-0.9 meters)
during the winter and early spring. Wetness is a moderate limitation on silvicultural
practices and subsurface structures.
Meggett loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on flood plains of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is slow and surface runoff is very slow. A high water table is
at or near the surface for most of the year. The major limitation on development is the
high water table and frequent flooding.
Urban land consists of land covered with roads, buildings, parking lots, and
commercial yards. The soil has been altered by grading, filling, and manipulation for
urban development. Runoff is excessive and increases flooding on adjacent low-lying
areas. Soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways are major hazards associated with
urban land.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a.sandy
clay texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low
areas of the stream flood plain and in small depression areas. Therefore, hydric soil
indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987,
were observed within the project study area.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
30
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed; as are means
to minimize impacts.
(1) Waters Impacted
Stoney Creek (DWQ Index No. 28-68) and anunnamed tributary to Stony Creek
are surface water resources that will be directly impacted by the proposed widening
project. Both streams are located in Sub-Basin 03-03-02 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Stoney Creek feeds into the Tar River approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers).
downstream of the proposed widening project.
Stoney Creek, within the project boundaries, is approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters)
wide and has banks up to 20 feet (6 meters) deep. The banks are steep with a soft mucky
substrate. A pipe crosses Stoney Creek just to the east of the bridge. Upstream of the
pipe, Stoney Creek was covered with algae and duck weed on the day of the site visit.
The unnamed tributary to Stoney Creek crosses the project to the north of Stoney
Creek, just south of the US 64 overpass. The channel is approximately 2 feet (0.6 meter)
wide with 1-foot (0.3-meter) banks. Water levels in the creek varied from 2 - 6 inches
(50-150 mm). Sediment deposition was evident and little or no vegetation was present in
the channel.
A drainage ditch is located just to the north of the US 64 bypass. The ditch runs
at the toe of the fill slope and passes through a single 18-inch (450 mm) concrete culvert
under Country Club Road. The ditch varies in depth from 1- 3 feet (0.3 - 0.9 meter), is
full of vegetation, leaf-litter and debris, and shows no signs of flowing water.
(2) Best Usage Classification
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Stoney Creek (Index No. 28-68) is CNSW.
The C classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses. NSW
classification denotes waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds; or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of project study area.
(3) Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. The basin-wide approach allows for more intensive
sampling of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basin-wide
31
assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled
for specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator
of water quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a
relatively long life cycle, are non-mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse.
The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health
of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in
water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review.
A Benthic macroinvertebrate collection site is located on Stoney Creek upstream
of the project area at SR 1603. This station was sampled in 1992 and received an EPT
taxa richness value of 9 and a bio-classification of Fair (DWQ, 1993). Stoney Creek was
listed a partially supporting in North Carolina's 1998-303(d) list (DWQ, 1998). Sediment
was identified as the problem parameter. Benthos data collected from the Tar River
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) downstream of its confluence with Stoney Creek
indicate generally Good/Fair water quality with no long term changes.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations-strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1997). The closest monitoring site to
the project area is located on the Tar River at NC Hwy 97 at Rocky Mount. Ambient
water chemistry data indicate that nitrate/nitrite nitrogen values and total phosphorous
values increase substantially from the NC Hwy 97 site to the site downstream of the
Rocky Mount WWTP.
Point source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharge
is required to register for a permit. Two NPDES permits are registered within 1.0 mi. of
the project area. Permit No. NCG510155 is held by Stallings Oil Company for discharge
into an unnamed tributary of the Tar River. Permit No. N00072133 is held by Sunset
Avenue Water Filtration Plant for discharge into the Tar River.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use
activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution, including land
development, construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediments and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off
the ground and carried into surface waters. Road and parking lot runoff were the only
identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during the site visit.
32
(4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of project construction. The
impacts were calculated using the full proposed right of way for each bridge alternative
(see Table 7). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 7: Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters

Stream Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
(feet) (meters) (feet) (meters)
Stoney Creek 40(12) 40 (12)
UT to Stoney Creek 40(12) 40(12)
TOTAL 80 (24) 80(80)
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills, and increased traffic volume.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
33
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Community
Four communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest,
Maintained/disturbed, and Aquatic Community. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. The
Bottomland Hardwood Forest has wetland communities associated within its boundaries.
Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those fauna restricted
to the aquatic environment.
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater
9ubt e
This community is located on the west side of the project to the south of Stoney
Creek. Periodic flooding during high flow periods drives the bottomland hardwood
forest. Sediment deposition may supply limited nutrient input in blackwater systems.
However, periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils. The bottomland hardwood forest community
grades to the Disturbed Pine forest community.
The woody species in this community consist of red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The shrub layer consists of saplings of
the canopy trees, American elm (Ulmus americana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera).
The herbaceous layer was very sparse, consisting of river oats and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest community is located in uplands throughout
the project area, fragmented by residential and commercial development. This community
34
is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with a thick understory of hardwood saplings
and herbaceous vegetation. The understory includes white oak (Quercus alba), tulip
poplar, sweetgum, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), loblolly pine, river birch, winged
elm (Ulmus alata), and Southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The herbaceous layer
consists of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), Virginia creeper(Parthenocisus quenquefolia), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
(3) Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community is the largest community type within the
project area. This includes the road shoulders along Country Club Road, the area around
the bridge, and the residential and commercial yards. Periodically maintained areas
include the sewer line easement along Stoney Creek and the unnamed tributary and the
power line easement parallel to Country Club Road near the southern end of the project.
Flora within this community includes: fescue (Festuca sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
dock (Rumex sp), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum),
wild onion (Allium stellatum), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), dog fennel
(Eupatorium spp.), and honeysuckle. The powerline easement, which is less intensively
maintained, also contains pokeweed, chinese privette, blackberry, horsenettle (Solanum
carolinence), and catbrier. Small depression areas under the powerlines contained
juncus, sedges, jewelweed, hibiscus, cardinal flower, and river oats. However, there were
no hydric soil indicators found on the day of the site investigation.
b. Aquatic Community
The Aquatic community consists of Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary.
Physical descriptions of these communities are included in the previous section. Stoney
Creek was covered with duckweed above the cross-pipe on the day of the field
investigation. The northern banks extend approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) above water
level. They were steep and eroding, with little herbaceous cover and few trees or shrubs.
The southern banks, ranging from approximately 1 - 4 feet (0.3 -1.2 meters) above the
water, were covered with herbaceous vegetation such as jewelweed, river oats, fescue,
dayflower, and ragweed. Stoney Creek flows along side the bottomland hardwood
community on the west side of the project, and bisects the mixed pine hardwood
community on the east side of the project.
The unnamed tributary has little bank vegetation, grading immediately into the
mixed pine hardwood community.
C. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes the golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species utilizing these areas include the Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
(2) Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and amphibians such as
cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) and chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) may use the
shallow, fairly disturbed habitat found in the unnamed tributary. Invertebrates that are
likely present include crayfish (family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and
damselflies (Order Odonata), and caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera). Stoney Creek may
support these species in addition to silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Fauna identified in
Stoney Creek during the field review included mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies
(Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum, Physella sp.). The N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats recorded the
occurrence of three species in the Tar River approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers)
downstream of the project area: Eastern lamp mussel (Lampsilis radiata), Roanoke
slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), and creeper (Strophitus undulatus) also known as
Squawfoot.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the
two project alternatives. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts on terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternative are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
36
Table 8: Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Alternative A Alternative B
Community type (Acres) (Hectares) (Acres) (Hectares)
(Recommended)
BottomlandHardwood Forest 0:35,(0.14) 0
Mixed Pine Hardwood 1.51 (0.61) 1.77 (0.61)
Maintained/Disturbed 5.0 (2.0): 5.0(2.0
Aquatic Community 0.03 (0.012) .03 (0.012)
Total 6:89 (2.79) 6:89 (2':79)
Selection of Alternative B will result in the lowest impact on the bottomland
hardwood forest biotic community in the project area.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening of Country Club Road will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the
small size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be
minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from construction-related work will affect water
quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, indirect
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of Benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish, and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover and repopulate a stream.
37
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the stream bank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds, and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Defined in 33 CFR §328.3, wetlands 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).
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used, where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
The wetlands in the project area are described in as Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Soil cores taken in this area revealed soils with a Munsell color notation of 2.5Y8/1 with
mottles of 2.5Y6/8, at a depth of within 1 foot (0.3 meter) of the soil surface. Vegetation
present within this area includes red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, river birch, tulip
poplar, and black gum. The herbaceous species, where present, consist of river oats and
greenbrier.
Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary are jurisdictional surface waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,
physical, and water quality aspects of this channel and associated waterways are
presented in previous sections of this report.
38
(2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 9 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface water area in the
proposed road widening project area. Anticipated impacts to these areas are determined
by using the entire ROW width for each alternative. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 9: Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas
Feature Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
Bottomland'Hardwood ° .16 acres (0,061a) ` 0 acres (0 ha)
Stoney Creek 40 ft. (12 m) 40 ft. (12 m)
.Unnamed Tributary 40 ft. (12 m) 40 ft. (12 m)
(3) Permits
Minimal impacts to "Waters of the United States" are anticipated. As a result,
permits will be required under the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). In
accordance with provisions of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit is
required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States". In accordance with Section 401, a Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality is required prior to the issuance of the Section
404 permit. Section 401 Certification ensures that the state's water quality standards are
not violated. Because of the minimal impacts anticipated from the proposed project,
a Nationwide Permit # 14 is suggested along with the corresponding General Water
Quality Certification.
(4) Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters).
Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts,
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.
39
(a) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the United States". A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE states that 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.
Avoidance can include selecting the project alignment alternative that presents the least
impact to wetland and surface water areas. Avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is
unavoidable due to these resources being located on both sides of the roadway.
(b) 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 of median widths and fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms to minimize
impacts to "Waters of the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life to the project, reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, reduction/
elimination of direct discharge.into streams, reduction of runoff velocity, re-establishment
of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide use, minimization of
"in-stream' activity, and litter/debris control. Minimization specific to this project
include the bridge replacement utilizing a longer bridge and widening to the east in
the proximity of Stoney Creek (Alternative B).
(c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 wetland and stream functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States". Such
actions should be undertaken in area to or contiguous to the discharge site, if possible.
Due to the minimal impact of the proposed project, the need for compensatory
mitigation is not expected.
b. 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 human activities. Federal law
40
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) .requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
(1) 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 (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists the following federally protected species
for Nash County (see Table 10). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
Table 10: Federally-Protected Species for Nash County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS

Alasmidonta heterodon ' Dwarf-wed e mussel E
Elli do steinstansana Tars in mussel E
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
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 coior and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in
Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and Stoney Creeks of the Tar River system. This 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
Stoney Creek, within the project study area, does not provide optimal habitat for
the dwarf wedge mussel. Upstream of the project, the stream banks are eroding and the
stream was covered with duckweed. Flow was sluggish and didn't appear to be well
oxygenated. Downstream of the project, the banks were covered with a thick mucky
layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No dwarf wedge mussels
were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
41
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum,
Physella sp.). The stream is subject to pollutant inputs of residential and commercial
areas. In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any
records of the dwarf wedge mussel within the study area. This project will not affect the
dwarf wedge mussel.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) E
The Tar River spiny-mussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from
Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River
spiny-mussel 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 noncompacted 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 spiny-mussel 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
Habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel in the form of fast flowing, well-oxygenated
waters are not found within the project study area. Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary
are subject to sediment and pollutants in the area runoff. The banks are covered with a
mucky layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No Tar River spiny
mussels were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum,
Physella sp.). In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain
any records of the Tar River spiny mussel within the study area. This project will not
affect the Tar River spiny mussel.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
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 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.
42
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 500.0 acres (202 hectares). 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 12 -100 feet (3.6 - 30 meters) above the ground and average 30 - 50 feet (9 -15
meters) 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 and the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the form of old growth stands of pine
with an open understory is not found within the project study area. Wooded areas consist
of young pines and hardwoods with a dense shrub layer. Residential and commercial yards
fragment the forest throughout the project area. Furthermore, the NCNHP database,
reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any records of the red-cockaded woodpecker
within the study area. This project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 11 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the presence
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.
43
Table 11: Federal Species of Concern for Nash County
g e species is one w ose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora
is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Nash County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program (see Figure 6). The project is not within a water supply watershed area or high
quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures. The project will not significantly impact any major
wetlands. Groundwater resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway
approaches are primarily on fill. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practicable.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods, shiner SR No
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T/PE No
Fusconaia.rnasoni Atlantic pigtoe ` T/PE No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE No
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E No
Speyeria dana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* No
U ium'iridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Trillium pusillum var.

pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
`E"--An Endaner d h
44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Solicited
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed
in this document.
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
On May 20, 1999, a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and
suggestions about the improvements. The workshop was held at Englewood Elementary
School Cafeteria located in Rocky Mount. Ten people attended to express their interest in
the project
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the circulation of
this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public
about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional
comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
CRC/cc
45
APPENDIX A
Figures
s

°'""mr
Bona lase \
"win 's ?'
d Stlrool '
LIMITS 4 0 ; era

c. ? ea si \
s
oarr.l.
sus
...,.n 04
ve
1616
erg, PRO]ECT LI
te36 a'
SW

R ? i •i

e
40 aloe

e
? nsi' -
t
.?
'. 61X7 3l •.-.

a?
" Battle-
-Park
IF '
:
A

e. 3s wr ti•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
.0
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ROCKY MOUNT
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (SR 1616)
FROM US 64 BUSINESS
TO JEFFREYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1

at, ?io
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (SR 1616) WIDENING
US 64 BUSINESS TO JEFFREYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
107g8
P
55
21)
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
t1? hti
44
v
4
ry
5 $M
10164 2832 1200 10708 SR 1544
` 124 es?1o (HUNTER HILL RD.)
1948 (? 1)
?? e
(( EF?RD)
LEGEND
0000 .= vpd
DHV = Design Hourly Vdw- (N)
D = Directions! N
?---? Dkecdono/D
(5,1) Dual Thick TTST (%)
wVpm AM or PM Peak
1 AV
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DHV 6 D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-A: ESTIMATED 2002 ADT
A
?? 9
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (SR 1616) WIDENING
US 64 BUSINESS TO JEFFREYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
'.o
10 PM 70
(z t) 900 VILr
500 12800
4
ti $l:
(fl 9 14700 4200 200 11500
4900 4700 as (x110.
O? /cs
ry ?ry
US 64 BYP
6o'0•1? ``?'Sp
?3? g 0
00
G?
2300
?10
? ? a
13200
SR 1544
(HUNTER HILL RD.)
1
(jEFFSEYS RD
LEGEND
0000 . vpd
DHV - DoW Houly VokN- (%)
D a Dkecbonal(%)
--- 3w Dkocdon o/D
(41) DrarTnx*TTST(%)
&n/pm AM orPM Peak
102(421)4.60
DH D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE DHV d D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-8 : ESTIMATED 2020 ADT
Z
O
W
N
J
Q
V
CL
Q
Q
O
W
V)
O
CL
O
C LOO
CL
a
3
W
0
o =III
E
=III
? ?IIII
11=
` III
Z 11=
io

