19980988 Ver 1_Complete File_19981005

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 4 •
6 NI*
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 7, 1998
Nash County
WQC 401 Project # 980988
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.1 acres of wetlands or
waters for the purpose of widening NC 97, as you described in your application dated September 30, 1998. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103.
This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition,
you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is
sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation
may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing,
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Since ely,
I
on Howar. , r. P.E.
980988.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
_ST 7t?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 30, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road,
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeycr
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
989988
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
*1 1S'bX11b-K-
Subject: Nash County, Widening of NC 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue
(SR 1714); TIP No. U-2310, State Project No. 9.8043118.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 97
from US 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714), in Rocky Mount. NC 97 will be
widened symmetrically from two-lanes to five-lanes for approximately 1.4 miles. A
new ramp will be added to the northeast quadrant of the US 301-NC 97 interchange.
The existing ramp in the southeast quadrant will be realigned and the existing loop
will be removed.
The project will impact one jurisdictional wetland. A total of 0.1 acres of this wetland
will be impacted by the proposed widening. Additionally, the project crosses five
intermittent, unnamed tributaries to the Tar River. No High Quality Waters or
Outstanding Resource Waters occur in the project area.
Enclosed please find the project site map and a pre-construction notification form for
the above referenced project. The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be
authorized under Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, the NCDOT is also
requesting a 401 General Water Quality Certification # 3103 (for NWP 14) from the
NC Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at (919 733-7844 extension 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/plr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. H. Webb, P. E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Proposals and Contracts
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E., Division 4 Engineer
• - / Avenlon
• - / .1
-
- - • ./ I Castalu
58 Re
to
N A- -S
/ ?n Momeye 7
Ho ashvdl
• A
t
? ? ? ?311t1 2l 1 6 S
5 6 Stanhope
? 6 6 Sala S ,
/ If
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 97
FAOM US 301
TO NASHVILLE AVENUE, ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY
U-2310
DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISLON OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N C Department of Transportation Planning and
Rnvirnnmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
P. 0. Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK)
733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Nash NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Rocky Mount
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Mr 97 from US 301 to SR 1714
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: unnamed tribs to the Tar River
RIVER BASIN:
Tar River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N\A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: 0.10 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.10 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING: 0.0 OTHER: 0.0
DRAINAGE: 0.0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.10
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED; PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N\A FT AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N\A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N\A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N\A FT AFTER: N\A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N\A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widen existing facility to a five-lane curb and gutter
section to improve safety and traffic flow
Road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Improve safety and traffic flow on
NC 97
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
The widening is on existing location and is a linear project.
Therefore, crossing jurisdictional areas is unavoidable
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [ ] (IF-NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ J
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? URBAN
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N\A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY)' CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A14frt-ew
IF
Division of Environmental Management
Oft
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H Ilk
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretory
N F1
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorneq)
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb?)
Subject: EA/FONSI for NC 97 Widening
Nash County
State Project DOT No. 9.8043118, TIP #U-2310
EHNR # 95-0666, DEM WO # 10894
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.1 acres of waters including wetlands.
DEM has no objection to the FONSI. To facilitate DEM review and comment we do
request project information be accurate and up-to-date. The stream use classifications
found in this document are from the 1991 schedules and are not current. DEM
provides current use classification schedules and any updates to DOT's Ecological
Unit (Mr. Randy Turner's Unit). DOT can obtain additional copies of the current
classification schedules from Mr. Alridge Renn at 733-5083, ext. 564.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA/FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
nc97wide.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
. Department of Environment, Health, and Na Aa, sources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
/a ? i±
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
ut 25
WA
?b
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: ) ??^ D? • ?f7 ,D a
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries

? Fayetteville Air ?Coastal Management ?Water Planning
ater El Water Resources JEnvironmental Health
? Mooresville

Raleigh
roundwater
and Quality Engineer
? ildlife ?Solid Waste Management
Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington Recreational Consultant and Resources El David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach corrtqftVED
MAR 2 91995
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
nPAhinp
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-1a
04/ ° 7/95 09: 25 %Y919 733 9959 NC DFI'll NQ IAVSCI la 00]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 10, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
Rocky Mount, NC 97, From US 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714), Nash
County, State Project No. 9.8043118, U-2310
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Resources Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the
determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
y?
. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
-
a `e
?
c N? tr
u?
?ivtnlwol*
Rocky Mount
NC 97
From US 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043118
U-2310
10
Administrative Action
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
Additional Information - Additional information concerning the
propose an assessment can be obtained by contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
t.
ate Franklin Vick, P. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Rocky Mount
NC 97
From US 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043118
U-2310