MM*
mM*

0
W
0
l0
?W
W
C
z
N
X
W
z
W
I 0
W
0
ce
Z ? III
-ul
? lilul
?
< f=ill
r
o O
z
0.
0
o
vM
" m O
M
oiod
0dZZ?
1.- 0 1- V) LU
Z
.L
oo0
" o O ce

3 .occ
V
:
CL
'o
~
j W
?O

LU
LL.
Z h
a v
L
W
D
a
_
O
c
O
O V
v ` O
E ? O
N
C C
.y O
CO C C
? m
:p c :2
C_ m
'c ? V O
d1 Z. w V
>> E N
>. 0
V
0 z "a Z
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
e
hl!
I
I
ZEBULON ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND HUNTER HILL ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I I
II
II
Tol II
+I +1k, 1
a
hlll!
II
II
II
II
FCOUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND US 64 BUSINESS
(SOUTHERN PROJECT TERMm)
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I
II
II
II
1414 I ? ?-
?- US 64 BUSINESS
r ?
HUNTER HILL ROAD

- s
Nor-_-
y
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND JEFFERYS ROAD (REALIGNED INTERSECTION)
(NORTHERN PROJECT TERMINEL)
JEFFREYS ROAD
i
I
I
I
I
. ?Ih
I
I
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
-? s
hill}
II
Ii
II
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
FIGURE 5-8
APPENDIX B
Comments from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies
i'
1 ?
I
. E
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
. P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 4, 1999
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID 199920381; State Project No. 8.2321601, TIP
No. U-3331.
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

1999
.t q ?P
Reference your Jahuary 12, 1999 letter requesting comments
on the proposed improvements to SR 1616 (Country Club Road), in
Rocky Mount, in Nash County, North Carolina (State Project No.
8.2321601, TIP No. U-3331).
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 40.4 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for any discharge of excavated or fill material into waters
and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the
disposal of construction debris.
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may
involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States. Potentially affected water bodies include Stony
Creek, below headwaters.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our
Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. If there are only minor impacts to waters,
including wetlands, it is probable that the work could be authorized
under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.

The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such
activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department
of the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fill activities
requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no
practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review
emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the
natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is
considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in
greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred.
In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement between the U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland and stream impacts
will be satisfied prior to the final permit decision. A
Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a final
plan for compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream impacts
is approved.
We recommend that you coordinate with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
regarding potential impact to the endangered Alasmidonta
heteredon (Dwarf wedge mussel), which has.known populations in
Stony Creek.
I am responsible for processing your application and I am
available to assist you if you have any questions or comments, at
telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
.. C
*.--
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 9, 1999
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and 1999 _
Environmental Analysis Branch Stip 13 z
North Carolina Division of Highways of a"7t7, ?
Post Office Box 25201 -'? ??-
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 L?R? fi r It ??t ;
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting our comments on
,Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division commented on wetland issues for this
project by letter to you dated February 4, 1999. Enclosed are our comments on flood
plain issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
4: W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
September 9,1999
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381)
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section. at
[phone]
The proposed roadway improvements are located within the jurisdiction of the city
of Rocky iviUUflt, which is a paiiIC;il,ni Iii t e Nativinal t Flood linsurai ce Program, (NFii1).
Based on a review of Panel 5 of the January 1982 Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map of the same date, the roadway crosses Stony Creek, a
detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. Reference is made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your office.
The Improvements should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP,
administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific
questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be
referred to the local building official.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 93726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

E0Er? o
Ait
?r ?'ELrJP?I`?5
Z API
This responds to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP # U-3331). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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). This report also serves as initial
scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Country Club
Road.to a five-lane curb and gutter section from US. 64 Business to Jeffreys Road.
t +_c _ i _t '?L l
IT,
h. Miss-10,7. Oilatic SeiJi%:. is w'Gining with oathers w pri?JiCi?. ledderSliifi hri tl"ic C7JnSCi: ation,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, .for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you-in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Rocky Mount 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement,-should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Nash County. At this time there are three species listed as endangered. In addition,
there are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. In
particular, the endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in Stony Creek
which is crossed by Country Club Road. A field survey for this species should be performed and
the results forwarded to the Service for evaluation. Environmental documentation should include
survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should
be included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects.of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
3
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project -is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although.FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
LL A
VJohn M. H er
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
4
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Mark Davis)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/21/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-333 Ltip
5
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Series In NASH County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
F8'15' 78' 7745'
/
36'
35'45'
- s /
S
?C•
/ rl?li
n
/ H ,
?S-
/
v

.0000
I /,
r
000,
0001*
\n yC,?:
t
l
1
.,.,.. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ^ ? ? 3 a 5 PALES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15198
expires 1/31/99
Mapping
Threatened and
Birds
`I Bald Eagle
t/ Peregrine Falcon
Q Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
-?, Roseate Tern
Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
Waccamaw Silverside
Mussels
x Dwarf-wedge Mussel
;6, Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
Eastern Cougar
(3 Red Wolf
Symbols for
Endangered Species
Plants
American Chaffseed
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
?;;? Seabeach Amaranth
y? Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
` Smooth Coneflower
Seaturties are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortaosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.

® North Carolina. Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina X7604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Direewr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program G/
DATE: June 11, 1999
SUBJECT:. Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1616 (Country Club
Road) widening, from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffreys Road) in
Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3331, SCH
Project No. 99-E-0695.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore 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 improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, 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
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Memo 2 June 11, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any sheaths 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 (COE). 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina '
Deprrhnent of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -- PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statrrtory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of oonst uction 30 days
Lcilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters contracts. On4ite inspection Pon-application technical conference usual.
(90 Sys)
O NPDES - permit to dischuge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Application 180 days before begin activity. O"ite impeetioa Pr*,Wliation
conference usual
Additionall
obtai
it 90-120 days

disebargiog into state surface watem .
y,
n perm
to construct wastewater
treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of
(N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES pamit-whichever is later.
O Water use Permit Pm-application tedmial conference usually necessary. 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation ofa well. (15 days)
O Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate.4ir Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days
2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
Any open burg associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing

asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A 60 days
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820.
(90 days)

O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect.) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any we mined greater 30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit an be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit .22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bur is planned."
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
r._" . ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
?+ 4 fit
:?? .
??--- June 21, 1999
NCDENR
' JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
ORt N1/VlYl
lYlFM
WAYNE MCDEVITT:', ' .,.
SECRETARY -
, TO: Melba McGee

FROM: Stephen Hall
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY,
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Scoping -Widen Country Club Road, Rocky Mount
REFERENCE: 99-E-0695
- The proposed project crosses Stony Creek a short distance from its confluence with a
reach of the Tar River identified as the Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat by the
Natural Heritage Program. The following rare species have been recorded in this
reach close to the confluence with Stony Creek:
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), state listed as Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), state listed as Special Concern
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
These species and other aquatic organisms are potentially vulnerable to water quality
degradation resulting from this project. We therefore strongly recommend that:

• All best management practices be followed for the control of erosion and
- sedimentation
' That all concrete used in this project be fully cured before coming into contact
: LL with the waters of Stony Creek.
": • That weep holes used in the bridge crossing Stony Creek not be located above
the channel of the creek.

J,'P#
?
M1

1
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
1_1 7 & ku 1___1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
May 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Projerpt?evelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Qualityc
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601,
TIP U-3331.
Reference your correspondence dated May 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3331. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the project will cross at least two perennial
streams; the Stoney Creek (Index Number 28-68, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters) and the Goose Branch
Creek (Index Number 28-70, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Both streams are located in the Tar-
Pamilico River Basin. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to determine the
presence of other streams in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ*
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401. Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A.NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is. reminded that issuance of a-401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-333 1\U-3331 scoping comments.doc
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 17, 1999
r
i * ? qy
d„r STA$' a?
7
f`99
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
on
Department of Trarspleservation
FROM: David Brook to/l? v
he'
Deputy State H?sto
UBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
S
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky
Mount, Nash County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1616(4), State Project 8.2321601, TIP.
U-3331, 99-E-4220-0695
We have received information-concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. Two archaeological sites, 31NA18
and 31NA24, are in close proximity to the project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that
may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown
resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration: If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
StATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
April 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook i cl?zru?c tom.
Deputy State Histekic Preservation Officer

Archaeological Survey Report, SR 1616 from US 64 to SR 1541, U-3331, Nash
ER 99-8094

We have reviewed the subject archaeological survey report and find that it meets the guidelines of this
office and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We note that no archaeological sites were located and
agree with the conclusion of the report that a finding of no historic properties would be appropriate.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: R. Shelton, FHWA
T. Padgett, NCDOT
N. Sheehan, NCDOT
T
.Of
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] - 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] - 715-4801

TIP /# t1 ??33 i
. K

Federal Aid /# f F - 1(Q ( (,- (±? County Pk-,(4
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

J
On representatives of the
Y North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultatin7-
Utne-
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/ Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, propertyt.
identified as I -lkovgk S are
/ considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representati e, NCD1
J?rc / 2?4 X19
Date
FHwA, f51- the Div' ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
X/1 /7 A?f y
Re `esen five, SHHPO ' Date
State ffistortc Preservation Officer / EVate

If a survey report is prepared. a Final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

May 21, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.
Manager
Project Development and Analysis Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541)
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project ST? (1616-4),
State Project No. 8.2321601, T.I.P. U-3331
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
EMRTMENT OF
ENGINEERING
The City of Rocky Mount supports the widening of Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541) from two lanes to five lanes with curb and gutter. We believe
this project will be an asset to the community.
The project is included in the City's Transportation Plan and has been approved by the Rocky
Mount MPO Technical Advisory Committee. The project is included in the MPO Transportation
Improvement Priority List.
The City of Rocky Mount does have some existing utilities within the right-of-way of Country
Club Road. We will be glad to assist your design staff in locating the utilities within the right-of-
way-
We are not aware of any other information that will be helpful in the evaluating the
environmental impact of this project. The City of Rocky Mount is delegated review for Sediment
and Erosion Control Permits by NC DENR but for governmental projects, the permit must be
issued by the NC DENR.
We look forward to progress on this project. If you have any questions or need our assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
G incerely,
?z (?' ."
. Pierce, P.E.
Director of Engineering
GEIVEO
MAY 241999 c
s,

CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT
APPENDIX C
Noise Analysis
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
J
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HU MAN 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 at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m 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 at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
I 0 1 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "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
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
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
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of -Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR 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

n
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
M
Mw
F?1
a?
a
Con
W
W
W
cn
r-W
GA

U
v
N
a
H
c
0
UCd
C
O
U
O
3
a?
z
vi
cd

i
Q
r _. .. O
m
> °O v
O c
rl -
o v
i
z??-
z
0

U V V V etc
a
w
O

h 1:4

cc. s a?

o°
ago N
?.

N O

cn N
V 0
z V;
O v' ? o
`0 i
a
s
0 0 z z L
z
.,

° o
o
o _ N a

"0
v
crs
0

a

4)
0 .

d 'v
cn O Im

N N N V

am 0
? 0
?
C
/) F /]
(
W V
F
. -. N M CLt

W
F?
O
z

a?
ou
a
M
M
M
Con
Frl
1?) C
r
C/1 O
O
z J
as
H°z0zz
u_
rterT' U
L ?
O
U^
W
Vl
w

-? ¢ r- :r- 00 oo oo r- t- t.- r- it t- rr- !t` t-- t` r- t` oo r- r r .00 '00 :00
w ce .
'
U + +.+r+ + + + +
++ +:+.+ + + + + + + + + + + +
z 1

2 'r- a,, %.o AD 10 No tw) W) ;W) Illn CN An in
In Ao AD Illn ID W) I%n T- :'RT t- r-
:

w ! , :
COO

z .? •
O

O
w : ! .
OC
4
E :c4 ' OC -I ;_J . ? ;-J ..j .j j-. _j CC '..J a -3 ;a ., :...1 IOC :IX OG !C:4 or OC ;.a
10 :0 :O '0 O !O 10 IO O ;O O ;O .0 !O i0 10 :O 'O i0 O :O
' :O

N 'tom ,r--:
'N 'N :r` ,,6
N -N 00
'N a, :0. !O :kn i.M
'N 'N IM
:N of ,0` ,t- --
Tq :N N .M tV CV ^
:C
M !N : M ;N
?N
0 '
Q -?
O U '

O
w '
w a
z O

a .z
r

w ? w •
m 'O ' N !00 100
tA
C V .00 ,Q`
'V
V 00
V 00 00 i00 !N 00 i00 i00

VY v1 '
h i h
N
'i
G
I :o 0\ !00 !00 00

W
:W
V 10o O AD !0,

SO IV1
t iQ\

'Vl
? l ?
\ 1
) l !
I
.
!
n iN !
1
) V1
) :
A
G z • I

Q H 1\0 ND
3 ? Igo 'o `°

li
? - - - - - - - - - -
r - - - - -
-
L -

w 124

O

O
C7
'U
U ;Im 'm
:Qa ;m
m
:m ;CO :IM U -M :Oa i07
m
I= ,U U !U
:U U o U :m
'OC
. y
N

LL
z "? y i
= :N y rU -U
N C 'C U 'U
t= .C U
C `U :U U iN rU 'U 'U
C :C L' !N C 'L" 'r- U .U N N N
-C N N N N N _O N
'N N N
:Q N N y N .N :N -N :N N N .N U iN _U N :U U U .N -N N 'U .
z ;
•
i y '_
?? ? ? _
,
• G • 0

Q y •
3 y :U)
0 a? a? a? v y
y
y _CA
a? a? a? a? n? a? .
a? .
y
y
y
a? o y y
y
: a a
..
.7 ilm ,CO OG .?
LL. ce ;a; :M, 40 ;OC ;04 :W W K 4M !M M !IM 'at '(S. IM
'Q
Q

- ' N M N !M 'CT t- i00 :D\ N
N Q
V 'N
N

N ?
ca co
? L
° •O
L y,y «+
i O
O
L
w X
N N
o R
? o
Tr N
U ^
N U
N >
O ?
C y
b •O
? O
?n
o
tr l0
O r-
U t--
° U
e
y M
y N
L
a
? V
o a
O .y
O =
a. ?
Y V
O O
t? 0

r
R
..
M
M
? a
? H
Q ?
H U
z"zA
fY.l
Q ?
f? U
0 ?
z?
LU
w

O
w

o 0

0
N
azn
? p? 0 0 o 0

O O - - - - -----
w ¢ o:
ta. U o 0 0
? U
M

O w
CQ ?
?O N
00
X

Q?E.• ¢ o 0 0

cn
UJ
-0 '
?oz ?
¢ a H
ocn
? U < O
n

En
c o
w
w
w

s --
z _
a-
E
M O

a ?
0
T
O >,
F
Q. n ?
.y

w
0 ?
m ?