State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
August, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?LU414? k- - q 194
C arence Co eman
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
if 2'.L I 151 L
anager
Ric ar Dav s, P. E., As
-- s
Planning and Environmental Branch
CARO"
_••?• ?•.?DE ESS/pN
00
q
_ SEAL
6944
??' ':`NCI NEE?`.?J??' •••
'•, tigR •........••' p. go
.
B ?`e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
` D. Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Bridges/Culverts . . . . 3
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control . . . . 3
F. Speed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
H. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Design Speed Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
.
E. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Access Control . . 4
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 4
H. Railroad Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
J. Culvert Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
K. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
L. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
. M. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
N. Speed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
0. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. No-Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Ecological Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Physical Resources/Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D. Social Setting and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 15
E. Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
F. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
G. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . .
? 19
H. Impacts . . . . . . . . . .
Construction 19
I. Floodplain Involvement . 21
J. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis 21
K. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
L. Hazardous Waste Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . 28
M. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
N. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Two informational workshops were held in Rocky Mount in
order to get public comments.
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . 29
FIGURES
TABLES
APPENDIX
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation Division of Highways proposes te'Affdon K 97 from
US 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714), in Rocky Mount. TPA `1 4 mile
pr
J-v :t will widen the existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane
facility with curb and gutter. A ramp will be added to the northeast
quadrant of the US 301-NC 97 interchange. The ramp which is
presently located in the southeast quadrant will be realigned and the
existing loop will be removed. gyWkd,? t-of-way for the.
project is 80 feed symmetrica ,
l "centerline.
However, 100 feet of right-of-way exist throughout -most of the
project. There will be a need for additional right-of-way to
construct the new ramps and for sight distance at some intersections.
Temporary easements will be required at some locations.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area involved by reducing congestion
and accident potential on NC 97. Three families will be relocated by
the proposed improvements. There may be some erosion and siltation
during the construction period and there will be some delay and
inconvenience to motorists during construction. However, these
effects will be short term in nature. No significant effects to
animal or plant life are expected and no recreational facilities or
historical sites will be involved.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the
widening o an existing segment of roadway, no alternative corridor
alignments were considered. Two cross section alternatives were
considered; a four-lane cross section, and a five-lane cross section.
The five-lane cross section was recommended because the four-lane
cross section would not provide adequate capacity to accommodate the
projected traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. The "do
nothing" alternative was also considered but rejected since the
existing roadway will not adequately handle the projected travel
volumes at an acceptable level of service.
4. Permits - A Nationwide permit 33 CFR.5(a)(14) will be required as
wi a SMiv-n 401 General Water Quality Certificate.
5. Environmental Commitments - "Best Management Practices" will always
be followed to minimize the impacts of construction. AlI project
specific environmental commitments are proposed.
6. Coordination - Several state and local agencies were consulted during
t e preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Comments from the
following were received and considered during the preparation of this
report.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Interior
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
City of Rocky Mount
Town of Sharpsburg
City of Wilson
Two informational workshops were held in Rocky Mount in order to
get public comment.
Rocky Mount
NC 97
From Us 301 to Nashville Avenue (SR 1714)
Nash County
State Project No. 9.8043118
U-2310
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
widen NC 97 from its' existing two-lanes to a five-lane curb and gutter
facility. The project will extend from US 301 to Nashville Avenue
(SR 1714), a distance of approximately 1.4 miles (see Figures 1 and 2).
The project is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1995 and construction scheduled to begin in FFY 1998.
The estimated project cost in the 1994-2000 TIP is $3,030,000. The
project is currently estimated to cost $2,886,000.00.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
NC 97 is currently congested during peak periods and is experiencing
a high accident rate. The purpose of this project is to sufficiently
improve NC 97 to eliminate much of the congestion while offering a margin
of safety for this section.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed project is designated as major thoroughfare in the
mutually adopted Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan.
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes
The 1995 traffic volumes along this section of NC 97 are expected to
range from a low of 8900 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 18,900 (vpd).
By the year 2015, the traffic is projected to increase to a low of
16,100 (vpd) near the US 301 Bypass/NC 97 interchange and a high of
34,000 (vpd).
1995 2015
Low High Low High
Dual Tired Vehicles (ADT) 356 756 644 1360
Truck Tractor Semi-Trailer (ADT) 267 567 483 1020
2
D. Levels of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is an engineering term used to describe the
operating conditions of vehicles in a traffic stream. Operating condi-
tions are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six
levels of service are defined and are designated with letters from A to F.
Level A represents the best operating conditions with free flow and
virtually no delay at signalized intersections. Level of service F
represents the worst operating conditions and occurs when traffic volumes
exceed the capacity of a facility. At level of service F, long queues of
traffic tend to form and delay at signalized intersections tend to exceed
60 seconds.
NC 97 is presently operating at level of service D. At a level of
service D, speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted and the
driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. If
NC 97 is not improved, the level of service will deteriorate as traffic
volumes continue to increase. The proposed improvements to NC 97 in
conjunction with the proposed Nashville/Paul Street one-way pair (U-2563)
will allow NC 97 to operate at level of service C in 2015. Without the
one-way pair, the intersection at NC 97 and Nashville Avenue would operate
at a level of service F in the design year of 2015.
E. Accident Rate
The accident rate for this section of NC 97 over a recent 3 year
period (December 1, 1988 - November 30, 1991) was 755 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM). This exceeds the statewide average of
276 AC/100MVM for similar routes over that same time period. The highest
percentage of accidents on NC 97 over this time period involved rear-end
collisions (40 percent). This accident experience is typical of a
two-lane roadway operating beyond its capacity. The proposed project will
provide a safer facility and should lower the accident rate. Left turning
vehicles will have a refuge area in the separate left-turn lane, removing
them from the flow of through traffic. This will reduce the likelihood of
rear-end collisions.
3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied
This project's length is approximately 1.4 miles.
B. Existing Cross Section
Currently this section of NC 97 is a two-lane facility with it-foot
travel lanes, 4-foot paved shoulders and 8-foot grassed shoulders.
C. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way for NC 97 varies 60 to 100 feet along the
project. The right-of-way is 60 feet from Arrington Drive (SR 1818) to
Nashville Avenue (SR 1714). The remainder of the project from US 301 to
Williford Street/Arrington Avenue has 100 feet of right-of-way symmetrical
about the centerline.
D. Bridges/Culverts
The existing bridges on US 301 over NC 97 will not be involved with
this project.
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
The intersection of NC 97 and Nashville Avenue is signal controlled.
All other intersections along the project are stop sign controlled or have
no control at all.
F. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along the entire project is 45 mph.
G. Access Control
There is no access control along this project except for the
interchange at US 301 and NC 97.
H. Utilities
Utilities along this project include water, sewer, cable television,
electricity, natural gas, and telephone. The utility conflict is rated as
medium.
I. Project Terminals
The western end of the project terminates at US 301. The eastern end
terminates at Nashville Avenue (SR 1714). West of US 301, NC 97 is a
two-lane shoulder section. East of Nashville Avenue, NC 97 is a four-lane
curb and gutter section. There are no projects in the 1995-2001 TIP that
will extend the project beyond the present terminals.
4
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Length of Project
The project is approximately 1.4 miles long.
B. Design Speed Proposed
The recommended minimum design speed is 50 MPH.
C. Cross Section
A five-lane curb and gutter facility with a 64-foot face to face
cross section is recommended for this project. An 8-foot berm will be
constructed behind the curb.
D. Alignment
NC 97 will be widened symmetrically about the existing roadway
centerline except when necessary to increase sight distance or reduce
right-of-way cost.
E. Right-of-Way
Right-of-way will need to be purchased at the block between Arrington
Drive and Nashville Avenue as well as at most intersecting roads along
NC 97 to improve sight distance. Right-of-way will also need to be
purchased in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the US 301-NC 97
interchange. Temporary easements will be required in some locations where
the construction extends beyond the existing or proposed right-of-way.
In order to avoid additional relocatees, an 80-foot right-of-way is
proposed along the portion of NC 97 where 100-foot is not already owned by
the state and right-of-way is required. This will be symmetric about the
center line except when necessary to shift to avoid excessive right-of-way
damages.
F. Access Control
Control of access will be required for the new right-of-way involving
the ramps at the US 301/NC 97 interchange. There will be no control of
access along the remainder of the project.
G. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersecting streets will be stop sign controlled with the
exception of Nashville Avenue which will remain controlled by a traffic
signal. In order to improve the LOS at this intersection, it is proposed
that an exclusive right turn lane be added to the eastboundleg of NC 97.
A westbound through lane will be added here also. This will improve the
LOS when the project is completed.
5
There will be an on ramp added to the northeast quadrant of the
US 301/NC 97 interchange. The present ramp located in the southeast
quadrant of the interchange will be moved approximately 100 feet east to
align opposite the new ramp in the northeast quadrant. This will be done
in order to provide more storage for eastbound vehicles turning left onto
the new ramp in the northeast quadrant. This allows the existing bridges
carrying US 301 over NC 97 to be retained. The ramp/loop in the southeast
quadrant will no longer carry two-way traffic. Only cars exiting US 301
will use this ramp. Cars entering US 301 will use the new ramp in the
northeast quadrant. The purpose of the new ramp will be to improve the
dangerous condition that now exist in the southeast quadrant where there
is a two-way ramp. This ramp is both an exit and entrance ramp for
US 301/NC 97. The severe curve on the loop and the lack of an
acceleration lane going north onto US 301 creates a dangerous situation.
H. Railroad Work Required
No railroad work will be required.
I. Bridge Work Required
No bridge work will be required.
J. Culvert Work Required
No culvert work will be required.
K. Parking
Parking is not presently permitted and will not be provided for or
permitted along the project.
L. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project. Presently no
sidewalks exist.
M. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are proposed for this project.
N. Speed Limits
No changes to the existing 45 mph speed limit are proposed.
0. Cost Estimates
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of
$2,886,000. Construction cost is estimated at $1,900,000, including
engineering and contingencies. The estimated right-of-way cost is
$986,000, including acquisition, relocation, and utilities. The current
(1995-2001) TIP cost is estimated at $3,140,000.
6
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Alignment
Since the project involves the widening of an existing street, no
alternative corridors were considered.
Symmetrical widening is recommended for this project because
development is found along both sides of the roadway for most of its
length. Widening asymmetrically in cases such as this will cause property
owners on one side of the roadway to bear a larger share of the burden for
the project (in terms of reduced setback from the roadway) than property
owners on the other side. This will tend to increase right-of-way costs.
B. Cross Section
A five-lane facility with curb and gutter (64 feet face to face) is
recommended for this project. Alternatives with fewer than five lanes
would be inadequate to serve existing and projected traffic volumes at a
desirable level of service. Providing more than five lanes would increase
construction and right-of-way cost.
A four-lane cross section was considered for the improvement to
NC 97. The four-lane alternative would be somewhat less expensive than
the recommended five-lane cross section. However, the interference of the
numerous existing commercial driveways and side streets and the large
volume of turning traffic which they generate would create a capacity
deficiency for this section soon after it would open to traffic. Without
a center turn lane, the roadway would not only have a capacity deficiency,
but because of the high number of turns generated, the highway would have
a high accident potential. Drivers are accustomed to using the left lane
of a highway as a high speed through lane and are not expecting vehicles
to be stopped or turning from this lane. The four-lane cross-section
would not appreciably lessen the accident potential for rear-end and left
turn collisions over the present roadway. Therefore, due to inadequate
capacity, the difficulty of turning into adjacent development, and the
potential for rear-end and left turn collisions, the four-lane cross
section was rejected.
C. No-Build Alternative
The no-build alternative would lead to more congestion and unsafe
conditions as traffic volumes increase along NC 97. It is therefore not
recommended.
VI. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Ecological Assessment
Project U-2310 is located in Nash County. The proposed improvements
consist of widening a two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter
section 64 feet face to face, as well as the construction of ramps at the
interchange of the 301 Bypass and NC 97. Maximum construction limits for
both the widening and ramp addition are about 120 feet.
Study Area
The project is located in Rocky Mount in the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. The study area is located in an urban setting.
Residential and commercial sites dominate the landscape, although
agricultural and forested communities are scattered throughout the study
area. Several unnamed tributaries of the Tar River cross the study area.
Topography in the area is gently sloping. Elevation in the study
area is approximately 130' above mean sea level (amsl).
Methodology
Aerial photographs (1"= 200'), USGS quadrant map (Rocky Mount),
National Wetland Inventory Map (Rocky Mount), Nash County Soil Survey
(Soil Conservation Service) and hydric soils list were utilized during
in-house research. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified from
the soil survey and hydric soils list. A site visit was made on April 24,
1992, to inventory natural resources and determine wetland locations and
boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state protected species
was obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
Natural Resources
The Natural Resources section is divided into two major parts: Biotic
Resources and Physical Resources. Descriptions of the plant and wildlife
communities are included under Biotic Resources. Soil and water resource
information is discussed in the Physical Resources section. A summary of
anticipated impacts discusses plant and wildlife community impacts.
Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and wildlife communities in the study area
is provided below. Common and scientific names are provided for each
species listed; in subsequent references to the same organism, only the
common name is given.
Plant Communities
Two upland plant communities and one wetland plant community were
identified in the study area: Disturbed Scrub/Shrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine
and Scrub/Shrub Wetland. A description of each plant community in the
study area follows.
Uplands
Scrub/Shrub
This community is located adjacent to the existing roadside and in
developed locations. This community is maintained in low-growing
condition. Herbs and shrubs predominate. Few canopy-sized specimens such
as pecan (C?arya illinoensis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), willow oak
( uercus hellos an w ite mulberry (Morus ru ra exist in this
community. Several longleaf pines (Pinus alustris) were noted in
residential areas. A variety of s ruGs suc as crepe myrtle
(La erstroemia indica), juniper (Juni erus spp.), Rose (Rosa multiflora)
and dewberry Ru us la ellaris) are located in dense thic ets t roug out
the study area. Dominant herbaceous species include wood sorrel (Oxalis
rubra), vetch (Vicia an ustifolia), English plantain (Plantago lanceoTata)
an cultivated Treat Triticum aestivum).
Mixed Hardwood/Pine
Small scattered forested areas occur in the study corridor. Dominant
canopy species include: sweetgum (Li uidamaber st raciflua), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) white mulberry, black cherry, winged elm (Ulmus alata),
water oa uercus nigra) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Flowe it ng dogwood
(Cornus flora a and privet (Li ustrum sinense are common shrub species.
Several types of vines such as wisteria Wisteria sinensis), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radT icans), cow itch (Cam semis ra icans , Japanese
honeys uc a Lon ccera Japonica) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinguefolia) are t p ca an Tn some spots dense entanglements occur.
B. Physical Resources/Wetlands
Oqe,.„ ; ?d pklt community is located in the study area.
communityt5cr?ption is provided below.
SC
One small wetland community exists in the study area. It is disturbed
from clearing activities and dominated by herbaceous species such as rush
(Juncus sp.). Wetland canopy species adjacent to this community include
red maple, sweetgum, American elm and black willow (Salix nigra)
Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Construction will impact three plant communities: Disturbed
Scrub/Shrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine and Scrub/Shrub Wetland. Plant community
impacts are presented in Table 1. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACT
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub 15.5
Mixed Hardwood/Pine 1.4
Scrub/Shrub Wet 1 and .1
TOTAL 17.0
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a 120' construction limit. Impact
values are shown in acres.
Impacts to plant communities include the direct loss of vegetation.
Proposed construction will attempt to minimize vegetation loss to Mixed
Hardwood/Pine and the Scrub/Shrub Wetland plant communities.
Wildlife
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by proposed
construction. Limited descriptions of fauna, which are likely to occur in
each ecosystem, are presented. Complete listings of terrestrial and
aquatic organisms can be found in specific references presented in the
reference section.
Terrestrial Communities
Avian fauna noted during the field visit include: killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and mourning dove
(Zenai a macroura . Other avian species tat may be ound in the study
area nclu e-d red-tailed hawk (Buteo 'amaicensis), bobwhite (Colinus
vir inianus), chimney swift (Chaetura e la ica , belted kingfisher
Me a alcyon), red-bellied woo pecker Me aner es carolinus), common
crow orvus rac yrhynchos) and eastern bluebird is is sia is .
Amphibians and reptiles that may occur in the study area include:
slimy salamander (Plethodon lutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (Bu o woo ousel , southern cricket frog Acris r us ,
spring peeper (Hula crucifer), squirrel treefrog (H la s wire a ; eastern
box turtle (Terra ene caro ina), Carolina anole Anolis caro inensis),
eastern fence lizard Scee o ores undulatus), southeastern ive- ine skink
(Eumeces i_nexPectatus), slender glass lizard (0 hisaurus attenuatus), corn
snake El_ aphe uttata) and rough earth snake (Vir inia striatu a .
Several mammals are likely to occur in the study corridor such as:
least shrew (Cr ttot?is arva), eastern mole (Scalo us aquaticus), eastern
cottontail (Sy vl danus), gray squirrel ciurus carolinensis),
eastern harvest mouse (Rest ro ontom s humulis), hispid-cotton rat
(Sigmodonn his idus), black rat Rattus rattus , house mouse (Mus musculus)
and white-tai a deer (Odocoileus r1v ginia us).
10
Aquatic Communities
The small and shallow ditches that cross the study area appear to be
intermittent. For these reasons it appears unlikely that fish species
other than minnows occur in these ditches.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts from proposed construction include addition of fill material
and the loss of wildlife habitat. Impacts to the Mixed Hardwood/Pine
Forest and the Scrub/Shrub Wetland will be minimized since these
communities may be utilized for foraging, cover and a food source to
certain organisms. Extension of existing drainage pipes will be minimized
since these areas may also be utilized by certain organisms.
Road widening may create a barrier to certain migrating organisms.
Additionally, construction may also cause an increase in traffic and
noise. These alterations may lead to changes in species diversity and
community dynamics. As a result, organisms may be displaced and changes
in biomass may occur.
Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Nash County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service, 1989). Six soil mapping units are located in the
study area.
Table 2 Soil Summary, Nash County
Name
Bonneau loamy sand
Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Norfolk loamy sand
Norfolk-Urban land complex
Rains fine sandy loam
Wedowee course sandy loam
Slope Classification
0-4 Hydric Inclusions
0-2 Non-hydric
2-6 Hydric Inclusions
0-6 Non-hydric
0-2 Hydric
2-6 Non-hydric
Bonneau loamy sand, Goldsboro fine sandy loam and Norfolk-Urban land
complex are the most prevalent soil mapping units located in the study
area. Bonneau loamy sand is well drained and is found on nearly level to
gently sloping uplands. This mapping unit has a thick, loamy sand surface
layer and a sandy clay loam subsoil.
Goldsboro fine sandy
on nearly level uplands.
has a sandy loam surface
loam is moderately well drained and is located
This unit formed in coastal plain sediment and
layer and a sandy clay loam subsoil.
Norfolk-Urban land complex consists of well drained Norfolk soil and Urban
land. Norfolk soil has a loamy sand surface layer and sandy clay loam
subsoil. Urban areas are covered by development in which the natural
soils have been altered. Surface runoff is high during intense
rainstorms.
11
The Rains fine sandy loam mapping unit consists of poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils formed in Coastal Plain sediment. Rains soil
has a high water table at or near the surface during all times of the
year.
Water Resources
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. R nnemed.
int!t,t*nt streams are located in the study area and are tributaries of
the Tar River. They do not appear on the USGS quadrant map. T -tr?eams
are approximately 1 -4' wide, 0 to 4" deep and have slow flow rates. The
bottom is eempesed of sand and silt. Nest usage of these streams is the
Sw"All the river to which they are a tributary.
Best Ulage classification of the Tar River in the project vicinity is
W111 NSW (DEM, 1991). Best usage recommendations for Class C waters
include aquatic propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or within 1 mile
downstream.
Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality. This network addresses long term trends in
water quality by measuring the taxa richness and presence of intolerable
organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. No BMAN surveys have been conducted in the study area or near
the project vicinity.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists
point-source dischargers. There are no NPDES dischargers located in the
project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water
resources including indirect impacts to the Tar River:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or
erosion.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation, vegetation removal and culvert placement.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
Recommendations:
- Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and Sediment Control
Guidelines during the construction phase of the project will minimize
erosion and siltation.
12
Jurisdictional Issues
Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities in
"Waters of the US" based on the following laws: Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344) and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1413) Any action that
proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers and a federal permit is required. Generally, "Waters
of the US" is defined as navigable waters, their tributaries and
associated wetlands. Generalliy, "Waters of the US" are subdivided into
"wetlands" and "surface waters'.
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Summary of Impacts
Impacts to "Waters of the US" are anticipated from proposed
construction. The proposed project will impact "surface waters" of the
ditches that cross the study area and a jurisdictional wetland.
Jurisdictional wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetatigna_ soils and hydrology. A I A'.ScrubtS-hrub nsodlk?-heaved
(,. ..A? ? W411 ( i acted by the proposed project.- The vegetation
is hydrophytic and the soil is hydric due to low chroma values. Saturated
soils and standing water was present at the site. Estimated impacts are
'` 0.1 acre. This estimate is preliminary and may change with
project design.
Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) is likely to be applicable at
all ditch crossings and the jurisdictional wetland. This permit is
authorized under the following conditions: 1) The width of the fill is
limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing, 2) The fill
placed in waters of the US is limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3
acre, 3) No more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, 4)
Crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
the movement of aquatic organisms, 5) The crossing, including all
attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project for crossing of a water of the US. Final permit
decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
13
X1'401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required. State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Mitigation
Anticipated filling of a jurisdictional area is likely to be
authorized under a Nationwide Permit. Generally, no mitigation is
required according to the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final decision rests with the
Corps of Engineers.
Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to determine if any
protected species are located in the study area.
Federally Protected Species
Three federally protected species are listed by the USFWS in Nash
County as of March 16, 1992. These species are listed in Table 3. A
discussion of each species as it relates to the project follows.
Table 3. Federally protected species listed for Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel A asmi onta eterodon E
Tar River spiny mussel E i do steinstansana E
E or Endangere : A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout a
its range.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine trees that are
greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages in pine or pine-dominated
stands at least 30 years of age. Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized
by the RCW within 0.5 mile of colony sites. The study area does not
support suitable habitat for the RCW. No impacts to the red-cockaded
woodpecker will occur.
Dwarf wedge mussel
The dwarf-wedge mussel is a small freshwater mussel (25mm-38mn) that
has a shell outline subrhomboidal to subtrapezoidal in shape. This
species is sexually, dimorphic; valves of the females are swollen in the
posterior slope region and the males are generally flattened. In North
Carolina, known populations occur in the Neuse and Tar River systems. The
dwarf-wedge mussel prefers areas of deep runs with coarse sands in creeks
and rivers of varying size. Other noted habitats include gravel or mud
14
bottoms, within submersed plants and near stream banks beneath overhanging
tree limbs. Since the project crosses only one intermittent stream and
the dwarf wedge mussel is known to inhabit permanent streams, it can be
concluded that the project will not effect the dwarf-wedge mussel.
Tar River spiny mussel
The Tar River spiny mussel is a freshwater mussel that grows to 60 mm
long. Up to 12 short spines, approximately 5 mm long, are found on most
specimens. The spines enable the mussel to maintain their position in
fast flowing water. The Tar River spiny mussel is found only in portions
of the Tar River and Swift Creek in Edgecombe County. The mussel prefers
sites that are prone to significant swings in water velocity and water
that is relatively fast flowing and silt free, well oxygenated with a
circumneutral pH. An uncompacted, gravel and coarse sand substrate is
also preferred. The Tar River spiny mussel inhabits stream channel
greater than 20' to 25' wide (John Alderman, NCWRC, personal
communication). The study area does not support suitable habitat for the
Tar River spiny mussel. No impacts to the mussel will occur.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate species in
Nash County (Table 4). These species are not afforded federal protection
at this time but their status may be upgraded in the future. The habitat
column indicates the potential for occurrence (based on suitable habitat)
of these species in the study area.
Table 4. Federal Candidate species listed in Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Yellow lance Ellli d_o lanceolata C2 Yes
Atlantic pigtoe usF conaia masoni- C2 Yes
Diana fritillary
butterfly S e eria diana' C2 Yes
Carolina trillium ri mum usl lum
var. usi um C2 No
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as endangered or threatened at this time.
State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the study area
are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate species that are state
protected are presented in Table 5.
15
Table 5. State protected species listed in Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Statys
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni - T2
Carolina trillium Trillium usi um var. usillum E
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of Candidate
species specified in Nash County.
FAUNA DEFINITIONS
T1 - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
FLORA DEFINITIONS
E2 - Endangered: Any species of plant whose continued existence as a
viable component of the state's flora is in jeopardy.
Though all or some of these species may be present in the study area,
no surveys were conducted.
C. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General
Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will have an
adverse effect upon a property listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect on historic architectural properties for
this project was delineated, and the area was reviewed by DOT staff. The
North Carolina State Preservation Office was consulted. These efforts
revealed no properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places
located within the area of potential effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. It was therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. (See
Appendix).
D. Social Setting and Impacts
Nash County is in the northeastern section of the State and is
bounded by Edgecombe, Wilson, Johnston, Franklin, and Halifax counties.
Based on the 1990 Census Report, Nash County has a population of 76,677.
16
The proposed project begins at the US 301 and NC 97 Interchange. It
extends east on NC 97 until it reaches Nashville Road.
The proposed project will have positive impacts on the neighborhood
and the at-large community. These positive impacts will be in the form of
improved convenience and safety of travel.
The Neighborhood through which the proposed project extends consists
of industrial, residential, institutional, and commercial development.
According to N. C. Employment Security Commission, Nash County's
unemployment rate for the month of February 1992 was 8.7 percent. During
this month there were 36,690 persons in the Nash County labor Force. Out
of this total 33,480 persons were gainfully employed. This left a total
unemployment total for the county of 3,210.
The proposed action will enhance visibility and accessibility to the
businesses along the proposed project site. The economy in the area will
get a boost from the improved and safer flow of traffic. The improved
facility may attract and generate new businesses to relocate in the area.
There are no Public Facilities lining existing NC 97 in the vicinity
of the proposed project; however, there are approximately five Facilties
located on side streets that intersect with NC 97. These Facilities are
Westgate Nursing Home and Rocky Mount Housing for the Elderly at Greg
Court. Williford Elementary School is located on Williford Street; and,
Rocky Mount Community Center is South on Ravenwood Drive.
The proposed project's actions will not disrupt community cohesion
and interfere with Facilities and Services.
The proposed project will have positive impacts on the Neighborhood
and the At Large Community. These positive impacts will derive from the
users of the widen highway facility through convenience and safety of
travel.
E. Relocation Impacts
There will be three residential relocatees. This is due to the need
to acquire more right-of-way at several intersections in order to improve
sight distances.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
17
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Placement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and quality and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and quality.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
18
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered or provided
for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income
for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes
of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
F. Land Use
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of the City of Rocky Mount. The City enforces a zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations. It is currently developing an
updated comprehensive plan, which is now in draft form. The most recently
adopted land use plan was in 1974.
The proposed improvement is located in area of mixed uses including
agriculture and urban development. Although some land along the roadway
is still being farmed, much has been developed with a mix of land uses
ranging from low density residential to industrial. A high density
apartment complex is located on Ravenwood Drive and a housing development
for the elderly is located at Greg Court. A family care family is
operated at the intersection of NC 96 and Kinchen Drive.
Several different zoning districts are located within the project
area. These include R-6, Residential districts which include both vacant
and developed areas and B-5, General Business, which includes the
southeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 97 and US 301, as well as
other parcels between Arrington Avenue and Nelson Street.
19
I-4, Heavy Industrial zoning districts are located on the southeast
quadrant of NC 97 and US 301 behind the B-5 zoning district, and also
includes the southwest quadrant of the intersection.
A B-3, Regional Shopping Center district is located on both sides of
NC 97 on the area of Hazelwood Drive. It should be noted that the
district has been established for a number of years and no development
activity has occurred.
The project area is not experiencing significant development
pressures. Most development that has occurred along the project are ten
to twenty years old. No substantial change in the area's growth trends
are expected.
The 1974 Land Use Plan identifies much of the project area as
destined for residential development of variable densities. The land
fronting NC 97 between Nashville Road and Nelson Road is expected to
become primarily commercial.
A mix of land use and intensity of development, ranging from low
density residential to a regional shopping center, is projected in the
project area. Therefore, the multi-lane facility proposed, should
facilitate the turning movements of local traffic, as well as accommodate
through-traffic in the area. The proposed improvement is clearly
compatible with local plans for the area.
G. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order No. 96, Conservation of Prime Farmland
and Agricultural Lands, requires state agencies to consider the impact of
land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils. The
proposed improvements to NC 97 will occur mostly within the existing
right-of-way. Therefore, no agricultural land will be impacted by the
project.
H. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate
these effects to the extent possible.
Traffic service on roads intersecting the project may be subjected to
brief periods of disruption during construction of the project. Every
endeavor will be made to insure that the transportation needs of the
public will be met both during and after construction.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
20
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures". The
contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the
right-of-way is permitted by the Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas,
both during the work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching,
or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner which will
effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from land clearing, and other demolition, construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
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 laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to the water lines
and interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion
control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction
with the erosion control schedule the contractor will be required to
follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation.
21
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures" together with the policies of the Division of Highways
regarding control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on work
performed by State Forces.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained in so far-as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
I. Floodplain Involvement
There are no major drainage structures involved on this project. The
terrain in the vicinity of the project site is flat with natural draws and
streams located such that the proposed project can be drained without
difficulty. Groundwater and existing drainage patterns will not be
significantly affected by project construction.
Rocky Mount is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Attached is a copy of the Rocky Mount Flood Insurance Rate Map
on which is shown that the proposed widening is out of any designed flood
boundaries.
Siltation of the work area during the project construction will be
minimized with the use and maintenance of "Best Management Practices".
J. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
This study was performed to determine the effect of widening NC 97 in
Nash County on noise levels in the immediate project area between US 301
Bypass and Nashville Road (Figure 1). This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
22
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 (0). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the human
ear by placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000
Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the response of the
human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed
as dBA. Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which
means an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
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
ture of the intruding noise, 2) the relationship between the background
noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of activity occurring when
the noise is heard.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives, particularly if noises occur at predicted
intervals and have become expected. Attempts have been made to regulate
many of these types of noises including that from airplanes, factories,
railroads and highways. With respect to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The
Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time-varying
sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms. of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for
residences and other noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the
project. The existing Leq noise level along NC 97, measured at 50 feet
23
from the center of the nearest travel lane, ranged from 63 dBA near Godwin
Lane and Hazelwood Drive to 66 dBA east of Wilkins Street.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed project is to
widen the existing 2-lane roadway to a 5-lane curb-and-gutter facility.
The proposed roadway will have a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The
proposed project was modeled assuming no special noise abatement measures
would be incorporated. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers
which could be modeled were included. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at grade. Thus, this analysis
represents "worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise predictions
made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with
proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak
hour in the design year 2015, would be exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to receive a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was
to select typical receptor locations at 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and
1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). The locations of these typical modeled receptors
were established by substantial (> 10%) changes in projected traffic
volumes along the proposed highway. The result of this procedure was a
grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
24
The number of receptors for each activity category predicted to
experience traffic noise impacts are given in Table N3. Fifty one
residences and three businesses are predicted to approach or exceed the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Other information included in Table
N3 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
over undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in their respective local
jurisdiction and to prevent further development of incompatible activities
and land uses.
The traffic noise impacts of this project in terms of increased
exterior noise levels is predicted to range between +6 and +9 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are barely
perceptible.. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either (a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC),
with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or (b) substantially exceed existing
noise levels (defined at the bottom of Table N2). Noise abatement
measures must be considered when either of the two preceding conditions
exist.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively defract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning all
properties adjoining this project will continue to have the right to
access NC 97 via driveway connections. Also, all intersections will
adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be of substantial height and length as to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.)
due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier
400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1,
USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
25
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these two qualities and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, these factors effectively negate
the effectiveness of any physical abatement measures and none are
recommended for this project.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impact for the
alternative was also studied. If NC 97
a 2 lane roadway, 31 residences in the
experience traffic noise impacts within
level increases would be on the order of
to more noticeably perceptible change to
the area.
"Do Nothing", or "No Build",
was not widened and was to remain
immediate project area would
the next twenty years. Noise
+1 to +6 dBA, indicating a barely
individuals living and working in
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal, since construction noise is relatively short in
duration and is generally restricted to daytime.hours. Furthermore, the
transmission loss characteristics of surrounding man-made structures and
natural features are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise impacts
are an unavoidable consequence of roadway widening projects. Based on
these preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement is reasonable or
feasible along this project and none is proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part
772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional reports are
required for this project.
K. AIR UALITY ANALYSIS
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal,
forest fires and burning in general. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway
can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving
the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).
26
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help lower
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway
sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because
emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
27
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline
eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01
grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars
use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
"The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale, supply, or transport
of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995."
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst case"
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the design year 2015 and for ten years prior
(2005) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer'model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban areas.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the widening
project was determined to be a residence (receptor #76). The receptor is
located 50 feet north of NC 97 and approximately 50 feet east of SR 1818.
The "build" and "no build" one hour CO concentrations for years 2005 and
2015 for this receptor are as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Receptor
R-76
Comparison of
permitted for 1 ho
9 ppm) indicates r
the "worst case"
concluded that the
results also show
"Build" "No Build"
2005 2015 2005 2015
2.9 2.8 3.0 3.0
the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
it averaging period = 35 ppm; 8 hour averaging period =
D violation of these standards. Since the results of
hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be
8 hour CO level does not exceed the standard. The
that the building of the project will not adversely
28
effect air quality conditions in the area. See Tables Al, A2, A3 and A4
for input data.
The project is located in the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control
Region. The ambient air quality for Nash County has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this
project is located in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
does not contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
L. Hazardous Waste Involvement
A field survey and records search was performed to identify areas of
potential environmental concern including underground storage tanks,
hazardous waste dumps and landfills. However, after reviewing all of the
available information, there is nothing to indicate that hazardous
materials involvement should be a problem.
M. Permits
A Nationwide permit 33 CFR.5(a)(14) will be required as will a
Section 401 General.Water Quality Certificate.
N. Geodetic Markers
This project will impact no geodetic survey markers.
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On April 16,1991, a letter was mailed to the following federal,
state, and local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental
input concerning the proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those
agencies who responded to this letter):
*U. S. Department of the Interior
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
29
*N. C. Wildlife Resources
*N. C. Department of Crime
*City of Rocky Mount
*Town of Sharpsburg
Nash County Commissioners
*City of Wilson
Commission
Control and Public Safety
The City of Rocky Mount was consulted during the planning of this
project. Two Informational Workshops were held at Willford Elementary
School.
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. This FONSI completes the
environmental review. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared for this project.
JK/wp
i Avanton
• ? • ? • ' Castdia
• • / ,? Red 0
`• •• d 10
N-A- ' -S -
• • n MomaYe 1 t
®
•? No ashville
64A 3 •1
/• t ' 1 6
• rM1 64
/
7 5 6 Stanhope
4 c-,
• i 5/p 6 ?w /l
5 264
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 97
FROM US 301
TO NASHVILLE AVENUE, ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY
U-2310
0 mile 1,12
FIG. 1

??+.
-,
;_;? _
PROJECT U-2310
NC-97 FROM PAUL STREET TO US-301 BYPASS NASH COUNTY
MAY, 1992
ESTIMATED 1995/2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(in hundreds)
NC-97
(RALEIGH RD)
ZZ
PAUL ST 1 139 ZO-
$ 5 2 71 141
128
N 6 -1./ / g t 9
1 ? ~1
1 2 12
2
L-
2 Z
12~
1 Z2 13
NASHVILLE RD 1? / 130 2 s PAUL ST
89 34 84 l?
73 64 133
-l' 4 t
IA 4
23,,.,4 32
14
25,,,,,, 5
IA z 1;z 2a
23 51
WILLIFORD ST f r ZQ. ss 5 44
4 114/ 124
4 s IQ.
a 2 1oa 2 ?2 NASHVILLE RD
2 '
1- 2--4
DAKEY ST
s 5
120 2
? 7
L L- 11 r Z2.
127
l 3 1 f2
3 R/ 1110 Z 2. ARRINGTON AVE
i ?4 \L4
L /n 1 1
1_ 1 v? 2
/*
122 L 6 7
f 1
113/
A I?
124 CASCADE AVE
NC-97 (RALEIGH RD)
11-1 FIGURE 3
As 1 OF 6
PROJECT U-2310
NASH COUNTY
MAY, 1992
N
NC-97
(RALEIGH RD)
NC-97 FROM PAUL STREET TO US-301 BYPASS
?ESTIMATED' 1995/2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(in hundreds) A
N C-97
-__ (RALEIGH RD)
11133 A \ ,
WILKINS RD 5 1
tea
6 10 9
? ? z9
L ?5 1
15
z? jr z $
1U 2. 14---,.,
4 NELSON
ST
HAZELWOOD OR
Al f ? a
84 98
/ 56
/? ? 100
?Q.
108/
t ?
/117
;i.Z. $
94
14
14
4 4
7 98 5 103 2
93 / 4
fia
1 9 107
2
95 4
t
Az ? ]- 1 1
86 so 2
89
2 Z
?1. Z 13
91 13 \
STARLING WAY
10
18
;i
18
RAVENWOOD DR
FIGURE 3
20F6
PROJECT U-2310
NASH COUNTY
MAY, 1992
C
NC-97 FROM PAUL STREET TO US-301 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 1995/2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(in hundreds)
C
B
NC-97 (RALEIGH RD)
47