O O

N
3
0
? H
O
>o
;? a
y w
V ?
C ?
U
O ?
U ?
W
i
E
0 0
w ?
cz
H N
RZ ?
G C
R
N ?
C O
? O
%p U
Q
C ?O
R .?
M
E
V'1 N
N
•.t
Q
V?
Q
z?
Wz
a
Ha
W
O
z
V
H
?.
M
M
M
?k
a
H
C
O
s
zA
?: MM
0 W
Fil O
?z
V
0
V
W
a
0
W N
0
a O O O

a W W
>
z
Q
a -'

0 0

0

CO)
)
CO)
n
O o
0
W
LLB
U
z
?y . - - --

..a
W c
N o o o
W ?
W
N O O O

a c o 0 0

W
x „? N M N

a
w
v
o 0
0
W
x
0
o 0
0

a
15
Z F
O
?
z
a O ,n
V) _

m ?

rn
En
O O
L L
c:. w
N
N
z
w
w
F
w
0
0
a?
a?
y N
ccz
cw
L' m
.c
:°• ee
H L
Rt U
? t
a+
C O
O .O
V -o
N N
c c
y H
as
N
tD
4G
IN
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: John Hennessy 47

Subject: EA comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business
to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601, TIP U-
3331, DENR Project Number 04-0105.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 80
linear feet of streams as described below:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification(s) Stream Index Number

Stoney Creek
Tar-Pamlico (030203)
Class C NSW (303(d)) -
28-68
UT Stoney Creek Tar-Pamlico (030203) Class C NSW (303(d)) 28-68
The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The document does not include any anticipated impacts to protected Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffers.
Please provide updated data that indicates the anticipated impacts to these resources.
B) As proposed, the project requires the replacement of an existing bridge. Is an onsite detour for the project
proposed? If so, are the impacts associated with the onsite detour included in the impacts listed in the EA?
The impacts should include those to streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers.
C) The document recommends Alternative B as the preferred alternative. However, no discussion that
explains the rationale for the decision is included. Please provide a discussion that details the rationale
used to make the recommended decision. It should include a discussion on the anticipated impacts to both
the natural and human environment.
D) The project impacts Stoney Creek and tributaries to Stoney Creek. Stoney Creek is included as a 303(d)
listed surface water for impairment due to sediment. As such, the project will need to be designed to
discharge stormwater as diffuse flow through riparian buffers at non-erosive velocities. This requirement
will also bring the project in compliance with the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rules.
ryi
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
? WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor

D 'QQG
O
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
A Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
p -? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
E) Since Stoney Creek is included on the 303(d) list, NCDOT will need to strictly adhere to sediment and
erosion control Best Management Practices for sensitive waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project
F) At this time, the NCDWQ agrees with the document's assessment that the project will not result in
increased secondary and cumulative impacts. The reasons for this assessment are: 1) that the project is a
widening alternative, and 2) the project is located in an existing urban landscape with established
infrastructure. The addition of two lanes to the existing road is not likely to stimulate any additional
development activity than what would already occur. As such, and even though a 303(d) listed stream is
located along the project, a quantitative analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not required.
However, a qualitative assessment consistent with the criteria agreed to by DWQ will be a required aspect
of the application for a 401 Water Qaulity Certification.
G) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules 11 5A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) }.
H) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 15A NCAC `2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
I) Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic
organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
J) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
L) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. All stormwater discharges shall be directed to discharge as diffuse flow through riparian buffers
at non-erosive velocities.
M) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
40?WAT`R'Y
-I
f3 `c'
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
N) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP U-3331\comments\U-3331 comments.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
n..n.,..,,,,. C.....i..e• i_nnn_aoa-77A 11

WATP
0 ,' Michael F. Easley, Governor
Willi
R
a
S
QG am G.
oss Jr.,
ecret
ry
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
} Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: John Hennessy

Subject: EA comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business
to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601, TIP U-
3331, DENR Project Number 04-0105.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA, will result in impacts to 80
linear feet of streams as described below:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification(s) Stream Index Number

Stoney Creek
Tar-Pamlico (030203)
Class C NSW (303(d)) -
28-68
UT Stoney Creek Tar-Pamlico (030203) Class C NSW (303(d)) 28-68
The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) The document does not include any anticipated impacts to protected Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffers.
Please provide updated data that indicates the anticipated impacts to these resources.
B) As proposed, the project requires the replacement of an existing bridge. Is an onsite detour for the project
proposed? If so, are the impacts associated with the onsite detour included in the impacts listed in the EA?
The impacts should include those to streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers.
C) The document recommends Alternative B as the preferred alternative. However, no discussion that
explains the rationale for the decision is included. Please provide a discussion that details the rationale
used to make the recommended decision. It should include a discussion on the anticipated impacts to both
the natural and human environment.
D) The project impacts Stoney Creek and tributaries to Stoney Creek. Stoney Creek is included as a 303(d)
listed surface water for impairment due to sediment. As such, the project will need to be designed to
discharge stormwater as diffuse flow through riparian buffers at non-erosive velocities. This requirement
will also bring the project in compliance with the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Rules.
4%
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
O?O? WA T??QG
>
f3 ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality

E) Since Stoney Creek is included on the 303(d) list, NCDOT will need to strictly adhere to sediment and
erosion control Best Management Practices for sensitive waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project
F) At this time, the NCDWQ agrees with the document's assessment that the project will not result in
increased secondary and cumulative impacts. The reasons for this assessment are: 1) that the project is a
widening alternative, and 2) the project is located in an existing urban landscape with established
infrastructure. The addition of two lanes to the existing road is not likely to stimulate any additional
development activity than what would already occur. As such, and even though a 303(d) listed stream is
located along the project, a quantitative analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not required.
However, a qualitative assessment consistent with the criteria agreed to by DWQ will be a required aspect
of the application for a 401 Water Qaulity Certification.
G) After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. Based on the impacts
described in the document, wetland mitigation may be required for this project. Should the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 1.
H) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC'2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be required
for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration
Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
I) Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic
organisms. Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
L) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge directly into
the creek. All stormwater discharges shall be directed to discharge as diffuse flow through riparian buffers
at non-erosive velocities.
M) Future documentation should include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1-800-623-7748
1
o?0? WArF?Qc

o ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
N) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will
require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final
permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the
development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation
plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
File Copy
c:\ncdot\TIP U-3331\comments\U-3331 comments.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
(!itucfnmar Caniina• I-Rnn-R9A-77AR
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
;%ove :
o3
Date
r
4,rl -
Date
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
,fj.?'-16hn F.
Federal
o?
III, Division Administrator
Administration

ti?
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
VMS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
August, 2003
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Enviro qQ 1 s
ESS
1?;2 q
Charles R. Cox, P.E. = SE Al
19328
Project Development U t Head .
e %A

Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Branch by:
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US '64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
NOS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
Division 4 Design Unit. Structure Design Unit. Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will replace the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge over Stoney Creek with a
180-foot (55-meter) long bridge to allow for additional hydrologic trespass.
Program Development Branch. Division 4 Design Unit. Division 4 'Construction
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
project. At the request of Rocky Mount, a sidewalk will also be included-along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk; such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility,
Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 1
August, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................. i
ti
A. Type of Action ...................................................................................... i
B. General Description .............................................................................. i
C. Project Benefits .................................................................................... i
D. Alternatives Considered ....................................................................... i
E. Recommended Alternative .................................................................. ii
F. Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................... ii
G. Permits Required
H. Coordination ........................................................................................ ii
1. Additional Information ..........:............................................................iii
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .....................................1
A. General Description ............................................................................1
B. Transportation Plan ............................................................................. I
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................2
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................................................. 2
B. Accident History ................................................................................... 2
C. Regional Planning ..........................................:..................................... 3
D. Purpose of Project ................................................................................ 3

III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ..........................................4
A. Length of Project .................................................................................. 4
B. Route Classification ............................................................................. 4
C. Existing Typical Section ...................................................................... 4
D. Project Terminals ................................................................................ 4
E. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 4
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures .................................................................. 4
G. Speed Limit .......................................................................................... 5
H. Access Control ..................................................................................... 5
1. Intersection and Type of Control .......................................................... 5
J. Utilities .........:....................................................................................... 5
K. School Buses ........................................................................................ 5
L. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................... 5
M. Sidewalks .................................................................................:............ 5
N. Parking .................................................................................................. 5
0. Bicycle Provisions ................................................................................ 6
P. Greenways ............................................................................................ 6

Q. Other TIP Projects in Area ................................................................... 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................... 7
A. "No Build" Alternative ....................................................................... 7
B. Mass Transportation Alternative ......................................................... 7
C. Widening Alternative .......................................................................... 7
D. Capacity Analysis ................................................................................ 8
E. Recommended Alternative .................................................................. 8
V.
VI.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................. 9
A. Design Speed ..............................................................
9
B. ......................
Typical Section ..

C .................................................................................
Ri
ht of Wa .. 9
. g
y ..................................................................................... .. 9
D. Access Control .....
. 9
.............................
............................................... ..
E. Bridge/Drainage Structures .................................... 9
F ...........................
Parkin ..
. g .............................................................................................. .. 9
G. Sidewalks ..... 9
..................................................................................... ..
H. Bicycle Provisions ..............................................
. 10
1. .
............................
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ..................................... 10
J. Estimate of Costs .... 10
..........................................................................
HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................ 11
A. Human Environment ......................................................................... I 1
1. Community Profile/Effects ...................:...
. 11
a. .
................................
Geographic Location ............................................................. I l
b. Race, Ethnicity and Age ....................................................... 11
c. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment ......................... 13
d. Housing Characteristics ........................................................ 13
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers ............................... 14
f. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions ............................. 14
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services ................................. 14
h. Existing/Future Land Uses .................................................... 14
(1) Present/Future Zoning .................................................. 14
(2) Development Plans ...................................................... 15
i. Impact Assessment ................................................................ 15
(1) Local Plans ................................................................... 15
(2) Economic Development .............................................. 15
(3) Greenway Considerations ............................................ 15
(4) Accessibility Considerations ........................................ 15
(5) Business, Institutional, and Residential Relocation
Impacts ......................................................................... 16
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion..... 16

(7) . Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment ..............16
(8) Farmland Impacts .........................................................16
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds ..............17
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice .............................17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ................................:..18
2. Cultural Resources ......................................................................19
a. Compliance Guidelines .........................................................19
b. Historic Architecture .............................................................19
c. Archeology ............................................................................19
3. Air Quality ................................................................................:.19
a. Carbon Monoxide ................................................................. 20
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides....................................... 21
c. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide .................................. 21
d. Project Effects .......................................................................21
4. Traffic Noise ............................................................................... 22
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................ 22
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................... 23
c. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................... 24
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ...................... 24
e. Traffic Noise and Contour .................................................... 25
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...................................... 25
(1) Highway Alignment ..................................................... 26
(2) Traffic System Management Measures ........................ 26
(3) Noise Barriers .............................................................. 26
g. Do Nothing" Alternative ..................................................... 27
h. Construction Noise ................................................................ 27
i. Summary ..........................................:.................................... 27
5. Geodetic Markers ........................................................................28
6. Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 28
B. Natural Environment ......................................................................... 29
1. Methodology and Definitions ..................................................... 29
2. Physical Resources ...................................................................... 29
a. Soils ...................................................................................... 30
b. Water Resources ................................................................... 30
(1) Waters Impacted .......................................................... 31
(2) Best Usage Classification ............................................ 31
• 3 Water Quality .....................31
(4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................ 33
3. Biotic Resources ......................................................................... 33
a. Biotic Community ................................................................. 34
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype) ................................................... 34
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest ...................................... 34
..................................................
(3) Maintained/Disturbed 35
b. Aquatic Community ..............................................................35
c. Wildlife ................................................................................. 35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna ........................................................ ..36
(2) Aquatic Fauna ............................................................ .. 36
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................... .. 36
4. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................. ..38
a. Waters of the United States ................................................. .. 38
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... .. 38
(2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. .. 39
(3) Permits ............................................ 39
........................... ..
(4) Mitigation ................................................................... ..39
(a) Avoidance ......................................................... .. 40
(b) Minimization ..................................................... ..40
(c) Compensatory Mitigation ................................. .. 40
b. Rare and Protected Species ................................................. .. 40
(1) Federdlly-Protected Species ....................................... .. 41
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .. 43
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation ......................................................... .. 44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................... 45
A. Comments Solicited ..........................................................................45
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop ................................................... 45
C. Public Hearing , ................................................................................. 45

TABLES
Table 1 Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road) ............ 3
Table 2A 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline ............................. 8
Table 2B 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections .................. ..... 8
Table 3 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co.).. 12
Table 4 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.) ...................................... 12
Table 5 2000 Income measures and Persons Living
Below Poverty Level (Nash Co.) ............................................ 13
Table 6 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co.) .............................. 14
Table 7 Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters .................................. 33
Table 8 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......................... 37
Table 9 Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas .... 39
Table 10 Federally-Protected Species for Nash County ........................ 41
Table 11 Federal Species of Concern for Nash County ........................ 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic of Project Area
Figures 3A, 3B 2002 and 2020 Traffic
Figure 4 Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figures 5A, 5B Intersection Improvements
Figures 6 FEMA Floodplain Map
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Noise Analysis

. . SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
WBS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This Environmental Assessment action is being taken because the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will not occur due to this proposed
project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation (likely a
Finding of No Significant Impact document).
B. General Description
The NCDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, proposes to widen SR 1616
(Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's Road) in Nash County.
The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-
lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide
12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for most of the project. The bridge over
Stoney Creek will be replaced. The total project length is approximately 1.4 miles
2.2 kilometers).
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition, and $6,700,000 for construction.
The current estimated cost is $14,225,000. Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 and construction in FY 2005.
C. Project Benefits
The proposed widening of Country Club Road to a multi-lane facility will provide
an overall positive benefit for this section of Rocky Mount. This improvement will help
reduce travel times, and improve traffic flow and safety along Country Club Road.
D. Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the project consist of "no-build", mass
transportation, and two widening alternatives.
E. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative proposes to widen the existing Country Club Road
to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and gutter facility throughout the entire length
of the project. The alignment is a combination of symmetrical widening and widening to
one side for a "best fit" to minimize impacts. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction for the entire length of the project. The
recommendation includes the replacement of the existing bridge with a bridge 180 feet
(55 meters) long and 69 feet wide (55 meters by 21 meters) to accommodate the five
lanes of traffic and a sidewalk on one side. The intersection of Country Club Road and
Jeffrey's Road will be realigned as part of this project.
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is anticipated as a
result of the project. The proposed project will not impact any historic structures eligible
for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The recommended alternative
will not encroach upon any archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National
Register. It is anticipated no residential or business relocations will occur as a result of
this proposed improvement. Future noise levels are expected to increase up to +11 dBAs.
G. Special Permits Required
Approximately .16 acres (0.06 hectares) of wetlands and 80 feet (24 meters) of
stream impacts are anticipated. A Nationwide Permit will be required with the US Army
Corps of Engineers. A Water Quality Certification will be required by the NC Division of
Water Quality.
H. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
ii
Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
Copies of the written comments received are included in Appendix B.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting either of the following:
John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
iii
. SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
From US 64 Business to SR 1541. (Jeffrey's Road)
Rocky Mount, Nash County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1616(4)
State Project No. 8.2321601
VMS No. 34927.1.1
TIP Project No. U-3331
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes
to widen SR 1616 (Country Club Road) from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffrey's
Road) in Rocky Mount, Nash County (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The proposed
project will widen the existing roadway to a 64-foot (19.2-meter), five-lane, curb and
gutter facility throughout the project. The improved facility will provide 12-foot
(3.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a 12-foot (3.6-meter), center-turn lane for
the entire length of the project. The existing bridge over Stoney Creek will be replaced
with a 5-lane, 180-foot (55-meter) structure. The total project length is approximately
1.4 miles (2.2 kilometers).
B. Transportation Plan
This project is included in the approved 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) and in the 2004-2010 T.I.P. with a total estimated cost of $10,900,000,
which includes $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition and $6,700,000 for construction.
Acquisition of right of way is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2004 and
construction in FFY 2005.
II. NEED FOR. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The need for the project is based on three main areas: traffic volumes/capacity;
accident history; and regional planning.
A. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
In 2002 the average daily traffic volumes on Country Club Road ranged from a
low of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near Jeffrey's Road to a high of
approximately 16,900 vpd near US 64 Business. Based on traffic modeling and current
growth, the traffic is anticipated to increase to a range of 7,500 vpd to 24,400 vpd by the
year 2020 (see Appendix A, Figures 3-A, 3-B).
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Level
of service range from LOS A to F. Level of service A, represents unrestricted maneuverability
and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal
operating speeds. Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds
close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and
unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel, this occurs at level
of service F.
With the present traffic volumes, the intersections along Country Club Road are operating
at LOS C and D. If no improvements were made to Country Club Road, the roadway would be
expected to operate at Level of Service E by the design year 2020.
B. Accident History
During the sample period from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000 a total of 91
accidents were reported on the studied portion on Country Club Road. This resulted in a
total crash rate of 1059.66 accidents per 100 million vehicles kilometers (ACC/100MVK)
which is considerably higher than the statewide average or similar rates of 163.40
(ACC/100MVK) for two-lane urban primary routes. There were 0 fatalities during the
period, and 46 accidents resulted in injuries. The primary accident types were left-turn
and rear-end collisions with slowing or stopping vehicles.
Table 1 represents a comparison between accident rates along the project and the
statewide rates for all similar secondary routes. The average statewide rates were obtained
from studies conducted during the same period of 1997 to 2000.
2
Table 1: Accident Rates Along SR 1616 (Country Club Road)
(Accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers)
Accident
Type Rates Along
SR 1616 Statewide
Average
Fatal 0.00 0.41
Nonfatal Injury 535.65 77.65
Nighttime 174.67 37.27
Wet Conditions 291.11 38.75
Total Rate 1059.66 154.23
C. Reuional Planning
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Proposed improvements are in conformance with
this plan. Development in this area is continuing to increase.
D. Purpose of Project
Due to increased development each of end of this route, future traffic growth will
create longer travel times, and an increase in accidents. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the facility and to improve safety due to high year-
end and left turn accidents.
3
M. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Project
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 1.4 miles (2.2
kilometers) .
B. Route Classification
Country Club Road is designated as an urban collector on the North Carolina
Statewide Functional Classification System and as a minor thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
C.' Existing Typical Section
The existing typical section of Country Club Road is a two-lane, 20-foot (6-meter)
roadway with 6-foot (1.8-meter) wide soil shoulders.
D. Project Terminals
At the southern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with US 64
Business. Across the intersection, Zebulon Road exists as a three-lane road.
At the northern project terminal Country Club Road intersects with Jeffrey's
Road. At this location, both Country Club Road and Jeffrey's Road continue as two-lane
roadways with unpaved shoulder. There are no plans to improve these roadways north of
this intersection.
E. Right of Way
The existing right of way along Country Club Road is 60 feet (18 meters).
F. Bridge/Drainage Structures
Bridge Number 112 carries Country Club Road over Stoney Creek and is located
0.3-mile (0.5 kilometer) north of US 64 Business. It is 160 feet (49 meters) long and has a
clear deck width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). This bridge has a sufficiency rating of 47.1 out
of 100.
SR 1616 runs under the dual US 64 Bypass bridges. The bridges were constructed
in 1980. The clear width under these bridges is 70 feet (21.3 meters).
A pair of 72-inch (1800 mm) corrugated metal pipes is located at the crossing of a
small tributary to Stoney Creek.
4
G. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along the studied section of Country Club Road is 35
miles per hour (mph) (56 kilometers per hour).
H. Access Control
The existing roadway has no access control.
I. Intersection and Type of Control
All roads currently intersecting the project alignment are at-grade. The following
intersections are signalized: US 64 Business, Hunter Hill Road and Jeffrey's Road. The
following intersections are not signalized: Overton Drive and Cove Drive. A grade
separation carries US 64 Bypass over Country Club Road.
J. Utilities
The project is expected to have a high utility conflict. The following utilities are
located within the project corridor: aerial cable, underground fiber optic cable, water,
sewer, gas and telephone.
K. School Buses
During the school year, two school buses use this portion of Country Club Road.
These buses travel along Country Club Road both in the morning and afternoon.
L. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along this project.
M. Sidewalks
A small section of sidewalks currently exist along between Hunter Hill Road and
Jeffrey's Road.
N. Parking
There is no on-street parking along Country Club Road.
5
O. Bicycle Provisions
This section of Country Club Road is not a designated bicycle route.
P. Greenways
No greenways exist along this section of Country Club Road.
Q. Other TIP Projects in Area
U-3330 (US 301 Bypass from NC 43-48 to SR 1836):
Scope - Add additional lane in each direction
Right of way and Construction - Post Year
U-3621 (SR 1604 from SR 1616 to NC 43-48):
Scope - Widen to multi-lanes
Right of Way - Fiscal Year 2008
Construction - Fiscal Year 2010
6
IV.. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for this project consist of the: no-build; mass
transportation; and two widening alternatives.
A. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facility. This
alternative would not improve capacity or safety along Country Club Road with the
project area which is the stated purpose and need of the project. Road capacity would
remain unchanged while the traffic demand substantially increases. Therefore, the "no-
build" alternative has been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative
does however, provide a basis for comparison of other alternatives.
B. Mass Transportation Alternative
The mass transportation alternative includes the expansion of bus and/or rail
service in place of increasing the capacity of the roadway. The Rocky Mount Transit
System serves the City of Rocky Mount, operating fixed-route buses for the city,
including a portion of Country Club Road from Jeffrey's Road to Hunter Hill Road as
part of its route. The City of Rocky Mount also has a para-transit service, otherwise
known as the Dial-A-Ride Transportation Service (DARTS), which operates dial a ride
para-transit service for certain authorized residents for the City of Rocky Mount who
begin and end their trips within 1/4 mile (1.2 kilometers) of Rocky Mount Transit's fixed
routes. Riders must be certified to be eligible for para-transit service. Greyhound Lines
Inc. has a terminal in Downtown Rocky Mount providing scheduled inter-city bus
service, providing service for both urban and rural areas (Nash and Edgecombe counties)
for a total of 9 routes. Also, located in downtown Rocky Mount, AMTRAK provides
scheduled daily rail service including three northbound and three southbound routes.
Long term transportation solutions for Country Club Road will likely consist of a
mixture of roadway expansion and increased bus service. Therefore, widening this section
of Country Club Road can be viewed as one part of the overall transportation plan for the
area. However, expansion of bus service is not expected to reduce traffic volumes
sufficiently to eliminate this project's need. The mass transportation alternative, without
increasing the roadway capacity of Country Club Road, does not meet the purpose and
need of this project and was therefore eliminated from further study.
C. Widening Alternatives
The highway construction alternative consists of widening the roadway. The
anticipated traffic increase to over 24,000 vehicles per day by 2020 warrants widening to
include two lanes in. each direction to improve the level of service. The five-lane section
with center turn lane was also chosen as the best typical section because of the high left-
turn and rear-end collisions.
7
Two widening alternatives were considered, Alternatives A and B. Both involve
generally symmetrical widening of the roadway for a "best fit". Both alternatives are
identical, except in the vicinity of the Stoney Creek bridge crossing. Both also include
replacing the existing 160-foot (49-meter) bridge with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The
bridge width of 69 feet (21 meters) will accommodate the five lanes and a sidewalk on
one side. Both include the realignment of the intersection of Country Club Road with
Jeffrey's Road.
Alternative A consists of widening the roadway to the west as it approaches
Stoney Creek and phase-constructing a new bridge on this west side. Alternative B is the
same concept as Alternative A, except that the new bridge will be constructed to the east
to allow for east-side widening of the roadway.
D. Capacity Analysis
The future traffic volumes (2020) for the mainline and intersections for two
conditions were evaluated: "no-build" condition, which assumes that no improvements
are made; and "build" condition, which assumes that the roadway is widened to five-
lanes. Tables 2A and 2B list the level of service. To achieve acceptable levels of service,
the intersection improvements described in Section V.I are proposed.
Table 2A: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Mainline
Country Club Road
From/ To No Build /Build
US 64 Bus / Hunter Hill Road E / B
Hunter Hill Road / Jeffrey's Road E / B
Table 2B: 2020 Traffic Capacity Analysis - Intersections
Intersection of Country Club Road
With.... No Bided l Build
US 64 Business E / D
Hunter Hill Road E / D
Jeffrey's Road D / C
E. Recommended Alternative
Alternative B is recommended because it allows for the increased capacity,
minimizes overall impacts to the area, and avoids wetlands on the east side of the existing
roadway in the vicinity of Stoney Creek.
8
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 40 mph for the entire length of the project. Design
speed is a correlation of 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 the recommended or posted speed.
B. Typical Section
The recommended typical cross section is a five-lane, 64-foot (19.2-meter) curb
and gutter section with 8-foot (2.4-meter) berms (see Figure 4). This cross section will
provide for two 2-foot (0.6-meter) travel lanes in each direction and a center-turn lane for
left turns.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way will range from 84 to 100 feet (26 to 30 meters).
D. Access Control
No access control is proposed along the project.
E. Bridge/Drainage Structures
The 160-foot (49-meter) bridge carrying Country Club Road over Stoney Creek
will be replaced with a 180-foot (55-meter) bridge. The bridge will be replaced rather
than widened because of current design requirements relating to minimum setbacks from
the top of creek bank to the fill slope of the bridge.
The two 77-inch by 52-inch (2000 by 1400 mm) corrugated steel pipes arches
carrying a tributary to Stoney Creek will be extended to accommodate the planned
roadway cross section.
The US 64-Bypass bridges will not be altered.
F. Parkin
On-street parking will not be provided.
G. Sidewalks
The existing sidewalk will be replaced if it is damaged or removed as a result of
construction. A sidewalk will be included on one side of the bridge as part of this TIP
9
project. At the-request of Rocky Mount, a sidewalk will also be included along the
roadway portion of the project at additional cost to the City. A municipal agreement
between the City and NCDOT will give specific details of the additional sidewalk, such
as location, cost participation requirements, and maintenance responsibility.
H. Bicycle Provisions
No special bicycle provisions are proposed.
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Intersections with Country Club Road that are currently signalized will remain
signalized. All other intersections are proposed to remain stop sign controlled.
In addition, the proposed improvements are as follows (also see Figures 5A and
5B):
• US 64 Business - Dual left-turn lanes on the southbound Country Club
Road approach and an exclusive right-turn lane on the northbound
approach. Also recommended is an exclusive right-turn lane on the
westbound US 64 Business approach.
• Hunter Hill Road - Exclusive right-turn lanes on the northbound and
southbound County Club Road approaches.
• Jeffrey's Road -realignment of intersection, with Jeffrey's Road as the
major movement with southbound Country Club Road. Two through
lanes on northbound Country Club Road will taper down to one lane
when it becomes Jeffrey's Road.
Estimate of Costs
* Construction $6,400,000
**Right of way $7,825,000
Total Cost $14,225,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
* * Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs
10
VI. HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Human Environment
1. Community Profile / Effects
a. Geographic Location
Rocky Mount is the largest city in Nash County. Much of the land in the
surrounding area and counties is primarily rural and has agriculture as the basis for much
of the economy.
b. Race, Ethnicity, and Agee
In the 2000 Census, the project area (Census Tract 105.02) contained a population
of 25.3% black, which was slightly lower than the percentage of black population in the
County (33.9%) and- slightly higher than the percentage of black population in North
Carolina (21.4%) (see Table 3). The project area contained a population of .9% Hispanic.
This was slightly lower than the percentage of Hispanics (3.3%) in the County and the
percentage of Hispanic population (4.6%) in North Carolina.
Regarding age, approximately 25.1 % of the population in this project area is
above the age of 65 (see Table 4). .
11
Table 3: 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
`Total Population -
1990 6,287 100 879420 100` 8,049,313 100
Total Hispanic** 59 .9 2888 3.3 372,964 4.6
White 4,558 "72.5 53,244 60.9` 5,648,953 70:2`
White Hispanic 16 795 153,212
Black 1,590" 25.3 29,607': 33.9 `19720,197 21.4
Black Hispanic 0 58 13,957
American Indian/
Alaskan 10 0.2 237 .3 97,289 1.2
American Indian/
Alaskan Hispanic 12 37 3,667
Asian 62 1:0 413 5 1109167 1.4
Asian Hispanic 0 0 1,125
Pacific. Islander 0 --- 23 .03 3,081 0.04
Pacific Islander
Hispanic 0 0 618
Other 0 142 .2 8,481 .1
Other Hispanic 31 1,874 176,657
Two or More Races 8 0.1 866 1.0 88,181 1.1
Two or more Races
Hispanic
.4 T 0 124 23,728
Project Area is aennect as census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
** Hispanic and Latino Ethnicity is calculated by the U.S. Census as being of any race.
Table 4: 2000 Population by Age (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Total Population -
1990 6,287 100 87,420 100 8,049,313 100
0 to 64 4,712 74.9 76,445 87.4 7,079,491 88
65 or above 1,575 25.1 10,975 12.6 969,822 12
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
12
C. Income, Poverty Status, and .Unemployment
The 2000 median household income for Nash County was $37,147 comparable
with $37,064 for the project area. Per capita income for the county was $18,863, which
was lower than the per capita income for the project area ($22,335). Because median
income for the project area and Nash County are comparable, but per capita income for
the project area is higher, this may indicate that the project area has a higher percentage
of smaller sized families and/or individual households.
The project area had 588 persons (9.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom
235 (3.8%) live at or below 50% of the poverty level. Nash County had 11,478 persons
(13.4%) living below the poverty level, of whom 4970 (5.8%) live at or below 50% of the
poverty level. The percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the project area
(9.4%) in Census 2000 was an increase from the percentage of persons living below the
poverty level (5.3%) in Census 1990 (see Table 5).
Table 5: 2000 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level (Nash Co.)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Number % Number % Number %
Median Household $37,064 94.6 $37,147 94.8 $39,184 100
Income
Average Household :N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Income
Per Capita Income $22,335 110 $18;863 92.9 20,307 100
Persons below 588 9.4 11,478 13.4 958,667 12.3
poverty level - total
Persons below 50% 235 3.8 4,970 5.8 431,894 5.5
of poverty level -
total
* Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
d. Housing Characteristics
The project area had a higher median home value ($102,800) than Nash County
($95,800). The project area homeownership rate was 50.5%. In Nash County the rate of
homeownership was 61.5%. The median rent in the project area was $530 and median
rent was $494 in Nash County. The homeownership rate of 50.5% in the project area in
2000 was notably lower than the homeownership rate for Nash County (61.5%) and was a
decrease from the 1990 homeownership rate of 54.1% for the project area (see Table 6).
13
Table 6: 2000 Housing Characteristics (Nash Co;)
Project Area* Nash County North Carolina
Median Home Value $102;800 '$95,80.0 $108,300
Homeownership Rate 50.5% 61.5%0 61.6%
Median'Rent $530 $494 $548
*Project Area is defined as Census Tract 105.02 in Nash County.
e. Business Activity/Employment Centers
The land use within the general vicinity of the project, along both sides of the
road widening project, is comprised of a variety of land uses and varying densities of
residential, commercial, and office activity.
Much of the land immediately adjacent to the road is commercial in nature, with
much of the businesses being service related, such as insurance offices, restaurants, and
retail. There are no-large-scale employers along the length of the project.
f. Public Facilities, Schools.and Institutions
There are no schools or other public institutions located within the general
vicinity of the proposed project.
g. Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
There are no emergency-related services located along the project route.
h. Existing/Future Land Uses
(1) Present/Future Zoning
The existing zoning along the project corridor is primarily a mix of varying
densities of residential, commercial and office categories. Much of the zoning directly
adjoining the road is business related zoning, with residential areas set back behind those
properties zoned for commercial activity.
As most all of the land along the road is currently developed, there is little
opportunity for significant changes in the overall land use or zoning along the road. In
addition, the City of Rocky Mount has no plans to direct changes to the zoning or land
use in this part of town.
14
(2) Development Plans
Planning documents for this part of Rocky Mount forecast no broad changes to
land use patterns or trends along Country Club Road.
i. Impact Assessment
(1) Local Plans
As the land use within the general vicinity of the road is residentially mature and
stable, the City of Rocky Mount has no long-term plans for changing the pattern of
development along Country Club Road.
(2) Economic Development
As the land surrounding the project is nearly built out, there is little opportunity
for new economic development. The proposed project improvements will not increase or
curtail specific economic activity/opportunities in the immediate project vicinity, as the
project improvements are not expected to attract new levels of traffic, or provide new
access to developable lands. In addition, the project will not generate new development or
alter existing patterns of development that might disrupt the surrounding community.
(3) Greenway Considerations
Greenways and greenway crossings are considered in the roadway planning
process. Critical corridors, which have been adopted by local governments for future
greenways, are not to be severed by roadway construction. There are no current
greenways along this section of Country Club Road.
(4) Accessibility Considerations
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the
1964 Civil Rights Act to be disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public
accommodations and transportation and other services.
The project will not impose excessive barriers to accessibility, though widening
the road from two lanes to five lanes will increase the distance required to cross the road.
Sidewalks are being considered for the north side of the road, between Hunter Hill Road
and Jeffrey's Road, in order to accommodate pedestrian activity in the general vicinity.
15
(5) Business, Institutional and Residential Relocations and
Impacts
There are currently no relocations associated with the widening of Country Club
Road. The most likely areas of impact to existing development appear to be to those
areas immediately adjacent to the existing road, such-as business and commercial parking
lots. There appear to be few structures located in proximity to the existing road, but there
may be conflicts with driveways, fences and other such appurtenances, due to the
addition of travel lanes.
(6) Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
The road-widening project will not split or isolate the community or the
surrounding neighborhoods along the project route.
The proposed project will not alter existing patterns of development, which might
disrupt the surrounding community.
There may be some disruption for various pedestrians, in that the wider road may
create some difficulty for various residents who might routinely cross the road for various
purposes. Therefore, attention to theses needs in the planning and design of the new
roadway would be prudent for assisting pedestrians and bicyclists in safely using the
roadway.
(7) Tax Base Changes, Changes in Employment
There are no relocations associated with this project, there should be little change
in the local tax base, either positive or negative, as the project does not impose new
intersections or interchanges, or alter the existing development patterns in the general
vicinity of the project.
The employment base for the area within the vicinity of the road will not likely
change quickly. However, over the long term, as the proposed road improvements will
increase the traffic carrying capacity of the road, there may be changes in land use due
local development decisions and growth of the local economy.
(8) Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils,
as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils
are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
16
economic resources. Land, which is planned or zoned for urban development is not
subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural, agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in an urban area, planned for commercial and
residential activity, and currently devoid of any agricultural activities. Therefore, the
project will not disturb or disrupt any farming operations and farmland mitigation or
avoidance will.not be necessary.
(9) Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
No river, stream or creek within the project area has been designated as a Wild
and Scenic River.
(10) Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides
that "each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its
provisions apply fully to American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental
justice refers to the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with
respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
This project will not place disproportionately high or adverse impacts upon any
areas having low income and/or minority populations which may be located near the
project. Census data does not indicate that there are any such areas within the immediate
vicinity of this road-widening project.
This assessment has not found any evidence or indication of discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. This project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
17
(11) Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
Secondary effects are indirect impacts, which are caused by or result from the
project. These may be later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of the project,
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, regardless
of which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor, but collectively, significant activities taking place over a period of
time.
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be - depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and
other factors - encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl. Improvements to
levels of service, better accommodation of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
The likelihood of secondary/cumulative impacts is low for this project. On its
own, the project is not expected to attract additional traffic or development. As the
project consists of widening the existing road in order to alleviate traffic congestion to
improve flow and safety, the proposed improvements will not dramatically alter the
surrounding land use, provide or impose new intersections/ interchanges, increase access
to undeveloped lands, or alter. development patterns.
Many of the ultimate consequences of road improvement projects are dependent
upon various issues and decisions which are not part of the actual road construction
process, but have much to do with a myriad of decisions made by the local government(s)
at a later point in time.
Many of these issues and decisions relate to such items as local land development
regulations, planning and zoning, development demand, availability of utility
infrastructure (water and sewer), local economic development efforts, and other factors
which are part of a local economy.
In addition, improvements to a particular road's level of service, better
accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements, and reductions in travel times
can have impacts to surrounding land use which lie beyond the immediate project area.
However, as the project will result in the widening of Country Club Road from a
two lane section to a five lane section, this corridor will have an expanded capacity for
traffic flow. While expanded traffic capacity and enhanced mobility may benefit the area
in general, the larger road facility may pose the possibility of some negative aspects in the
future in terms of accessibility and congestion. This may especially be true if local land
use and development decisions for this road contribute to increased levels of traffic, and
thus reduce levels of service along the length of the project.
18
2. Cultural Resources
a. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertaking.
b. Historic Architecture
The area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was
reviewed by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. The NCDOT, NCHPO, and FHWA
agree that the eight properties older than fifty years of age within the APE are not eligible
for listing in the National Register. There are no other properties within the APE over
fifty years of age and no properties less than fifty years of age that meet eligibility
Criterion G for listing in the National Register. No further compliance with Section 106 is
required for historic architectural resources.
C. Archaeology
The NCDOT conducted an archaeological survey of the project area in February
2000. The majority of the project area was determined to be disturbed from previous
residential and commercial development. Three areas within the APE were subjected to
subsurface shovel testing. No archeological sites were recorded, and no evidence of
cultural use or occupation of the project area was encountered during the survey. This
work was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. No further
compliance with Section 106 is required for archaeological resources.
3. Air Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing
highway facility. Federal Standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), are required to set levels that protect human health. There are currently
NAAQS for six pollutants. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein
19
is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project due to traffic flow.
a. Carbon Monoxide
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway,
both local and background concentration components must be used. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operation on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 328 feet (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
component was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
A micro-scale 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 near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level-roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the years 2005 and 2025, using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the MOBILESA 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 (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment Health
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case quality scenario was determined to be located along the limits of
the right-of-way approximately 15 meters from the centerline of the proposed roadway.
The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005
and 2025 are 2.6 and 2.7 ppm, respectively. The predicted 1-hour average CO
20
concentrations for the evaluation no-build years of 2005 and 2025 are 2.7 and 3.4 ppm,
respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; eight-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case one-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the eight-hour
CO level does not exceed the standard.
b. Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides
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 6.21 to 12.42
miles (10 to 20 kilometers) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as 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
that forms in Los Angeles, California.
C. . Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide
Automobiles are not 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 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 exceed the NAAQS.
d. Project Effects
The project is located in Nash County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Because the
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This
21
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment
area.
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 practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed 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.
4. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determined the effect on noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of the widening of Country Club Road from two
lanes to a multi-lane facility between US 64 and Jeffrey's Road. 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 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 must be considered for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts.
a. Characteristics of Noise
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
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this repor t, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 ( see Appendix Q.
22
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.
3. The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than others,
and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is offensive. For
example, noises that occur during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background
noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car
horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
In a 60-dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible while sleep might be
difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by
loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises that 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.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
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 (see Appendix Q. 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.
23
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. 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 levels
along the roadway facilities in the project area as measured at 49.2 feet (13 meters)
ranged from 60.7 to 62.2 dBA. The ambient measurement locations are presented in
Table N3 (see Appendix Q.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
traffic noise prediction model in order it calculate existing noise levels for comparison
with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged
approximately 1.6 dBA higher than the measured noise levels for the location where
noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the
prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that
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, physical road
characteristics (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and
can consider barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation if applicable.
In this regard, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use in
this noise analysis. The project proposes the widening of Country Club Road from two
Ianes to a multi-lane facility from US 64 to Jeffrey's Road. 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
24
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 2025. 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 Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4
(see Appendix Q. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors
in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
e. Traffic Noise and Contour
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 (see
Appendix Q. Consideration-for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
that fall in either category.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5 (see Appendix Q. These
are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 15 residential receptors and 8 businesses will
be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 57.4 and 114.2 feet (17.5 and 35 meters),
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This 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 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 N6 (see Appendix C) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for
the identified receptors by roadway section. The maximum number of substantial impacts
anticipated is 21 receptors. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up
to +11 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible barely to 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.
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
25
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors.
(1) HighwLay 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. The highway alignment has been selected to
minimize impacts and cost; alignment revisions specifically for noise abatement is not
considered feasible.
(2) Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures that 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.
(3) Noise Barriers
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of Categorical
Exclusions, Findings of no significant impacts, Record of Decision, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge
date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often 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.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the
proposed roadway, and all intersection 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
26
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 49.21 feet (13 meters) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 360 feet
(110 meters) long. An access opening of 39.37 feet (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, pages 5-27). Hence, this type of control of
access effective eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation
measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishment 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.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative was also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 8 receptors would still experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range up 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.
h. 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.
Summary
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were
considered for noise mitigation. 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.
27
5. Geodetic Markers
This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.
6. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along existing Country Club Road
between US 64 Business and Jeffrey's Road. In addition to the field survey, a file search
of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any known problem
sites along the proposed project alignment.
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, three (3) facilities with the possibility
for underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified. These sites are described below.
• Fuel Doc # 9 (Citgo) is a gas station/convenience store located on the west side of SR
1616, approximately 200 feet (60 meters) north of the US 64 Business. According to
the field reconnaissance and Division of Waste Management (DWM) UST Section
registry, four (4) UST's are currently in use on the property. The pump island is
approximately 68 feet (20.7 meters0 from the centerline of US 64 Business, while the
main tank bed is approximately 109 feet (32.3 meters) away behind the building. The
proposed improvements will not impact the tanks or pump islands. One monitoring
well was noted near the tank bed. Free product was identified in this monitoring well
in March of 1998, but no follow-up work has been performed. The regulatory agency
will require further work at this site.
• Triangle Alternator Starter is located on the west side of SR 1616, just south of Weed
Road. The facility has been in operation for about 25 years. According to the
property owner, Mr. Sherrod, no other businesses have operated at the site. There is
an in-ground hydraulic lift in the garage area, about 70 feet (21 meters) from the
centerline of SR 1616. Behind the building, approximately 34 feet (10.4 meters) from
the centerline of Weed Road, there is a heating oil UST. The proposed improvements
will not impact either tank. Both tanks are not regulated unless contamination is
identified. No monitoring wells were noted and it does not appear that the site is
currently under remediation.
• Stoney Creek Volunteer Fire Department is located in the southwest quadrant of the
SR 1616 and Overton Drive intersection. According to fire chief, three (3) UST's
were removed from the site about 12 years ago. No registry information could be
located for the tanks. The former UST area is near the rear of the building
approximately 142 feet (43 meters) from the centerline of SR 1616. The proposed
improvements will not impact this area of the property. A monitoring well was noted
in the former tank area, but no information could be located at the DWM UST Section
in Raleigh, NC concerning the removal of tanks or the monitoring well. It does not
appear that the site is currently being monitored by the regulatory agency.
28
Research of files and databases shows no regulated or unregulated landfills
or dumpsites exist within the project area.
B. Natural Environment
Methodology and Definitions
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rocky Mount), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Map (Rocky Mount), Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
soil maps (Nash County, 1989), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1000).
Water resource information was obtained from the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1994) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species
in the study area was gathered from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and species of concern (March 23, 2001), and the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists on April 7, 2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracs and
burrows). Mussels and other aquatic life were surveyed using tactile and visual
techniques by NCDOT biologists on July 23, 1999. Jurisdictional wetland determinations
were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed by the "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending .5 mi. on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with
the project occupying the central position.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
. The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Nash County is characterized by broad flat uplands between
wide, sandy drainage ways. Topography in the project area is nearly level to gently
29
sloping, partially located in the floodplain area associated with the Tar River. The project
elevation is approximately 100 feet (30 meters) above mean sea level (msl).
a. Soils
Five soil phases occur within project boundaries: Altavista sandy loam, Bibb
loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, Meggett loam, and Urban land. Altavista sandy loam is
moderately well drained and nearly level to gently sloping, occurring on low terraces
along large streams. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow. The major
limitation on development is a high water table during the winter and flooding hazard
after prolonged periods of rainfall.
Bibb loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on bottomlands of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is very slow. The water table
is at or near the surface during most of the year. Bibb loam is not suitable for
development because of flooding and wetness.
Goldsboro fine sandy loam is moderately well drained and nearly level, occurring
on broad, smooth divides in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate and surface
runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is between 2 and 3 feet (0.6-0.9 meters)
during the winter and early spring. Wetness is a moderate limitation on silvicultural
practices and subsurface structures.
Meggett loam is poorly drained and nearly level, occurring on flood plains of the
Coastal Plain. Permeability is slow and surface runoff is very slow. A high water table is
at or near the surface for most of the year. The major limitation on development is the
high water table and frequent flooding.
Urban land consists of land covered with roads, buildings, parking lots, and
commercial yards. The soil has been altered by grading, filling, and manipulation for
urban development. Runoff is excessive and increases flooding on adjacent low-lying
areas. Soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways are major hazards associated with
urban land.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy
clay texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low
areas of the stream flood plain and in small depression areas. Therefore, hydric soil
indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987,
were observed within the project study area. t
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
30
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
(1) Waters Impacted
Stoney Creek (DWQ Index No. 28-68) and an unnamed tributary to Stony Creek
are surface water resources that will be directly impacted by the proposed widening
project. Both streams are located in Sub-Basin 03-03-02 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Stoney Creek feeds into the Tar River approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers).
downstream of the proposed widening project.
Stoney Creek, within the project boundaries, is approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters)
wide and has banks up to 20 feet (6 meters) deep. The banks are steep with a soft mucky
substrate. A pipe crosses Stoney Creek just to the east of the bridge. Upstream of the
pipe, Stoney Creek was covered with algae and duck weed on the day of the site visit.
The unnamed tributary to Stoney Creek crosses the project to the north of Stoney
Creek, just south of the US 64 overpass. The channel is approximately 2 feet (0.6 meter)
wide with 1-foot (0.3-meter) banks. Water levels in the creek varied from 2 - 6 inches
(50-150 mm). Sediment deposition was evident and little or no vegetation was present in
the channel.
A drainage ditch is located just to the north of the US 64 bypass. The ditch runs
at the toe of the fill slope and passes through a single 18-inch (450 mm) concrete culvert
under Country Club Road. The ditch varies in depth from 1 - 3 feet (0.3 - 0.9 meter), is
full of vegetation, leaf litter and debris, and shows no signs of flowing water.
(2) Best Usage Classification
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Stoney Creek (Index No. 28-68) is CNSW.
The C classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses. NSW
classification denotes waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being
subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds; or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of project study area.
(3) Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. The basin-wide approach allows for more intensive
sampling of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basin-wide
31
assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled
for specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator
of water quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a
relatively long life cycle, are non-mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely, diverse.
The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health
of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in
water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review.
A Benthic macroinvertebrate collection site is located on Stoney Creek upstream
of the project area at SR 1603. This station was sampled in 1992 and received an EPT
taxa richness value of 9 and a bio-classification of Fair (DWQ, 1993). Stoney Creek was
listed a partially supporting in North Carolina's 1998-303(d) list (DWQ, 1998). Sediment
was identified as the problem parameter. Benthos data collected from the Tar River
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) downstream of its confluence with Stoney Creek
indicate generally Good/Fair water quality with no long term changes.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1997). The closest monitoring site to
the project area is located on the Tar River at NC Hwy 97 at Rocky Mount. Ambient
water chemistry data indicate that nitrate/nitrite nitrogen values and total phosphorous
values increase substantially from the NC Hwy 97 site to the site downstream of the
Rocky Mount WWTP.
Point source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharge
is required to register for a permit. Two NPDES permits are registered within 1.0 mi. of
the project area. Permit No. NCG510155 is held by Stallings Oil Company for discharge
into an unnamed tributary of the Tar River. Permit No. N00072133 is held by Sunset
Avenue Water Filtration Plant for discharge into the Tar River.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use
activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution, including land
development, construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediments and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off
the ground and carried into surface waters. Road and parking lot runoff were the only
identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during the site visit.
32
(4) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of project construction. The
impacts were calculated using the full proposed right of way for each bridge alternative
(see Table 7). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 7: Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters

Stream Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
(feet) (meters) (feet) (meters)
Stoney. Creek 40,(12) 40(12)
UT to Stoney Creek 40(12) 40 (12)
'TOTAL 80(24) 80 ( ,? . .
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills, and increased traffic volume.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
33
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et Al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Community
Four communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest,
Maintained/disturbed, and Aquatic Community. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. The
Bottomland Hardwood Forest has wetland communities associated within its boundaries.
Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those fauna restricted
to the aquatic environment.
(1) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater
Subtype)
This community is located on the west side of the project to the south of Stoney
Creek. Periodic flooding during high flow periods drives the bottomland hardwood
forest. Sediment deposition may supply limited nutrient input in blackwater systems.
However, periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils. The bottomland hardwood forest community
grades to the Disturbed Pine forest community.
The woody species in this community consist of red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The shrub layer consists of saplings of
the canopy trees, American elm (Ulmus americana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera).
The herbaceous layer was very sparse, consisting of river oats and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
(2) Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest community is located in uplands throughout
the project area, fragmented by residential and commercial development. This community
34
is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) with a thick understory of hardwood saplings
and herbaceous vegetation. The understory includes white oak (Quercus alba), tulip
poplar, sweetgum, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), loblolly pine, river birch, winged
elm (Ulmus alata), and Southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The herbaceous layer
consists of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), Virginia creeper(Parthenocisus quenquefolia), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
(3) Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community is the largest community type within the
project area. This includes the road shoulders along Country Club Road, the area around
the bridge, and the residential and commercial yards. Periodically maintained areas
include the sewer line easement along Stoney Creek and the unnamed tributary and the
power line easement parallel to Country Club Road near the southern end of the project.
Flora within this community includes: fescue (Festuca sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
dock (Rumex sp), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum),
wild onion (Allium stellatum), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), dog fennel
(Eupatorium spp.), and honeysuckle. The powerline easement, which is less intensively
maintained, also contains pokeweed, chinese privette, blackberry, horsenettle (Solanum
carolinence), and catbrier. Small depression areas under the powerlines contained
juncus, sedges, jewelweed, hibiscus, cardinal flower, and river oats. However, there were
no hydric soil indicators found on the day of the site investigation.
b. Aquatic Community
The Aquatic community consists of Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary.
Physical descriptions of these communities are included in the previous section. Stoney
Creek was covered with duckweed above the cross-pipe on the day of the field
investigation. The northern banks extend approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) above water
level. They were steep and eroding, with little herbaceous cover and few trees or shrubs.
The southern banks, ranging from approximately 1 - 4 feet (0.3 -1.2 meters) above the
water, were covered with herbaceous vegetation such as jewelweed, river oats, fescue,
dayflower, and ragweed. Stoney Creek flows along side the bottomland hardwood
community on the west side of the project, and bisects the mixed pine hardwood
community on the east side of the project.
The unnamed tributary has little bank vegetation, grading immediately into the
mixed pine hardwood community.
C. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
35
(1) Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes the golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avian species utilizing these areas include the Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
(2) Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish such as mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and amphibians such as
cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) and chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) may use the
shallow, fairly disturbed habitat found in the unnamed tributary. Invertebrates that are
likely present include crayfish (family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies and
damselflies (Order Odonata), and caddisfly larvae (Order Tricoptera). Stoney Creek may
support these species in addition to silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Fauna identified in
Stoney Creek during the field review included mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies
(Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum, Physella sp.). The N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats recorded the
occurrence of three species in the Tar River approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers)
downstream of the project area: Eastern lamp mussel (Lampsilis radiata), Roanoke
slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), and creeper (Strophitus undulatus) also known as
Squawfoot.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the
two project alternatives. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts on terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 8 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternative are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
36
Table 8: Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Alternative A Alternative B
Community type (Acres) (Hectares) (Acres) (Hectares)
(Recommended)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 035(0.14) 0
Mixed Pine Hardwood 1.51 (0.61) 1.77 (0.61)
Maintained/Disturbed 50 (2.0) 5.0(2.0
Aquatic Community 0.03 (0.012) .03 (0.012)
Total 6.89,(2-79) 689 (2:79)
Selection of Alternative B will result in the lowest impact on the bottomland
hardwood forest biotic community in the project area.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening of Country Club Road will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the
small size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be
minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from construction-related work will affect water
quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, indirect
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of Benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish, and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover and repopulate a stream.
37
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the stream bank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds, and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Defined in 33 CFR §328.3, wetlands 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).
(1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used, where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
The wetlands in the project area are described in as Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Soil cores taken in this area revealed soils with a Munsell color notation of 2.5Y8/1 with
mottles of 2.5Y6/8, at a depth of within 1 foot (0.3 meter) of the soil surface. Vegetation
present within this area includes red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, river birch, tulip
poplar, and black gum. The herbaceous species, where present, consist of river oats and
greenbrier.
Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary are jurisdictional surface waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,
physical, and water quality aspects of this channel and associated waterways are
presented in previous sections of this report.
38
(2) Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 9 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface water area in the
proposed road widening project area. Anticipated impacts to these areas are determined
by using the entire ROW width for each alternative. Usually, project construction does
not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 9: Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas
Feature Alternative A Alternative B
(Recommended)
Bottomland Hardwood- .16 acres (0.06 ha) 0 acres (0 ha)
Stoney Creek 40 ft. (12 m) 40 ft. (12 M)
Unnamed"Tributary 40 ft. (12 m) 40.ft. 0
2 m)
(3) Permits
Minimal impacts to "Waters of the United States" are anticipated. As a result,
permits will be required under the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). In
accordance with provisions of the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit is
required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States". In accordance with Section 401, a Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality is required prior to the issuance of the Section
404 permit. Section 401 Certification ensures that the state's water quality standards are
not violated. Because of the minimal impacts anticipated from the proposed project,
a Nationwide Permit # 14 is suggested along with the corresponding General Water
Quality Certification.
(4) Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States (wetlands and surface waters).
Mitigation of impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts,
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.
39
(a) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the United States". A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE states that 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.
Avoidance can include selecting the project alignment alternative that presents the least
impact to wetland and surface water areas. Avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is
unavoidable due to these resources being located on both sides of the roadway.
(b) 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 of median widths and fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms to minimize
impacts to "Waters of the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life to the project, reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, reduction/
elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of runoff velocity, re-establishment
of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide use, minimization of
"in-stream' activity, and litter/debris control. Minimization specific to this project
include the bridge replacement utilizing a longer bridge and widening to the east in
the proximity of Stoney Creek (Alternative B).
(c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 wetland and stream functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States". Such
actions should be undertaken in area to or contiguous to the discharge site, if possible.
Due to the minimal impact of the proposed project, the need for compensatory
mitigation is not expected.
b. 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 human activities. Federal law
40
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
(1) 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 (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists the following federally protected species
for Nash County (see Table 10). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
Table 10: Federally-Protected Species for Nash County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS

Alasmidonta heterodon : Dwarf wedge mussel E
Elli do steinstansana Tars in mussel E
Picoides borealis 'Red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
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
Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and
Cedar, Crooked, and Stoney Creeks of the Tar River system. This 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
Stoney Creek, within the project study area, does not provide optimal habitat for
the dwarf wedge mussel. Upstream of the project, the stream banks are eroding and the
stream was covered with duckweed. Flow was sluggish and didn't appear to be well
oxygenated. Downstream of the project, the banks were covered with a thick mucky
layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No dwarf wedge mussels
were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
41
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma.decisum,
Physella sp.). The stream is subject to pollutant inputs of residential and commercial
areas. In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any
records of the dwarf wedge mussel within the study area. This project will not affect the
dwarf wedge mussel.
Elli do steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) E
The Tar River spiny-mussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from
Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River
spiny-mussel 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 noncompacted 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 spiny-mussel 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
Habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel in the form of fast flowing, well-oxygenated
waters are not found within the project study area. Stoney Creek and its unnamed tributary
are subject to sediment and pollutants in the area runoff. The banks are covered with a
mucky layer. A visual and tactile search was performed for approximately 2 man hours on
Stoney Creek for 200 feet (60 meters) downstream of SR 1616. No Tar River spiny
mussels were found. Fauna identified in Stoney Creek during the field review included
mosquitofish, corbicula, stoneflies (Allocapria sp.), and snails (Campeloma decisum,
Physella sp.). In addition, NCNHP database, reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain
any records of the Tar River spiny mussel within the study area. This project will not
affect the Tar River spiny mussel.
.Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
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 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.
42
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 500.0 acres (202 hectares). 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 12 -100 feet (3.6 - 30 meters) above the ground and average 30 - 50 feet (9 -15
meters) 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 and the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the form of old growth stands of pine
with an open understory is not found within the project study area. Wooded areas consist
of young pines and hardwoods with a dense shrub layer. Residential and commercial yards
fragment the forest throughout the project area. Furthermore, the NCNHP database,
reviewed on July 14, 1999 does not contain any records of the red-cockaded woodpecker
within the study area. This project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
(2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 11 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the presence
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.
43
Table 11: Federal Species of Concern for Nash County
n n angere species is one w ose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora
is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor.were any of these species
observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Nash County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program (see Figure 6). The project is not within a water supply watershed area or high
quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through.the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures. The project will not significantly impact any major
wetlands. Groundwater resources will not be affected by the project, as the roadway
approaches are primarily on fill. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practicable.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Lythrurusmatutinus Pinewoods shiner SR' No
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T/PE No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE No
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE No
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* No
Lilium°iridollae Sandhills bog lily T No
Trillium pusillum var.