75 86
,/
I2
r .
11
? Z B
13
J? 4

78 2
4 17
~ $
4.
79 41 15 POWELL DR
? r82
37

/ 68 6 } Z
11 \
13

14
2

92
q9 Z
13 7
11
4A 1 24 KINGSTON AVE
B2

/82
L
1
L ?,
,

2
? r
81
82 46 2 ALLEN ST
/
?` / 82
42
77 $
5
? 55
9

47 77 5
56 9 14 KINCHEN DR
?
86 &
14
- FIGURE 3
\
C,
30F6
PROJECT U-2310
NASH COUNTY
MAY, 1992
L3
NC-97 FROM PAUL STREET TO US-301 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 1995/2015 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(in hundreds)
N US-301
BYPASS
C.

NC-97 (RALEIGH R
iaz
FIGURE 3
40F6

PAUL
STREET
NASHVILLE
ROAD
SR-1714 NASHVILLE ROAD
From SR-1717 To US-301 Bus.
Estimated 2015 Average Daily Traffic
With Paul Street Connector and One-Way Pair
NC-97 INTERSECTIONS
NC-97
Nash County
December, 1992
FIGURE 3
50176
MAY, 1992 NASH COUNTY
U-2310
NC-97 FROM PAUL STREET TO US-301 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 1991/1995/2015 ADT IN HUNDREDS BY ROUTE

ROUTE ADT IN 100'S
TTST%
DUA
%

1991
1995
2015 L DHV% DIR%
NC-97 135 155 280 3 4 10 60
PAUL ST 12 14 26 1 2 10 60
NASHVILLE RD 79 93 162 1 2 10 60
WILLIFORD ST 8 8 16 1 2 10 60
CASCADE AVE 5 5 13 1 2 10 60
WILKINS RD 4 4 11 1 2 10 60
NELSON ST 13 15 29 1 2 10 60
RAVENWOOD DR 28 20 36 1 2 10 60
HAZELWOOD DR 9 10 18 1 2 10 60
STARLING CT 12 14 26 1 2 10 60
POWELL DR 15 17 32 2 2 10 60
KINGSTON AVE 24 28 51 1 2 10 60
ALLEN ST 1 1 4 2 2 10 60
KINCHEN DR 14 16 28 2 2 10 60
US-301 BYPASS 164 189 340 3' 4 10 60
FIGURE 3
60F6
J
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

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

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

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.

TABLE N3
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC-97, US-301 Bypass to Nashville Road Rocky Mount,
Nash County, TIP M U-2310, Project N 9.8043118
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTOUR APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS DISTANCES RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
(dBA)' (MAXIMUM)- TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
DESCRIPTION 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. US-301 Byp. to Starlin Way.
2. Starlin Way to Ravenwood Dr.
3. Ravenwood Dr. to Nashville Rd.
70 66 60 53' 106' 0 24 0 0 0
71 67 61 58' 116' 0 1 0 0 0
71 67 62 65' 126' 0 26 3 0 0

TOTAL 0 51 3 0 0
501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
'72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed r3adway.
C
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC-97, US-301 Bypass to Nashville Road, Rocky Mount,
Nash County, TIP N U-2310, Project # 9.8043118
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL
SECTION <.0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >- 25 INCREASES'
US-301 Byp. to Starlin Way 0 0 C 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Starlin Way to Ravenwood Dr. 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ravenwood Dr. to Nashville Rd. 0 0 0 8 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 8 72 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'As defined in Table N2.
TABLE Al
• CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2310 / NC 97 NASH COUNTY RUN: NC 97 (YEAR 2005 BUILD)
DATE: 07/02/1992 TIME: 10:49:25.51
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
• VS . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CI.AS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO = 10. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH a 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- "----------------------------------------------------------
1. EB LINK * -304.8 -5.5 304.8 -5.5 * 610. 90. AG 1210. 7.9 .0 13.4
2. WB LINK * 304.8 5.5 -304.8 5.5 * 610. 270. AG 1210. 7.9 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* CCORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- "-------------------------------------*
1. REC 76 (NORTH SIDE) * .0 15.2 1.8
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2310 / NC 97 NASH COUNTY RUN: NC 97 (YEAR 2015 BUILD)
DATE: 07/02/1992 TIME: 10:52:29.18
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 10. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------- *------------------------------- --------- "--------------------- ------------------- ------------------
1. EB LINK * -304.8 -5.5 304.8 -5.5 * 610. 90. AG 1210. 7.8 .0 13.4
2. WB LINK " 304.8 5.5 -304.8 5.5 " 610. 270. AG 1210. 7.8 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- "-------------------------------------*
1. REC 76 (NORTH SIDE) * .0 15.2 1.8 "
TABLE A3
•
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2310 / NC 97 NASH COUNTY RUN: NC 97 (YEAR 2005 NO BUILD)
DATE: 07/02/1992 TIME: 10:40:06.43
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 10. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXE - 400. M AME - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ -----------------------------
1. EB LINK * -304.8 -1.8 304.8
2. WB LINK * 304.8 1.8 -304.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
PAGE 2
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------- *--------------------- -------------------------------------
-1.8 * 610. 90. AG 1210. 10.1 .0 9.8
1.8 * 610. 270. AG 1210, 10.1 .0 9.8
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------"
1. REC 76 (NORTH SIDE) " .0 15.2 1.8
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2310 / NC 97 NASH COUNTY RUN: NC 97 (YEAR 2015 NO BUILD)
DATE: 07/02/1992 TIME: 10:43:19.93
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 10. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ -----------------------------
1. EB LINK * -304.8 -1.8 304.8
2. WB LINK * 304.8 1.8 -304.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------- *--------------------- ---------------- ---- ---------------
-1.8 * 610. 90. AG 1210. 10.0 .0 9.8
1.8 * 610. 270. AG 1210. 10.0 .0 9.8
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------- ------*-------------------------------------*
1. REC 76 (NORTH SIDE) " .0 15.2 1.8
O?PPtMENT F ly?'2?
F
y O
7 37
FCH 3 ?%
,1-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 27, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
N T,
•
?11?A
JAN 2S3 1992
Subject: Scoping Comments for NC 97, from US 301 to Nashville Avenue, Nash
County; State Project No. 9.8043118, TIP No. U-2310.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of January 16, 1991, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project vicinity.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the 1989 Federal Manual for Ident ifvincr and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
L)t' t (Y -Cam.
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Attachment
REVISED JANUARY 1, 1992
Nash County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Tar River spiny mussel (Ellintio (Canthyria) steinstansana) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) - C2
Carolina trillium (Trillium Pusillum var. nussillum) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Ellintio lanceolata) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Diana fritillary butterfly (Sneveria.diana) - C2
1i .
Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
\` I e' WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
•?,? ?,ti WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 20, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199202199
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E,. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
1 V
?' M?`( 2? 199 U
??'G & RESEP
We have reviewed your letter of January 16, 1992, requesting information
for the Rocky Mount, NC Hwy 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue, Nash County,
State Project No. 9.8043118, TIP No. U-2310" and offer the following comments.
The proposed work may involve the discharge of excavated or fill material
into waters of the United States and/or wetlands asssociated with a crossing
of an unnamed tributary to the Tar River. This crossing is located above the
headwaters of the tributary approximately 1/4 mile east of U.S. 301. Prior
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of
excavated or fill material in the waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjuction with this project, including disposal
of construction debris.
On February 6, 1990, the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean
Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding
impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging,
practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to
minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To
enable us to process your application in full compliance..with this MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:
-2-
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
Specific Department of the Army permit requirements will depend on the
final project design, area of water and/or wetlands filled, construction
methods, etc. Accordingly, our Regulatory Branch would apprecicate the
opportunity to review the plans, when they become available, for a project-
specific determination of Department of the Army permit requirements.
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. John Cameron,
Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone] or [phone].
Sincerely,
ne Wri
hie , Regula ory Branch
Copies Furnished:
U.S. Environmental Protection Mr. John Dorney
Agency - Region IV Division of Environmental Management
Wetlands Regulatory Unit North Carolina Department of
345 Courtland Street, N.E. Environment, Health and
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Mr. John Parker Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
d w. STA7Z o
C _ry
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour eS '
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ???
Deputy State Historic Preservation officer
SUBJECT: NC 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue,
Rocky Mount, Nash County, U-2310, 9.8043118,
CH 92-E-4220-0490
We have received information concerning the above project from
the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search,,of our maps and files and have located
the following structures of historical..or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Boone Town. South of Paul, east of Nashville Avenue, north
of Z Street, west of Davis, Rocky Mount. Boone Town has not
been evaluated for National Register-eligibility.
No National Register-listed or state study list properties are
located within the area of potential effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the-proposed
project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be
affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the
potential for federal permits may require further consultation
and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
.109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
February 5, 1992, Page 2
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and
Executive Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

STA7Z
V 4
IV- ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604;
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
February 5; 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee/, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Boyd DeVanA; Water Quality Section
SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0490; Rocky Mount NC 97
This memo is in response to an NC DOT request for
comments on the subject highway project. Our comments are not
based on site-specific knowledge but are offered as general
advice when planning a project such as this. Our field office
may offer some comments based on the particular site.
1. The EA should discuss relative susceptibility of the site
to sediment problems i?nd.'any special efforts planned to
minimize impacts from sediment
2. The potential wetlands impacts should be discussed. An
analysis of the wetlands impact including, as
practicable, a delineation of the wetlands in the project
area, a description of the types and acreages that would
be impacted (including a vegetation list), and
information on the overall values of those affected
wetlands. The EA should discuss the losses expected,
efforts to avoid or minimize losses, and-mitigation when
preventing losses is not possible.
3. Any high quality or special classification waters, such
as Water Supply, should also be identified and any
special efforts planned to protect those waters. If the
information is not available from the NC DOT data
sources, contact Mr. Alridge Renn of the DEM files for
existing and proposed stream classifications.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/151-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/8967007

Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626053i Telephone [phone]
Ai, Fqual Opq- miiv All-un r :Vtu 6,,p]-v,

-OWN
Yi r
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
-
.Lt ? 7IIN i SIGNED BY
DATE: July 26, 1993 S1'" ? -!?NIE E. GOUDRE.AU
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0017, Environmental
Assessment for replacement of Norfolk and Southern
Railway underpass on NC 66 in Walkertown, Forsyth
County, TIP #U-2422
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the replacement of the Norfolk and Southern Railway underpass
on NC 66 in Walkertown, Forsyth County. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. _.40,1, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to construct a new underpass to accommodate a future
five-lane roadway and to realign a section of NC 66 from the
underpass to northwest of SR 1984 (Jones Road). Upon completion
of this project, the newly aligned section of NC 66 will have two
12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders; additional lanes will
be constructed when dictated by traffic needs and.are not
included in this EA. The project also includes the realignment
of SR 2456 (Old Walkertown Road) and SR 1986 (Salem Street) to
intersect NC 66 approximately 200 feet north of the underpass.
The preferred alternative, Alternative 1, will impact 11.8 acres
of uplands, 0.1 acre of wetlands, and an unnamed tributary to old
Field Creek.
I conducted a site visit on July 22, 1993. Wildlife habitat
at the project site consists of mostly disturbed areas (road
shoulders, residential and commercial sites), although some small
areas of mixed hardwoods and pines are present within the
construction corridor. Fisheries habitat is limited to small
COPY
2
streams (1-3 feet wide) that may support nongame fish such as
chubs, shiners, and dace along with amphibians. Palustrine herb-
shrub wetlands in the area may provide habitat for the bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii, a State Threatened Species.
The NCWRC has the following comments regarding this project:
1) According to N.C. State Museum and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program records, the bog turtle is present in the general
vicinity of this project. The NCDOT has not conducted a
survey for the bog turtle at the project site despite the
statement in the EA that suitable habitat for the bog turtle
exists. Consequently, the NCWRC cannot concur with a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) until a survey is
conducted. The survey is best conducted in April or May
when bog turtles are most active and done by personnel
experienced in bog turtle surveys.
2) The NCWRC tentatively concurs that Alternative 1 will likely
have fewer impacts on fish and wildlife resources than other
alternatives. However, results of the bog turtle survey may
change our preferred alternative.
3) No impacts to palustrine herb/shrub and palustrine forest
plant communities are listed in Table 2 for Alternative 1
and 1A; however, Table 5 shows that both alternatives will
impact 0.1 acre of palustrine herb/shrub wetlands at site 1.
Table 2 should be modified in the final document to reflect
these impacts.
4) Figure 5 was missing from our copy of the EA document; this
figure should be included in th6"final document.
The NCWRC has the following recommendations for minimizing
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the project
area:
1) Permanent herbaceous vegetation should be established on all
bare soil within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to
provide long term erosion control.
2) If stream relocation becomes necessary, the NCDOT should •
consult with the NCWRC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service before work begins. New channels should match the
old where possible in terms of average width, depth, slope,
substrate, and meander pattern.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
C??a of "$4aryehurg
INCORPORATED 1883
P.O. BOX 1759
httrpsbura, _ 19. 27878
January 30, 1992
4

4
?J
FEB ? a,?2
Ms. Cheryl M. Leonard ,..5';tCE
Region L Council of Governments N
Post Office Drawer 2748 %.
4
Rocky Mount, N. C. 27802-2748
RE: 92-E-4220-0490
Dear Ms. Leonard:
In response to your letter dated January 27, 1992
regarding comments for proposed improvements to NC 97 in
Rocky Mount from US 301 to Nashville Avenue. Our Building
Inspector for the Town of Sharpsburg stated that he could
foresee no potential enfironmental impacts in regard to
State Project No. 9.80#'3118... There will be no permits or
inspections required by the Town.-
Thank you for requesting our opinion in regard to
this project.
Sincerely,
ayt
Becky M
d
Town Clerk

City of --Rocky, cvou.n.f
Dff az of t4F_ City Aana9E7
January 30, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

Re: Rocky Mount, N.C. 97 from U.S. 301 to Nashville Road
TIP: U-2310
State Project 9.8043118
?b e' 1
5
FEB 3 1992 `
Mayor Turnage referred your letter of January 16 to me for response.
I have met with several of the City's department heads and the only
comments concerning environmental impacts are as follows:
1. The Rocky Mount --Fire Department advises that there are
underground tanks at the TIGA.stat.ion and the flower shop across
Raleigh Road from the TIGA station which was formerly a gasoline
service station. It is believed tanks are located in the area
planned for acquisition that are abandoned in place. The N. C.
Division of Environmental Management should have these tanks
identified on an inventory they reportedly keep. It is not known
whether these tanks leaked.
2. The City's Water Resources Department recommends installing a
casing under N.C. 97 near U.S. 301 at the sewer lift station site
close to the J. P. Taylor, Inc. property to allow for the future
extension of sewer service to the south.
3. The Public Works Department advises there are several drainage
ditches that cross N.C. 97 northward toward the Tar River. We
would not expect any adverse impact from this project on the
drainage systems.

•

o'. ?ovetnmcnt -(P`aza ° ._,1P01t (l)#i= -Box 1180 ' cRo.ky A...t, Aott{i eatofina 27802-1180
Mr. L. J. Ward
Page 2
January 30, 1992
We are not aware of any environmental impacts other than those noted above.
Nor are we aware of any historical sites involved.
We do not require any permits or approvals for this project. We look
forward to its successful completion.
Sincerely yours,
40
Peter Varney
Assistant City Manager
pwr
c Russell Byrd, City Engineer
Douglas Roberson, Director of Public Works
Paul Blount, Director of Water Resources
Joseph Durham, Director of Planning
J. E. Hawkins, Fire Chief
4.

.r
Taffin af '?-4aryehurg
INCORPORATED 1883
P.O. BOX 1 759
flarpsburg, N. CSI. 27878
January 30, 1992

Ms. Cheryl M. Leonard
Region L Council of Governments ..
Post Office Drawer 2748
Rocky Mount, N. C. 27802-2748
RE: 92-E-4220-0490
Dear Ms. Leonard:
In response to your letter dated January 27, 1992
regarding comments for proposed improvements to NC 97 in
Rocky Mount from US 301 to Nashville Avenue. Our Building
Inspector for the Town of Sharpsburg stated that he could
foresee no potential enfironmental impacts in regard to
State Project No. 9.8043118. There will be no permits or
inspections required by the Town.
Thank you for requesting our Opinion in regard to
this project.
Sincerely,
Becky Maynard
Town Clerk
•\1
III