pusillum Carolina least trillium E No
`E"--A E d d h
44
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Solicited
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Division of Water Quality
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region L Planning Agency
Nash County Commissioners
* Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed
in this document.
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
On May 20, 1999, a Citizens' Informational Workshop was held by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and obtain comments and
suggestions about the improvements. The workshop was held at Englewood Elementary
School Cafeteria located in Rocky Mount. Ten people attended to express their interest in
the project.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the circulation of
this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public
about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional
comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project.
CRC/cc
45
APPENDIX A
Figures

PROJECT

Cr ? ) Ba S ?l
L 7 \
-
0•rr•n In 1g
BUS
1616

enprn•,?y PROJECT LD
ilmtaa cnLLV?
70
O
K

- r•M! " e

3
rh?nr•:n as
N=

?_ - ya IB3
aMOa• !?'r'''.l?t
O.t I ?y
? BaMnua tBBB
Ftlaol '
Barnatw . _ 1511
MtlCN 'O ?, -
9
w
J
???•- t.!!•zl BYPi
a,•a ]ol
•y 1599

I •
• 'r
to 1lYa 1•

o ?
?? 13\

`
°
?• ?
t
i o 1 Oa
>
a

•
! • CM•t
° •3 ? e > F YNllf
st
.Z

- '? Battle
-Park

4
/$u N

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
's PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ROCKY MOUNT
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (SR 1616)
FROM US 64 BUSINESS
TO JEFFREYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
r I"
'- -4; - A
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SR 1616) WIDENING
US 64 BUSINESS TO JEF?REYS ROAD (SR 1541)
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3331
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
? hti
lee
j? PM 9 ill)
10176 __-
PM
101 70
PM
B rl 8
612 !!6111!28
1
SRSR 1 RD.)
356 9848
wb' $?
10164 2832 1200 10708 SR 1544
124 65: M 10 (HUNTER HILL RD.)
1948 1)

US 64BYP
:v

107a
20)
'6Ar
V
V?lri ?gs?
A
?2 C
LEGEND
0000 .. Vpd
DHV = Design Hourly Vol- (%)
D = Di*cWnaf(%)
?-? Dkwfion o1 D
(5,1) Dual Th4k, TTST (%)
wrMxn AM orPM Ptak
1 pm so
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE DHV 6 D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-A: ESTIMATED 2002 ADT
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SR 1616) WIDENING
US 64 BUSINESS A3H C?UNN ROAD (SR 1541)
TIP PROJECT U-3331
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB RD.)
4 60pE?9 SR 1541
13200 fay (JEFFREYS RD.)
+o 70 300 ?1 ??
(Z,+) 900 E--? ?s
500 12800
PM
&(z+l g 4200
14700 L 00
> 11500 SR 1544
U (HUNTER HILL RD.)
4900 4700 es -10
(2,+)
00 ?°
ryab Q?'``
?ry
ry
US 64 BYP ,
$ 4r&? LEGEND
0000 vpd
DHV ¦ Design Howdy Vokmm (%)
D - D!/eegonal(%)
-i Dascdon &D
(41) DLW Tmd4 TTST (%)
!? ?J anlpm AM orPM peals
12300 NOTTOSCALE
P1o NOTE DHV d D F NOT
55 (21) ?J SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG.
FIGURE 3-8 : ESTIMATED 2020 ADT
Z
0
V
J
Q
V
CL
?7-
Q
Q
0
V)
O
CL
O
w
a.
?I
III
11-
=111
? IIIII
11=
III
i1=

x
Q
N
Q
c
W
0
lne
t`
t
?Z
t W
W
r
z
H
N
X
W
II Lu
W
Q
0..
I Q
W
O
O
i `-In
-L
I-
nl
? il=
p I?I
111-

r
_ L
z LO
O D?
Q z .
O
O
O
C
O
V M
" m0
M
=
oiovv
QM
us oo
}cz
o
O " N ?W
ogQO
° ° U'o ce CL.

? W
c aC
< LL
Z N Cie uj
O
O
G
LL I'
W
T
a, O
i
O
C
O
C O ?
E
N
C C
O O
•N
? C C
V m
m M
C m 3 d
-o c
m
3 ' E N
E
E »-
O "a 0
z
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND US 64 BUSINESS
(SOUTHERN PROJECT TERMINEL)
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I
I
II
II
II
lyl4 I ? ?-
• -~ - - - US 64 BUSINESS
r ?
•
hl?.
I
i
I
I
ZEBULON ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND HUNTER HILL ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
i I
II (
I
II
?I ?I4

I ?Iflt
I II
I II
? II
II
I I
HUNTER HILL ROAD
FIGURE 75-A

PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TIP PROJECT U-3331
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND JEFFERYS ROAD (REALIGNED INTERSECTION)
(NORTHERN PROJECT TERMINEL)
JEFFREYS ROAD
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I I
COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
FIGURE 5-8
APPENDIX B
Comments from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies
i'
1 .?
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLYREFER M February 4, 1999
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID 199920381; State Project No. 8.2321601, TIP
No. U-3331.
w
William D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager
Project Development and 1999
Environmental Analysis Branch t'
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201 ?'. "?,AQ?P
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your January 12, 1999 letter requesting comments
on the proposed improvements to SR 1616 (Country Club Road), in
Rocky Mount, in Nash County, North Carolina (State Project No.
8.2321601, TIP No. U-3331).
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for any discharge of excavated or fill material into waters
and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the
disposal of construction debris.
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may
involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of
the United States. Potentially affected water bodies include Stony
Creek, below headwaters.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our
Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. If there are only minor impacts to waters,
including wetlands, it is probable that the work could be authorized
under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such
activities on the aquatic environment prior to issuing Department
of the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fill activities
requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no
practicable alternatives are available. Our initial review
emphasis for NCDOT projects will focus on the impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the
natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is
considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in
greater aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred.
In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland and stream impacts
will be satisfied prior to the final permit decision. A
Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a final
plan for compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream impacts
is approved.
We recommend that you coordinate with the U.S..Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
regarding potential impact to the endangered Alasmidonta
heteredon (Dwarf wedge mussel), which has known populations in
Stony Creek.
I am responsible for processing your application and I am
available to assist you if you have any questions or comments, at
telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
rl"t 6- - C
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section
September 9, 1999
VE0
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and 1999 -
Environmental Analysis Branch SEF
North Carolina Division of Highways CF Post Office Box 25201
Nit,
(7P Arn
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting our comments on
"Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Our Regulatory Division commented on wetland issues for this
project by letter to you dated February 4, 1999. Enclosed are our comments on flood
plain issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
t: W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
September 9,1999
Page 1 of 1
"Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541),
Rocky Mount, Nash County, F.A. Project to STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601,
T.I.P. No. U-3331" (Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199920381)
FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
The proposed roadway improvements are located within the jurisdiction of the city
of Rocky iviuunt, which is a pailucipani H'I the Nationai i lood Insurance Program (N1711P).
Based on a review of Panel 5 of the January 1982 Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map of the same date, the roadway crosses Stony Creek, a
detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. Reference is made to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your office.
The Improvements should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP,
administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific
questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be
referred to the local building official.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 83726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
jut
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
?.cEiv o
??. ?Y? ? t ll!
t AHA???
This responds to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP # U-3331). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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). This report also serves as initial
scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Country Club
Road.to a five-lane curb and gutter section from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road.
•T_ _ Cat t _' 41 at ? 1,,,
t i.c Iri15SlOti Oi ??ic ?Jci vli:C 1S wGinlilg 'vZ i?ii OulciS ?v pio Ji4c leaderslui) ira tl!c. cunse : ation,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you -in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Rocky Mount 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Nash County. At this time there are three species listed as endangered. In addition,
there are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. In
particular, the endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in Stony Creek
which is crossed by Country Club Road. A field survey for this species should be performed and
the results forwarded to the Service for evaluation. Environmental documentation should include
survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should
be included in the document regarding protected species:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
3
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and an imal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although.FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, an d to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
1
'- AL, I LL Al
'John M. H er
__
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
4
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Mark Davis)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/21/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-3331.tip
5
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In NASH County
Data represented on these maps are not base on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
18015' 78' 77'45'
36'
35'45'

sc

' I.
rc-+J
/ 1 *-? /% "... N, '
v /
r h
z
.Y
i? .A
-t 4.
Y
.,..,?.. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o 2 3 a 5 MILES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
. D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
expires 1%31/99
Mapping
Threatened and
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
0 Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
-? Roseate Tern
pWood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
Waccamaw Silverside
Symbols for
Endangered Species
Plants
American Chaffseed
<<, Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Seabeach Amaranth
Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
`l Smooth Coneflower
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Sp inymusse 1
Mammals
-0 Eastern Cougar _
Red W-o 1 f
Seaturtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, Nordi Caroline 27604-1188.919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 11, 1999
SUBJECT. Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 1616 (Country Club
Road) widening, from US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffreys Road) in
Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina TIP No. U-3331, SCH
Project No. 99-E-0695.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
N CDOT 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 improvements, and-our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, 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
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Memo 2 June 11, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
ehannelizing 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 (COE). 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.
Thtmk you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina '
Dep,-rtment of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the fort.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and'permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPUCA71ON PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Poet-application technical conference usual

not discharging into state surface waters .

(9o says)
O NPDES - permit to disclorge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Prei-application
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater 90-120 days
discharging into state surface waters tratmeit facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Water use Permit 14e-application technical conference usually necessary. 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation ofa well. (15 days)
D Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC

2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing

asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A 60 days
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)

O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
D Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any arc mined greater 30 days
than one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Perms - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
O Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans May also require 30 days
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit fiom Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hared Classification. A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
June 21, 1999
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping - Widen Country Club Road, Rocky Mount
REFERENCE: 99-E-0695
The proposed project crosses Stony Creek a short distance from its confluence with a
reach of the Tar River identified as the Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat by the
Natural Heritage Program. The following rare species have been recorded in this
reach close to the confluence with Stony Creek:
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), state listed as Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), state listed as Special Concern
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
These species and other aquatic organisms are potentially vulnerable to water quality
degradation resulting from this project. We therefore strongly recommend that: .
• All best management practices be followed for the control of erosion and
sedimentation
• That all concrete used in this project be fully cured before coming into contact
with the waters of Stony Creek.
• That weep holes used in the bridge crossing Stony Creek not be located above
the channel of the creek.
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
t--1 7 X-11k, I--'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
A, 4 071
NCDENR
May 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project?evelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality C- /7"
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601,
TIP U-3331.
Reference your correspondence dated May 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3331. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the project will cross at least two perennial
streams; the Stoney Creek (Index Number 28-68, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters) and the Goose Branch
Creek (Index Number 28-70, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Both streams are located in the Tar-
Pamilico River Basin. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to determine the
presence of other streams in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations. entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401. Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 211.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-333 1\U-3331 scoping comments.doc
d„r STA$' q,?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
a
June 17, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
on
Department of Transple,ion
FROM: David Brook DePut3' St
ate Hkto C1f ???
SUBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky
Mount, Nash County, Federal Aid Project
STP-1616(4), State Project 8.232 TIP.
U-3331, 99-E-4220-0695
[Y 99

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. Two archaeological sites, 31NA18
and 31NA24, are in close proximity to the project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that
may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown
resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.' If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh,.North Carolina 27601-2807
STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
a
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
April 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook ` ' ?L--
Deputy State Histddc , reservation Officer
I '
R
Archaeological Survey Report, SR 1616 from US 64 to SR 1541, U-3331, Nash
ER 99-8094
We have reviewed the subject archaeological survey report and find that it meets the guidelines of this
office and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We note that no archaeological sites were located and
agree with the conclusion of the report that a finding of no historic properties would be appropriate.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: R. Shelton, FHWA
T. Padgett, NCDOT
N. Sheehan, NCDOT
J
?r
La

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801

TIP /# U X33 I Federal Aid ## ?sC P - I (Q I L <<f'?_ County a k,CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

On representatives of the
Y North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
?- Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultatln--
Utne-
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/ Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properue.-
identified as I -lkwovgk 8 are
/ considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representati e, NCD1

J?rc / 4 X19
Date
FHwA, f the Divi ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
(Q---/ ?? Gtr 17, lgfy
Re ' esen Live, SHPO ' Date
State Historic Preservation Officer / to
L1114),?.