of
.... -(-', ••1 1 •.......... ' . unn n,iu u' M11,111 r-1111110% T
(??y o F W/4, 0
Z
2 CITY OF WILSON
0 uu ?0? n0rtk (?ar0Iena
tiORTH CP 0.cORPORAreo 1849
27894-0010
OFFICE OF THE f l -
CITY MANAGER
FED '
February 3, 1992 -
r
\. Q CL
Ms. Cheryl M. Leonard
Emergency Services/Technical Assistance/
Public Relations/Project Director
Region L Council of Governments
P. O. Drawer 2748
Rocky Mount, NC 27802-2748
Dear Ms. Leonard:
W-92-005
Re: 92-E-4220-0490
Scoping for Comments for Proposed Improvements to NC-97 in
Rocky Mount from US-301 to Nashville Avenue
The City of Wilson has reviewed the above-referenced project and
has no comment regarding this matter. It appears to affect the
City of Wilson in no way; therefore, if the project is satisfactory
to the City of Rocky Mount and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, it would be satisfactory to the City of Wilson.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WILSON
Edward A. Wyatt
City Manager
w
aih
c: Charles W. Pittman, III, Assistant City Manager
William P. Bartlett, Director of Public Works
P.O. BOX 10, WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 PH:[phone] FAX:[phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
1990 NATIONAL MEDIUM EMPLOYER OF THE YEAR FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES - PUBLIC SECTOR
RECEIVE[)
APR 0 4 1997
NOTICE OF AN OPEN-HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OFD ENV'RONMENTAISCIINCIs
FROM US 301 TO NASHVILLE AVENUE
Project 9.8043118
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open-
house public hearing on Tuesday, April 22, 1997 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. in the Williford Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room located at
801 Williford Street in Rocky Mount. Interested individuals may attend this hearing at
their convenience between the above stated hours. Division of Highways personnel
will be available to provide information, answer questions, and take comments
regarding this project.
It is proposed to widen the existing NC 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue
(SR 1714) - a distance of approximately 1.4 miles - from a two lane roadway with
shoulders to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. A ramp will be added to the northeast
quadrant of the US 301-NC 97 Interchange. The ramp in the southeast quadrant will
be realigned and the existing loop will be removed. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this project.
Plans setting forth the location and design and a copy of the environmental
document - State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Imoact - are
available for public review in the Rocky Mount Municipal Building - Department of
Engineering - located at One Government Plaza in Rocky Mount.
Anyone desiring additional information may write to Mr. L. L. Hendricks, Citizens
Participation Unit, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or telephone [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing. To receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing.
1 e . SU11F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY May 22, 1992 STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Davis, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit ,lam lll???uuu??'
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the
proposed widening of NC 97, Nash County,
TIP #U-2310, State Project #9.8043118.
ATTENTION: Julius Kachmer, Project Engineer
Attached is the Natural Resources Technical report for
the proposed widening of NC 97. The project is a state funded
Environmental Assessment (EA).
Surveys for the dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) are necessary to determine its presence
or absence of this organism in the study area.
Our staff would be interested in reviewing the draft EA
document.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
M. Randall Turner
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
NC 97 Widening
Nash County
TIP #U-2310
state Project #9.8043118
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2310
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
May, 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Natural Resources ....................................3
2.1 Biotic Resources ..................................3
2.1.1 Plant Communities ............................3
2.1.1.1 Uplands .................................3
2.1.1.2 Wetlands ................................4
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........4
2.1.2 Wildlife .....................................4
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities .................5
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities .....................5
2.1.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........5
2.2 Physical Resources ................................6
2.2.1 Soils ........................................6
2.2.2 Water Resources ..............................6
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........7
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues ................................8
3.1 Waters of the United States .8
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts ...........................8
3.1.2 Permits ................................ . . . . . .8
3.1.3 Mitigation ........................... .9
3.2 Protected Species .9
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species .9
3.2.2 State Protected Species .....................11
4.0 References ..........................................12
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map ...........................2
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts ...4
Table 2 Soil Summary, Nash County .6
.............
Table 3 Federally protected species listed for
Nash County .. 9
Table 4 Federal Candidate species listed in
Nash County ...11
Table 5 State protected species listed in Nash County
....................................11
I
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The project is located in Nash County (Figure 1). The
proposed improvements consist of 1) widening of an existing
two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter section and
2) construction of ramp at the interchange of 301 bypass and
NC 97. Maximum construction limits for both the widening and
ramp addition are 1201. Total length of the project is 1.4
miles. The present roadway consists of 2 - 11' lanes with 4'
paved shoulders and 8' grassed shoulders.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes the natural resources in the
project area and anticipated impacts to these resources.
This information is submitted for inclusion into a state
funded Environmental Assessment (EA) Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located in Rocky Mount in the Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The study area is located in
an urban setting. Residential and commercial sites dominate
the landscape, although agricultural and forested communities
are scattered throughout the study area. Several unnamed
tributaries of the Tar River cross the study area.
Topography in the area is gently sloping. Elevation in
the study area is approximately 130' above mean sea level
(amsl).
1.4 Methodology
Aerial photographs (111= 2001), USGS quadrant map (Rocky
Mount), National Wetland Inventory Map (Rocky Mount), Nash
County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service) and hydric
soils list were utilized during in-house research. Potential
jurisdictional wetlands were identified from the soil survey
and hydric soils list. A site visit was made on April 24,
1992, to inventory natural resources and determine wetland
locations and boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
t ?s L>
1e4,4
Im
Y
¦
r
r
I Ir"
1_n7/ Vol 1
III I
?? (v I
i
i
I
TAR
- ?I
13N9 \
a 1z d \
3ZlI \
,717

211
7

3. c,
vi.

A ' l?y
Y?

o -Glenview 9 / •
` 43 48 3 S !
Castatia
Gold RockZ (4 58 Red Oak 3 ?. 6 30 y
4 t D«t he
N A S s/ 0
m0meyf
No
? ashwlle 7
/ 64A 3 ,?1
! 4 /
1 6 ? 9 3', IM
23
/ ,1,91 y 6 Stanhope
6 0
r Set 6 Elm'
?. 6 ,? mac,. ^ / 50
ddlese ! .m !
Baile
, Ms
- - = r 6 Ro,,.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 97
FROM US 301
TO NASHVILLE AVENUE, ROCKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY
U-2310
0 mile 1/2
11 11 FIG. 1
47 . Y ?b
qu-.-
149.7 /

'01
i
r
i
r
? r
3
2.0 Natural Resources
The Natural Resources section is divided into two major
parts: Biotic Resources and Physical Resources. Descriptions
of the plant and wildlife communities are included under
Biotic Resources. Soil and water resource information is
discussed in the Physical Resources section. A summary of
anticipated impacts discusses plant and wildlife community
impacts.
2.1 Biotic Resources
A description of the plant and wildlife communities in
the study area is provided below. Common and scientific
names are provided for each species listed; in subsequent
references to the same organism, only the common name is
given.
2.1.1 Plant Communities
Two upland plant communities and one wetland plant
community were identified in the study area: Disturbed
Scrub/Shrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine and Scrub/Shrub Wetland. A
description of each plant community in the study area
follows.
2.1.1.1 Uplands
Scrub/Shrub
This community is located adjacent to the existing
roadside and in developed locations. This community is
maintained in low-growing condition. Herbs and shrubs
predominate. Few canopy-sized specimens such as pecan (Carva
illinoensis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), willow oak
(Ouercus Phellos) and white mulberry (Morus rubra) exist in
this community. Several longleaf pines ( i u palustris)
were noted in residential areas. A variety of shrubs such as
crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), juniper (Juniperus
spp.), Rose (Rosa multiflora) and dewberry (Rubus
flagellaris) are located in dense thickets throughout the
study area. Dominant herbaceous species include wood sorrel
(Oxalis ubr ), vetch (Vicia anaustifolia), English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata) and cultivated wheat (Triticum
aestivum).
Mixed Hardwood/Pine
small scattered forested areas occur in the study
corridor. Dominant canopy species include: sweetgum
(Liquidamaber stvraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
4
white mulberry, black cherry, winged elm QUlmus alata), water
oak (Ouercus nicrra) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) and privet (Ligustrum sinense) are
common shrub species. Several types of vines such as
wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), cow itch (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera Japonica) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
cruincruefolia) are typical and in some spots dense
entanglements occur.
2.1.1.2 Wetlands
One wetland plant community is located in the study
area. A community description is provided below.
Scrub/shrub wetland
One small wetland community exists in the study area.
It is disturbed from clearing activities and dominated by
herbaceous species such as rush (Juncus sp.). Wetland canopy
species adjacent to this community include red maple,
sweetgum, American elm and black willow (Salix niara).
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact three plant communities:
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub, Mixed Hardwood/Pine and Scrub/Shrub
Wetland. Plant community impacts are presented in Table 1.
These estimates are preliminary and may change with final
design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACT
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub 15.5
Mixed Hardwood/Pine 1.4
Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.1
TOTAL
17.0
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a 120' construction
limit. Impact values are shown in acres.
Impacts to plant communities include the direct loss of
vegetation. Proposed construction should attempt to minimize
vegetation loss to Mixed Hardwood/Pine and the Scrub/Shrub
Wetland plant communities.
2.1.2 Wildlife
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted
by proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna,
which are likely to occur in each ecosystem, are presented.
sectionn45ps can be
Complete listings ofterrestrial
presentedaquatic
found in specific references
2.1.2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Avian fauna noted during the field visit include:
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), cardinal (Cardinalis.
cardinalis) and mourning dove (7enaida macroura). other
(Colinclude:
avian species that may be found in the study area
red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis), bobwhite virainianus), chimney swift (Ch gtura pelaaica), belted
kingfisher (Meaacervle aommon,crowred-bellied
orvus brachvrhvnchos)
(Melanerpes caro_ 1), common
ialis).
and eastern bluebird (S'a a s
Amphibians and reptiles that may occur in heAstudy area
include: slimy salamander (Plethodon
toad ( ufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei),
southern cricket frog (A c s aryllus), spring peeper (Hula
..u' _
crucifer), squirrel treefrog (Hula sauirella); eastern box
turtle (Terrapene rarolina), Carolina anole ( o s
carolingngl_), eastern fence lizard (srPioporus undulatus),
southeastern five-lined skink (I eces ine mectatus), slender
glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), corn snake ( a he
quttata) and rough earth snake (Virginia striatula).
several mammals are likely to occur in the study eastern mole
corridor such as: least shrew (Crvptotis P.ariai, ((ac_ alopus A. ticuseastern cottontail ( floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs h Amu is), hispid cotton rat
house mouse
(Sigmodon hispidus), black rat (Rattus ratt ),
(Mus musc_ulus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virainianus).
2.1.2.2 Aquatic Communities
The small and shallow ditches that cross the study area
appear eintermittent. For
other than minnows occurpinrthese
unlikely that
ditches.
2.1.2.3 summary of Anticipated Impacts
impacts from proposed construction include addition of
fill material and the loss of wildlife habitat. Impacts to
the Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest and the Scrub/shrub Wetland
should be minimized since these communities may be utilized
for foraging, cover and a food source to certain organisms.
Extension of existing drainage pipes should be minimized
since these areas may also be utilized by certain organisms.
Road widening may create a barrier to certain migrating
organisms. Additionally, construction may also cause increase in traffic and noise. These alterations may lead to
6
changes in species diversity and community dynamics. As a
result, organisms may be displaced and changes in biomass may
occur.
2.2 Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
2.2.1 Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Nash County Soil
Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1989). Six soil mapping
units are located in the study area.
Table 2 Soil Summary, Nash County
Name Slope o Classification
Bonneau loamy sand 0-4 Hydric Inclusions
Goldsboro fine sandy loam 0-2 Non-hydric
Norfolk loamy sand 2-6 Hydric Inclusions
Norfolk-Urban land complex 0-6 Non-hydric
Rains fine san dy loam 0-2 Hydric
Wedowee course sandy loam 2-6 Non-hydric
Bonneau loamy sand, Goldsboro fine sandy loam and
Norfolk-Urban land complex are the most prevalent soil
mapping units located in the study area. Bonneau loamy sand
is well drained and is found on nearly level to gently
sloping uplands. This mapping unit has a thick, loamy sand
surface layer and a sandy clay loam subsoil.
Goldsboro fine sandy loam is moderately well drained and
is located on nearly level uplands. This unit formed in
coastal plain sediment and has a sandy loam surface layer and
a sandy clay loam subsoil.
Norfolk-Urban land complex consists of well drained
Norfolk soil and Urban land. Norfolk soil has a loamy sand
surface layer and sandy clay loam subsoil. Urban areas are
covered by development in which the natural soils have been
altered. Surface runoff is high during intense rainstorms.
The Rains fine sandy loam mapping unit consists of
poorly drained, moderately permeable soils formed in coastal
Plain sediment. Rains soil has a high water table at or near
the surface during all times of the year.
2.2.2 Water Resources
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Five unnamed intermittent streams are located in the study
7
area and are tributaries of the Tar River. They do not
appear on
approximately 1'-4' wide, 0 to 4" deep and have slow flow
rates. The bottom is composed of sand and silt. Best usage
of these streams is the same as the river to which they are a
tributary.
Best usage classification of the Tar River in the
project vicinity is WS-III NSW (DEM, 1991). Best usage
recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area or within 1 mile downstream.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part
of an ongoing ambient water quality. This the addresses
long term trends in water quality by measuring taxa
richness and presence of intolerable organisms. These
organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. No BMAN surveys have been conducted in the study
area or near the project vicinity.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) lists point-source dischargers. There are no NPDES
dischargers located in the project vicinity.
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources including indirect impacts to the Tar River:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation, vegetation removal and culvert
placement.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from
construction, highway runoff and toxic spills.
Recommendations:
Non-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts
made to control sediment runoff.
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and
Sediment Control Guidelines should be advocated during the
construction phase of the project to minimize erosion and
siltation.
8
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues
3.1 Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating
activities in "Waters of the US" based on the following laws:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC
403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1072, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any
action that proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under
the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and a federal
permit is required. Generally, "Waters of the US" is defined
as navigable waters, their tributaries and associated
wetlands. Generally, "Waters of the us" are subdivided into
"wetlands" and "surface waters".
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations
are described in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts
Impacts to "Waters of the US" are anticipated from
proposed construction. The proposed project will impact
"surface waters" of the ditches that cross the study area and
a jurisdictional wetland. Jurisdictional wetland boundaries
were determined from observations of vegetation, soils and
hydrology. A Palustrine Scrub/Shrub needle-leaved (PSS2)
community will be impacted by the proposed project. The
vegetation is hydrophytic and the soil is hydric due to low
chroma values. Saturated soils and standing water was
present at the site. Estimated impacts are approximately 0.1
acre. This estimate is preliminary and may change with
project design.
3.1.2 Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) is likely to be
applicable at all ditch crossings and the jurisdictional
wetland. This permit is authorized under the following
conditions: 1) The width of the fill is limited to the
minimum necessary for the actual crossing, 2) The fill placed
9
in waters of the US is limited to a filled area of no more
than 1/3 acre, 3) No more than a total of 200 linear feet of
the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands, 4) Crossing is culverted, bridged or
otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of, and to
withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and the
movement of aquatic organisms, 5) The crossing, including all
attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of
a single and complete project for crossing of a water of the
US. Final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
3.1.3 Mitigation
Anticipated filling
to be authorized under a
mitigation is required a
of Engineers and the Env
The final decision rests
3.2 Protected Species
of a jurisdictional area is likely
Nationwide Permit. Generally, no
ccording to the MOA between the Corps
ironmental Protection Agency (1989).
with the Corps of Engineers.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
determine if any protected species are located in the study
area.
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Three federally protected species are listed by the
USFWS in Nash County as of March 16, 1992. These species are
listed in Table 3. A discussion of each species as it
relates to the project follows.
Table 3. Federally protected species listed for Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Tar River spiny mussel Elliptio steinstansana E
E or Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine
trees that are greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages
10
in pine or pine-dominated stands at least 30 years of age.
Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized by the RCW within 0.5
mile of colony sites. The study area does not support
suitable habitat for the RCW. No impacts to the red-cockaded
woodpecker will occur.
Dwarf wedge mussel
The dwarf-wedge mussel is a small freshwater mussel
(25mm-38mm) that has a shell outline subrhomboidal to
subtrapezoidal in shape. This species is sexually dimorphic;
valves of the females are swollen in the posterior slope
region and the males are generally flattened. In North
Carolina, known populations occur in the Neuse and Tar River
systems. The dwarf-wedge mussel prefers areas of deep runs
with coarse sands in creeks and rivers of varying size.
Other noted habitats include gravel or mud bottoms, within
submersed plants and near stream banks beneath overhanging
tree limbs. Potential habitat exists at the wider streams
located in the study area. Surveys for the dwarf-wedge
mussel are necessary to determine the presence or absence of
this organism in the study area.
Tar River spiny mussel
The Tar River spiny mussel is a freshwater mussel that
grows to 60 mm long. Up to 12 short spines, approximately 5
mm long, are found on most specimens. The spines enable the
mussel to maintain their position in fast flowing water. The
Tar River spiny mussel is found only in portions of the Tar
River and Swift Creek in Edgecombe County. The mussel
prefers sites that are prone to significant swings in water
velocity and water that is relatively fast flowing and silt
free, well oxygenated with a circumneutral pH. An
uncompacted, gravel and coarse sand substrate is also
preferred. The Tar River spiny mussel inhabits stream
channel greater than 20' to 25' wide (John Alderman, NCWRC,
personal communication). The study area does not support
suitable habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel. No impacts
to the mussel will occur.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Nash County (Table 4). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time but their status may
be upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates the
potential for occurrence (based on suitable habitat) of these
species in the study area.
11
Table 4. Federal Candidate species listed in Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata C2 Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 Yes
Diana fritillary
butterfly Speveria diana C2 Yes
Carolina trillium Trillium pusillum
var. pusillum C2 No
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to
support listing as endangered or threatened at this time.
3.2.2 State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern
(1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal candidate
species that are state protected are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. State protected species listed in Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T1
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T1
Carolina trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E2
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of
Candidate species specified in Nash County.
FAUNA DEFINITIONS
T1 - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild
animal which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future.
FLORA DEFINITIONS
E2 - Endangered: Any species of plant whose continued
existence as a viable component of the state's flora is in
jeopardy.
Though all or some of these species may be present in
the study area, no surveys were conducted.
12
4.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M. et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of The United States. US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Division of Environmental Management. 1991. "Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters
of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin". North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Lee, D.S. et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina Biological Survey and North Carolina
State Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of
The Rare Animal Species Of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; NC Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1975. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. Press of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, North Carolina. 177 pp.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.
227 pp.
Menhenick, E.F., T.M. Burton and J.R. Bailey. 1974. An
annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of North
Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 90(1):24-50.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Second Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
v ?
13
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Third Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Potter, E.F., Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R.P. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities Of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA-SCS. 1989. Soil Survey: Nash County. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List of The
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
rnckAC1vCu
Juiv u 9 1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
"A
NOTICE OF AN OPEN-HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 97
FROM US 301 TO NASHVILLE AVENUE
Project 9.8043118 U-2310 Nash County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open-
house public hearing on Tuesday, June 24, 1997 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. in the Williford Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room located at
801 Williford Street in Rocky Mount. Interested individuals may attend this hearing at
their convenience between the above stated hours. Division of Highways personnel
will be available to provide information, answer questions, and take comments
regarding this project.
It is proposed to widen the existing NC 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue
(SR 1714) - a distance of approximately 1.4 miles - from a two lane roadway with
shoulders to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this project.
Plans setting forth the location and design and a copy of the environmental
document - State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact - are
available for public review in the Rocky Mount Municipal Building - Department of
Engineering - located at One Government Plaza in Rocky Mount.
Anyone desiring additional information may write to Mr. L. L. Hendricks, Citizens
Participation Unit, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or telephone [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the hearing. To receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing.
PRE--DISCHARGE; Nc)T f-VICATION PCN
TO: National Marine Fish rieci Set-vi(-,,t,
Fivers Island, NC; PAX [phone]
Us Fish & Wildlife ?ex:vic;c:
Ret le, ign, 14C FAX (919)Ub6-4i56
Stare Hi 51-.nri r' Pr,e ,orviati.?'ir:
Raleigh, NC FAX (ale
NC Division of Watet• QualiLy
Raleigh, NC: FAY [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources C OIT11rd 8Si can
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone]
1. ACTION 111: 199920023
2. APPLICANT: NCD0T/NC97/US301/Na*hvi11e Avenue/SR1714/U-2310
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: 12/14/90
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE (5 days from transnli_t:taI ) - 12/18/98
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from resporlse deadline): 12/28/98
6, SEND CUMMENT1 3 TO. RALEIGH Rl"43ULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALE0314, N;_;
1!TTN: Eric Alsmeyer
PAX: (1 c)) R7ti -x,823
We are also forwarding the att.a(-Ihed PCN to thy: Fish and Wildlife
service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and
comment cv?ic?lrtlc>c? any likely ai L'e ut- L any threatened or
endangered specics or their o i.i:ical habitat wi?ltjti L-ho5t?
agencies' jurisdiction.
10'd 20:60 8661'11'L1 Adoitiin93d H0131UJ W0213
1 ,
S 1A1 L oh Nutil l•i C.aAKOHNA
DEP'AIKTMI N'r (x: TmNSpORT mN
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.0.6l )X"5201, RAI.EIG1-1, N.C. 27011-5201 E. Iodizes TrxsoN
COVENNOR, SECRETARY
Septclubet. 30, 098 1 ? 19 a bocg-'-?
U.8. Ally Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neusc Road.
Suite 120
Raleigh, North. Carolina 37015
ATTN: Mr. Fric, Alsnleyrr
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nash County, Widening of NC 97 from US 301 to Nashville Avenue
(5R 1714): TIP No. U-23 10, State Protect No. 9.8043118.
The Nuillt Carolina Department of 'fr t isportation (W'001') proposes to widen NC 97
from US 301 to Nasllvilly A%eltllC (SR 1714), in pocky MOLInt. NC: 97 will be
widened symmetrically ftonl twu•lanrs to fiva-latter fiir approximately 1.4 miles. A
new ramp will bo added to the noitli,;ast clu tdiottt of'thc US 301-NC 97 interchange,
The existing ramp in the S01111MISt clLultlr;.lllt Will he realigned and the exiWlig loop
will be removed.
The project will impact one jurisdictional w0land. A total cif 0.1 acres of this wetland
will be impacted by the proposed widening. Additionally, the project crosses five
intermittent, unnamed tributaries to the Tur Diver. No High Quality Waters or
Outstanding Resource Waters occur in the project area,
Enclosed please find the project site snap and a pie-construction notification form for
the above referenced project. The N(1)01' anticipaws that these activities will be
authorized tender Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, the NCDOT is also
Z0'd ZO:60 8o61'Il'<I
ndoiuin93d H9131Na woad

requestuig a 401 general Water Quality C'erlillcation # 3103 (ti.)r NWP 14) from the
NC Division of Water Qwjlity. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mi. Lindsey P iddick at (919 733-7844 extension 315.
siin:urely,
Williaill D. Uihuore, K E-+., Manager
Plaiming and Eoviromnental Branch
WDG/pI r
cc: Mr, David Franklin, 1J"W"Fi, Wililiingtuli
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Willer t iiality
Mr, David Cox, NC:WRC
Mr. Tenn Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr, W. H. Webb, P. E., Program Development
Mr. R. L hill, P. E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E.) Hydraulics
Mr. William I Rogers, P. E., Structure Desit ri
Mr. Victor Barbour, Proposals and Contracts
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. Division 4 Engineer-
10'd 80 :60 8 661 ' I I ' ' I hMOlNln@38 HSI31U2I WOZId

L
i
? ?1
f
r
r
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING ANT) ENVIRONMENTAL
NC 47
FROM US 301
TO NASHVILLE AVENUE, HOOKY MOUNT
NASH COUNTY
U.2310
mats
b0'd 80:60 8661'I1'11t /,doitjim)3d HU131tlb W08J

DWO ID: ('0P.1,S P.f;'I'Tot1 Th: i r
NATTQIWIDE PERMV2 HEQJE5'1ED (PROVTDi,. NATIONWIDE PERMIT 1h): 14
PRE--CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
POR NATIONWIDE PERMTTS THAT REQUIRM
1) NOTIFICATION TU 'I.'HE CORNS OP' F;NGTNEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 (:l HTTFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH TILE 14C U1V7S1QN UY C:QASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPIXTFD FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OF'F'ICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT ($tZ HGENUY ADWhESSE!a SHEET) . PLNASE PRINT,
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Departmrr?l r.?F at ion Planning and
Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: E'. (). Dox 2501
SUbDTVTfiT0N NAME :
CI'T'Y: Raleigh 31ATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27511
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRCOS, INCLCIDING SUBDIVTSION NkFMt; (IF Dift'ERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE)
3. TELEPH(CNG @JUMfIEh (11U11,1E) : (WORK) : 7333141
4. TV APPLICABLE: ACENT'S NAMI--; OR IUI'-A'0140IDLZ CORPORATE OF'F'ICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBRR:
William D. Gilmore, P.E,, Manager
5. LOCATTCIN OF' WORK (I:ROVIDE; A L'IZk1PERA:?„,Y A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAkHIC MAP OR A RTAT. NFfr)1I1(1GRA11F-v WTTH S(-'ALE) :
COUNTY: Nash I'JE!A tESP 'GOWN OR CITY: Rocky Mount
90'd 80:60 8661'11'ZI Abioiui 93d H@JI31b6 WD21d

SPECIFIC. LOCATION (TNCN,M)P, ROM) NUMBER),, LANDMARKS, ETC. ) :
NC 97 from US 301 to S: 1'114
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STR6AI-I/kI-VL : unr)amod trih.g to the Tar River
RIVER BASIN: Tar R vi, 7'
7a. X8 PROJEC'T' LOCATED 14EAR WA'l'):,lt CLAL):;11'lElj AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA) , :3TGN QUALITY WATERS (HQW) , 0MIS'. ATIDING RnSOURCE WATERS (QRW) ,
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-"[T)? Y?-'; [ I NO [-] IF YES, EXPLAIN;
7b. I$ THE PROJECT LGGATED "J.TllN A N(,)ttTH C.'ARULINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA QL-' ENVI.RQNME'LiTAL (,UN(AA(N (A.L C) ?YE; 3 [ I NO [XI
7c- IF THE PROJECT IS LOCA'TEM WT7'11114 A C:OASTAT, COUNTY (SEF-.. PAGE 7 FOR
MST OF COASTAL COUNTIES) , WHAT IS THE LANE USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY OECTION 404 FERMITS I'NEN 1?1+LVIUUSLY kI;;QUESTED FOP, USE ON,
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ) No [XI 1k' YEf3, MOVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER UF'
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIDMAT, TNFOIeMATTON (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION)
8b. ARE AnL)TTIONAL PERMIT REQUL;;'T,", EXPEC'T'LD POR -11TO PROPERTY IN THI;
FUTURE? YES [ I NO [X1 [I-' AMTICIPATFO WORK:
9a, l;LTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER 01,' AC'l l-;S 114 Tk? AI T OF' LAND: N\A
9b. ES'T'IMATED TOTI1L NUMBELl 011' ACEES ()F WE'T'LANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: 0).10 Arro's
7
90'd 80:60 9661'11'zl 1UiUTA938 H01318H WONd