If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

May 21, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E.
Manager
Project Development and Analysis Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541)
Rocky Mount, Nash.County, F.A. Project STP (1616-4),
State Project No. 8.232160 1, T.I.P. U-3331
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

'XRTMENT OF
ENGINEERING
The City of Rocky Mount supports the widening of Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Rd (SR 1541) from two lanes to five lanes with curb and gutter. We believe
this project.will bean asset to the community.
The project is included in the City's Transportation Plan and has been approved by the Rocky
Mount MPO Technical Advisory Committee. The project is included in the MPO Transportation
Improvement Priority List.
The City of Rocky Mount does have some existing utilities within the right-of-way of Country
Club Road. We will be glad to assist your design staff in locating the utilities within the right-of-
way-
We are not aware of any other information that will be helpful in the evaluating the
environmental impact of this project. The City of Rocky Mount is delegated review for Sediment
and Erosion Control Permits by NC DENR but for governmental projects, the permit must be
issued by the NC DENR.
We look forward to progress on this project. If you have any questions or need our assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
incerely,
Pierce, P.E.
Director of Engineering
GtiIV ED
MAY 241999

CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT
APPENDIX C
Noise Analysis
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
A
s
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HU MAN 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 at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m 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 at 1.5m 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
America, "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
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
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
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR 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

i
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
M
W
H
a?
a
W
W
W
z
H
w

U
r-
W)
N
9
C4
4t
a
H
c
O
U,
Cd
C
O
U
M
r.
O
3
a?
z
Cd
Qr
V)

>
h
°
h
O
Lu v
Z -1
z

O N h o
t

V V V V eta
a
w
O

N ?

o a

$ ? cL
ON
c
0
? N
..? N
Cn
N
0 x
z
o
E- o s
o z z i.
o z
O

O
O ca

O
O
p
?p _ N s^
fl.

v O oo =
M N ? ?
M
N _
N 'R Q
N 00
U

04
?E to

?O?G

? cC

CG1

W
O
z

a?
a
M
M
M
t
ate..
COO
C
C
C) U
z?zA
¢z?o
U ?
w ?
H ?
cn
w

-? Q r- ;- oo oo co r r- .r 'r- i? ,t- ,t- !t- r t- t- t` oo a, r- !r .00 ioo 00
w a •
'
U + + + + + + +
+ + !+ + :+ :+ + + + + + + + + + + +

t, ON 1.0 AD "D NO iw. .n ;W) ite, ;ON M) 't, tn .? Ao 4 :?Q n „ •, T- I r` t-
,10 o 110 :1.0 AD !mD ,D No ,o I'D :1 . '- '' % "D ?o :D AD

w Q ,? ;» ,?

w ,
to

z
}
Q '

OC !
'
0. i

O 'O i0 O :O 'O ,O !O IO ?O .O :O j0 ;O :O :O 10 IO O 'O (0 O
''
3 -• :?D '[? l1 :r ,,.6 'OO Q, ;O` !O un I^ !^
10
' tn ;,-Zr :O\ It- ^ 'O
N 'N
^
N
Q N^ 'N 'N N p- M M
;N N !cM M
N N M ;N
N N N M :N
Q

Q J
?
{

O
.w ? 1

z O ? '
te Q
a
. z

w w w ' ; '
v
i

m
O
> O N oo 100
NO N An -co O, co .:o0 100 00 :N o0 100 100
IM
V'
V'
h V1 '?O v1
an !ON ON !00 00 00 100 O I?
I
'
I
;
N C1
:tn
[ ;
i
1
I
I
!M h
V1 tA
h
O i h
W) H :h

Q

(' Q N ? - I ? ? ? U ISO
z 3 ?I'o o D
_ _
;- -
_
_ - . - _
-
o I? ,
X 14.
Z W Cr~ 'n 'G

O
O O 'O U ;m 'm :ao ;m 'm Im m m u jm 'a17 IW -m tm !u u "U !U V :.
m
'V lm i1
w J
/
gy

1
____?_-

O :Llj
.
? Y .?
.?
k 1
v
v '
V
' ;
r
z ;_ .y :y iV V

= .y :rA C 'C .
:v
.v V ?V V
•m .
v
C :C 'C C. C 'C Im -C C .C
' N .V V
ryAD .m
vmi y H lyrn
C :C to
N . U ' N V '
U
U
'
; Q . N N. N N
' U N v U
N O N U
N: N I
:C
'
'
'
'
'
'
• .
.
a>
N
C
C C C C C
'
' r
.C C
C °O O
O
O :
C
C
C
G
O
O Z! .
:
C
?

c
..a
. X00 M 4 w W!cn
oG _W _LL4 :0
w !W. ad
04 im
9?
.04 :ce rte m M 00 ;m 'LL. .00 'Q
Q
-
_
_

V M
.? :r- 100 c, 1C) !^ ;N !en V
-V1 'o t` 100 ;a, 'N
'N N
_
¢

. _. ..
'N r
i
N
Q
VJ ?
3 ?
? L
Q •?
N a.+
C
O
•X
H d
o R
? C
?o
•b .c
N
U H
>
O d
C
C
y' W
? O
o e
.fl
or
U t-
a? ?
?a
H
•O ?
? U
H M
y N
? L
RS N
a
O CZ
L a"
O .N
o =
fl. ea

C fr
Q Q
iF

s
s
M
M
? H
Q ?
O
H U
Z U z Q
W-1 z v ?
H W ? O
f? U
W
z?
3 G"4
h?l 1?1
w 0 w o 0 0
U C7
a z ?

O
_- - - -- ----
Ua
:It w Q U o 0 0
Q ce u
M

X 0
N
W ?
?
4
L,1
a
a N o0
„
F
W
? ¢ o 0 0
Q

w Q
b
O O U
?OZ
?
F Q -
¢ _. .?
¢0V) o
N

C/1
w
O M O

w ?
w
-a
w Q
8
0

O ?-
z -
cr
E
M O

0

a .,
°
w
M
0
CO ?
?c
O CA
0 0

ti ci
N
3
0
? .o
^? o
?a
>0
i a.
•- o
L ?
N ?
? v
o ?
v
U ?
w
a? .o
r.+ L
.Z
0
(4y Q?
y ?
A ?
a?
E c
R
!A ?
R ?
a+ C
h 0
=p v
Q
o m
c ?o
ca .?
E ?
o
M Im
v1 N
N

M
M
110
w
H
M
Qf ?
W ?
E
Q O
zZ
cts
w
w0 °z
r-a -?
W ?
? U
O ?.
z?
U o
w
F C) Fw„ cv O O O

O
a U

a w w
>Q
_
z
a -
F
W
O O
O
v
i v_
i U
im
?z
O O O
W
U
Z
N

a

N O o 0
W --
w ?
(? ? O O O

W
0 c o 0 0
F •
W

a n N M d
N
a
w
U ?
o 0
0
w
x
0
o 0
0

z
o
o- o
oil)
Cu
in

?
w
0 •.? 0

O o
L L

N
N
z
w
im
a
F
w
0
9
y N
yz
w
=m
Fa-
N •RS
V1
t0 U
_ .r
o ?
-v -v
b 'C
H H
a a
N
4
s
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 22, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP # U-3331). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (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). This report also serves as initial
scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or
certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve Country Club
Road to a five-lane curb and gutter section from US 64 Business to Jeffreys Road.
The mission of the Service is working with others to provide leadership in the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of
all people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-specific comments
at this time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your
planning process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed.
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, and without impeding
fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by
using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Rocky Mount 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows
wetland resources along the proposed project corridor. However, while the NWI maps are useful
for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed
wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for modification of
the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination
occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize
delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include t,e following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion to the
project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 C_oms of En.gineers Wetlands Delineation M nnal and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Nash County. At this time there are three species listed as endangered. In addition,
there are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Habitat requirements for the federally-listed
species in the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. In
particular, the endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in Stony Creek
which is crossed by Country Club Road. A field survey for this species should be performed and
the results forwarded to the Service for evaluation. Environmental documentation should include
survey methodologies and results. In addition to this guidance, the following information should
be included in the document regarding protected species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
3
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal Species of Concern are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains
concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation
status of these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would
encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort
to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted
for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
., V
VJohn M. H er
Ecological Services Supervisor
Attachment
4
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas GraD
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Mark Davis)
WRC, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/21/99:919/856-4520 Extension 32:\U-333 Ltip

Cyndi_B
From: Cyndi_B
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:42 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: U3331
Mark, I have a schedule conflict and won't be going to your scoping meeting on Wednesday.
Based upon the vicinity map you provided, it appears your project will involve one stream
crossing. This is Stony Creek (aka Boddies Millpond), classification no. 28-68, and it's a Class C
NSW. Of course we'll recommend a crossing where wetland and stream impacts will be
minimized. If field investigations reveal that high quality riverine wetlands are associated with this
stream, then bridging of the stream and wetlands may be warranted. In such a case, a bridge
alternative should certainly be included in the document. Also, the Tar-Pamlico River Basin is
likely to be protected with Buffer Rules (as in the Neuse Buffer Rules) by the time your document
is released. As with the Neuse Rules, there would be allowances for road crossings, but the
bridge deck would need to be designed to maximize pollutant removal (i.e. no weep holes over
open water) and to minimize buffer disturbance. The Tar-Pam rules are not currently in effect,
but just keep that in mind. When you hear about them being passed (like in late 1999/2000),
please contact the new DOT person (no idea who yet) to get the particulars as they would apply
to your project.
Thanks Mark. If you have questions, please give me a call at 733-1786.
AW.
"v F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF RANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
January 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
E. NoRRIs TOLSON
SECRETARY
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Country Club Road (SR 1616) from
US 64 to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-1616(4), State Project
No. 8.2321601, TIP No. U-3331
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 February 17, 1999 at 10:30 A. M. in the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). 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 of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Mark Davis, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 234.
WDG/plr
Attachment
?r

• r I • Aventon
9 °
43 48
/ Castalia 3 I ,S r
Gold Rock ° 4
5S Red Oak
5 301
10 2 Dortch
ortng Momeye 1 O , 2
Hope
64A 3
a `
7 3
r - _ `
6 3
r ? r 91 S 6 Stanhope / ?
• t 5 264 561 Country
Mvtwm
rl
. 00-0 r - ? ese ° .a ?`
-rte ` t ate
r 23 i
r.."0r'
woo* r'
SCAU
t u t -
#AM
N
b5 i
O -693 .?O :66: • `; . 56 . ' 3 .6. _
?. `60a
. 02 1692 I m , 03 .
ry 9 y
/C 1617
635 651 .2?
y 1613 ?\ 'O a 686
1660
c ? 1619 \ ? h? 154t /?
639
.21 ,09 .22 1616
'615
9 _ a2
a -' -
6<G
1635 ?
-0
1615 - ? - - ' - _ 1599 301
167
? ? tsar 1.W \
.? 2
.22 161=
5 I
,12 0 616 '60G9 Project Limits .30
?2 _
' / 1599 '/>
e-k
-? lo a
- c V E3LJS .r 72
?. ,7'o
Project Limits
I ?
? o
?fa'v-n BUS
ash NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Csx 1713 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
6a
ROCKY MOUNT,
SR 1616 (COUNTRY CLUB ROAD)
FROM US 64 TO SR 1541 (JEFFREYS ROAD)
I
\ IN NASH COUNTY
TIP NO. U-3331
30,
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP
e
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 1/8/99
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-3331
Project # 8.2321601
F.A. Project # STP-1616(4)
Division 4
County Nash
Route Country Club Road (SR 1616)
Functional Classification Urban Minor Arterial
Length 2.253 km (1.400 mi)
Purpose of Project:
The purpose of this project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity of Country
Club Road (SR 1616).
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
The project consists of widening Country Club Road (SR 1616) to a five-lane,
19.5-meter (64 foot), curb and gutter facility from US 64 Business to Jeffreys. Road
(SR 1541) in Rocky Mount (see attached map).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA and FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA Oct 98 - Jan 01
FONSI Jul 01 -Dec 01
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No- X
If yes, by whom and amount:
How and when will this be paid?
Type of Facility:
Type of Access Control: Full
($) or (%)
Partial None X
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Roadway: Existing facility is a two-lane highway with a 6.6-m (22-ft)
pavement width and 1.8-m (6-ft) unpaved shoulders.
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Proposed Roadway: The proposed cross section is a fire-lane,
19.5-m (16-ft) curb and gutter facility with 2.4m (8ft) berms.
Traffic: Current 4,100 - 21,000 vpd Design Year 7.500 - 24.4000 %Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 311
Design Speed:
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 6.100,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)....... $ 4.200,000
Force Account Items ................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ................................ $
Total Cost..... .................................... $ 10,300.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ....................................... $ 4,500,000
Right of Way ...................................... $ 4,200,000
Prior Year ......................................... $
Total Cost ........................................ $ 8,700,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project: US 64 traverses over the roadway. To widen Country Club Road
the slopes may require some rearranging. Often a bridge replacement is proposed at
Stoney Creek.
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
X Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ........................................ $ 816,000
X Resufacing ..................................... $ 104.000
X Milling & Recycling (Removal) ..................... $ 14,000
X Turnouts ....................................... $
Shoulders: Paved .............................. $
Earth ............................... $
X Earthwork and Fine Grading ........................... $ 336.000
Subsurface Items: ..................................... $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ............................. $ 211,050
X Drainage (List any special items) ........................ $ 452,800
Sub-Drainage ........................................ $
X Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ......... $
X New Bridge 64' x 220' .......... $ 915,200
Widen Bridge x .......... $
X Remove Bridge 28' x 190' .......... $ 37,240
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension ............................... $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls ..................................... $
Any Other Misc. Structures ....................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................... $ 188,000
Concrete Sidewalk .................................... $
Median Cross-overs .................................. .$
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............ .$
X Erosion Control ...................................... $ 45,900
Landscape ........................................... $
X Guardrail ........................................... $ 14,800
X Traffic Control ....................................... $ 100,000
Signing: New ................................... $
Upgrading ............................. $
X Traffic Signals X New ............................. $ 45,000
X Revised .......................... $ 60,000
RR Signals: New ................................ $
Revised ............................. $
With or Without Arms ................ $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement .............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo X Markers X ........... $ 33,000
Delineators .......................................... $
M
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
X Other (Mob./Misc., Clearing/Grubbing and Utilities) ......... $ 1.948.010
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Preliminary Engineering$
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 5.3,11.000
Contingencies & Engineering (15%) ........................ $ 779,000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $
Construction Cost S 6,100,000
X Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of Way Width:
X New Right of Way Needed: Width 100 ft. Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
X Utilities: gas and sewer $
Cost Est. Prepared By: Ray Arnold Date: 11-30-98
Scoping Sheets Prepared By: Mark Davis Date: 01-08-98
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member _
Mgr. Program & Policy _
Chief Engineer-Precons _
Chief Engineer-Oper. _
Secondary Roads Off. _
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance _
Statewide Planning _
Division Engineer _
Bicycle Coordinator _
Program Development _
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
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.
lau
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
May 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Proje evelloopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64
Business to Jeffreys Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County. State Project No. 8.2321601,
TIP U-3331.
Reference your correspondence dated May 6, 1999 in which you requested comments for widening project
TIP U-3331. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the project will cross at least two perennial
streams; the Stoney Creek (Index Number 28-68, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters) and the Goose Branch
Creek (Index Number 28-70, Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Both streams are located in the Tar-
Pamilico River Basin. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to determine the
presence of other streams in the area. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Since the project is a widening project, we assume that the Level-of-
Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document should
delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future Level-
of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-Service with
and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
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
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 211.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
05/12/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
C:\ncdot\TIP U-333 1\U-3331 scoping comments.doc
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP onr ?j
D ?!
TO: REF. O. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Sohn tfc?? s?'? L?bg - D NS
FROM:, - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
"cllkl D W15
Y D d /_rA
ACTION
?NOTE AND FILE -.? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE:AND RETURN TO ME - .? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? F R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE.AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS eR YOUR INFORMATION

- / MMENTS
? PLEASIEANSWER FOR YOUR CO
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE- ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.:
COMMENTS:

_.

f R
S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Hennessy
DWQ-DENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
N
a SECRETARY lrµ?
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Country Club Road (SR 1616), from US 64 Business to Jeffreys
Road (SR 1541), Rocky Mount, Nash County, F. A. Project to
STP-1616(4), State Project No. 8.2321601, T.I.P. No. U-3331
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to Country Club Road (SR 1616).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2002 and construction in fiscal year 2004.
The project calls for widening Country Club Road (SR 1616) from US 64 Business to
Jeffreys Road (SR 1541). The cross section under consideration is a five-lane curb and gutter
section.
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 federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond
by June 30, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Mark Davis, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 207.
WDG/plr
Attachment

rA
?'