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF IJ1;Pi.1?N1)fi IMPAC RI) RY 'Flip, PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0,10 I?xclXVA'1'1011: 010
FLOCDINO; 0.0 0,111Eh: 0.0
DRAINAGE: 0,0 TcTVAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.10
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL `1'O BF l wil:'AC.'TED l'il THE PROPOSED PROJECT (.TF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DIS:I'.ANCE BOTf! bh',4 RJ , AND Alb-TER RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: N\A P,1. AFTER: N\A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N\A FT
WIDT11 Al'TEk: N\A k.l.
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE- N\A -- ? -V1, AFTER- IV\A 117
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESIJ-.L'1' t,R()M: (CHECK ALL THAT APP1,Y)
Oet;N ufiANNbL RELuI.:A'l.'iUN: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: - i VNS1'RUt 'I'.LUN (-)E' A JAM/F1,00 aING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS eAOPOSEU, WHAT IS THE STZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? 14\A
WHAT 1S THE LXPE;CTED POND SURFACE AREA'? N\A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPO! CZD WORK TUCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO Ply; fl.gFn (ATTACH PLAI\1S: 8 1/2" x 111, DRAWINGS
ONLY) : Widen ex-,.sti.riq --rgci.l lty to a f.ive-lanO curb and tc fitter
Section to improve safety and traffic flow
Road cona_ruction =ULAi unelil-
13. PURPOSE Or PROP0 EU NUJ- tK: Irn.» c.JVe satr
l:tv and traffic flow on
NC 97
L0'd 60:60 8661'll'Jl A2oi inS3M HS131U6 W04A

14. S'T'ATE REASONS WHY IT IS FSRiT1').?V1?,11 THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDI'T ANY MEA`iURH• TAKEN TO M.T.NTMTRF WF'TITANn
IMPACTS)!
Tl,e wWeti h1ci c>J1 ea; i c.?n and i.s a linear project.
'P:' lA_P.fnrp,wcrc?asi_?ic????li:?cll.c.t'?.i.•ua:l. ur.cu? i9 unnvviau)J1?
r 1 7
16- -YOU-ARE REQUMOD 1144-(I ONTACT-•1PHE U-: ?r--F=l i{#-H1MLl-WFIIrr,r SERVIGS
{ } I4£+)-t4A?P,?F?R-AIATCQ?dA?-••MAfiI :.C 1:FF?F1EiRIL"; f rRVICE (idHF -- BB "-
A99FFBSSES Gil EST) nL
? ?AZ?v N-G--T'-Hh---PR4 !Fr:;WP-F4--AF APIA 1LFRFRA3A y 1,16 '$;;-0R
r,r?G _FO YrnTING RI36RA1?11R$I3-(X17-`F?TRIS?4'1?{?H--FGCtFiS OR R;•T-IGA
HABITAT -iN THE n _4L-AAlrA T14AT_-MAY-BYi.__Ai•')rE G-T}-B ?. BY THB PR pGS99 PRO E42T
?.n-?f9Ei A-x$At'rn?rrca?vL}1ti?1(;(' CH1:'i STATE HIS-TIC 1-4-- P
4B7 ' B AG£Nn B6;"iNS -LH{l4;-1')----RFiE•:A14-TNG THE nRESEINGS ^F -F1I?" ?'©17??c
PR9P@ TlE9 1i'- HAY-41E -r FFFr&T+P BY T Tr PrOPOS>5P
PRQ4E;G.T--. DA TS GONTAG r}?__.....?
17, DOES THE PROJECT TNVUI,V1; AN EKkENU.I'1TURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [ ) (Iv N(;), (;(-) 't'o 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REIQUIRE, PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL UU'.UIIENT I?Ui(,3UAN'T' TO ilIE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ l
b. IF YES, HAS THE IMC:UMENT MlT,N REVIEWED 'T'HROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA llEYAK'1':nEN'1' Of ADMTNIlaT. RAT.L.ON STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] 170 [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17.) IS YES, `T'IILN SUBMIT APPROPRTATF DOCUMFNTATTON FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVI$1.014 OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTIII CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE '3-PATI?; C.I',I;AtL.I.PJ(-,lluUSt; KEV. EVI 1:'11(.1(::E6S SHOULD BE
DTRECTED TO MS. CHRYS PAGGEI"P, CLEARINGIIOU$E, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AI"JMTN1 ;'1'I?[1'I' fim', 116 W1?S'kT JONES STREET, P.ALEICH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-•8003, 'PE 1,1-i1110NK (91.9) 7i3-6369.
4
8 0'd 6 0 60 8661'Ii'11 ndoitlln@3d H0I31Ub W0dJ
i ,
1.8. THE IFOLLOWING ITEMS S110t1l l) 111, 1:N(:T,111)F,l) WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE D1,1i<'11AR(ih; OF EXCAVATED OR FTLL MATERTAT.
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND LELINEAT.I.UN PILL- ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE Dth011EBTY (I:'t>It [J!'?'.I'.fc?P]W:IDE; FF'RM]"1' NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
20, 29, AND IS) _ ALT, S'1RYAMS ( LN'.l'LCIMITTENT AND P);RMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON '.1'111.: NI!\I'. MALI S('TtT,F.S SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FE>;T OR " INCH EQUALS 100 1?OR THEIR EOUIVALE)IT.
b. IF AVATTABLE, kk;1 kFNf'DJ'J;'A'I'I:VE Pfl0'fOCFAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
1MMACTED BY PROJECT,
G. IF DELINEATION WAS PEIiI c:11?l?1e; 1 BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE I'LACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A C. )PY OF TER STORMWATEI; 114ANACbMCWT PLATI IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND U$E OF SURROUNDTA]C PROPER'T'Y? URBAN
f. IF APPLIC,'ABIJE, WHAT JS P: OPO-SED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
NSA
9. SIGNED AND DA'PEL! A(?,LN'C AU'1'H01c1.'I,A'.1'I0N LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS UJEt WAmwi OF THE U.S. MAY NOT HE IMPACTED PRIOR
TO:
1) ISSUANCE Or A SECTION 404 CORPS or &NG].NEIRS PERMIT,
2) EITHRA THE ISSUANCE On WAIVLlk OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUAILITY) C&RTIFICATZON, AND
3) (IN TEE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTTEa ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLTNA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
4
OWN)± R' S /AGENT'S SIGNAITIRE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VAL I P ON-1,Y
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTE P, FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18(x.))
L?
60'd 60:60 8661'1T'Z1 %d0ibin63N H9I318i1 WOdJ
4 a N
6Nu 4 o;
1'?D Gam; " •,
f
/f? K
J yw? ? •' epu`NONr
?Ql
4;`?;+1 SCALE
1 1
I t1RuS?
Scale of Mlles
0 20
10 ]o ,n t? iu
kale of Kilomete,i
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
01VISIUN Ur HIGHWAYS
NAS11 COUNTY, N . C . 9 7
PR.OJ: 9. &04.31 18 , ID: U-2310
SHEET ! _OF
5- , DATE_?Q? 2 ?8
01 'd NI 160 be l ' l l ' i Ad0iU-111938 H9131UN WOMB
I ,? Ic
dr" F
to II _
fill
Ln C .- i.
Sr ui iy •?
_II ll? I I T
LLA
IT•d
it
I?
C3, I I
I U ,
I? -

SIre #.-
h 1L,
1
1-4
a \ 11 ?r?51 NVS I ; 11 I I Lj I
? ? , I cac I I?. ?I I; = II III ? I
"s ?I I I ? rJ? I I?-•• ? l u Il f ? ?? ?-? 4 -
`n I I Lo
U (L
o I , 1 w
I "'' ?• III nn rj' cu
way
Ica
X11 (? I I s l I- -rl I V` I I1 y° f 2,?
;?,F16 ? III I II
:° ;? W I I I , I I I I
?_ ?_ I II I 11
IF 17? e-I I:
1 I I JL ? I? 111
-?-? ? I fl r I ? v ail I I
I 71 I
~ W ?I ? i I I I
N
+ Q W 1,51
q ?..? ?I I1
I Il ; II
W 11 II
I V-11
+ I II u II
? ? I I I '?? I I
o?
a?
s
N
a
r-
W
?I
r
r-
`O

I ~? I N. C. DEFT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DTU.TSToN OF NIGNWAYS
z, I I I NASN COUNTY, N. r, 47
PROJ: 9.8043118, ID: U-2310
I' I .) SHEET -L. OF-5-, DATE - Yq
yr I I? i?
01 :60 8P.61'I I';'I
A2IlDiUlnS38 H0131di woad
LT

ONC •L? - -
ISFD n
. 1411"

L
f
2 C-2
I ? ,.x'43445
II
r

--

' - - -
65
W/L7 .?+
CON
? ON 2? I
? ?? ?.?QeDrr
L- 44+16.2V
49.58' 44.12
?.? •.tn4eei
N.C. Df:PT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NASH COUNTY, N.C.97
PROJ: 9,8043118, ID: U-2310
SHEET_3_OF_ DATE./d V 9g
ZI 'd 01:60 8661 , 11 '2" 1 Adoiuin93N H@131U8 W08J
?, id?• ?. 1V '? ,_ , k,:. 1'?_l:? AJ.I !trill`) 21J1'al,;',
a <?rr?iN IlaM
moo dfu)y,i
,,.,,. _•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR August 28, 1999 SECRETARY
State Project: 8.1321701 (U-2310)
F. A. Project: STP-97(2)
County: Nash
Description: NC 97 from US 301 to SR 1714 in Rocky Mount
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi L. Oglesby, PE ?Q
Division Construction Engin e
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
Contract No.: C105220
We are transmitting an approved copy of minutes covering the preconstruction conference for the
above project, which was held on August 25, 1999. These minutes were approved by the Contractor,
Barnhill Contracting Company, as recorded.
/t
attachment
W. R. Brown, PE
Cecil Jones, PE
J. E. Grady, PE
C. W. Brown, PE, RLS
W. L. Moore, III
D. A. Pridgen
A. L. Hankins, PE
FHWA
Corps of Engineers
Don Smith
Jackson Provost, PE
John Williamson, Jr.
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
J. M. Lynch, PE
W. D. Johnson
Willie Bryant
T. M. Sherrod
Haywood Daughtry, PE
T. L. Turnage
D. W. Jernigan, PE
L. R. Ward, PE
Steve Kite
Warren Walker, PE
NC DEHNR
Aydren Flowers
Harold Pittman
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE MINUTES
State Project: 8.1321701 (U-2310)
F. A. Number: STP-97(2)
County: Nash
Description: NC 97 from US 301 to SR 1714 in Rocky Mount
The preconstruction conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division office on August 25, 1999, with
the following persons in attendance:
NAME REPRESENTING
Mike Alford Barnhill Contracting Co.
Buddy Rose Barnhill Contracting Co.
Allen Barnhill Barnhill Contracting Co.
Jerry Page DOT = Div./Design/Const.
Hemang Surti DOT - Signals & Geometries
Willie L. Bryant DOT - Civil Rights
Warren Walker DOT - Roadway Const. Engineer
D. W. Jernigan DOT - Resident Engineer
Steve Kite DOT - Traffic Engineering
Ted Sherrod DOT - Roadside Environmental
W. B. Creech, Jr. DOT - Div. 4 Construction
R. E. Nichols DOT - Div. 4 Construction
F. W. Lamm DOT - Div. 4 Construction
P. Rios-Maldonado, Jr. DOT - Div. 4 Construction
M. E. Renfrow DOT - Div. 4 Right of Way
Ms. Wendi Oglesby, Division Construction Engineer presided over the Conference. She asked those present to
introduce themselves and their company affiliation.
Mr. Billy Rose will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Contractor.
Mr. Pablo Rios-Maldonado, Jr. will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the DOT on this
project.
A letter naming persons authorized to sign supplemental agreements was presented.
The Contractor stated he would begin work on Monday, September 13, 1999. We don't know exactly where we will
begin work; however, we will probably begin clearing on the US 301 end of the project.
The Contractor presented his progress schedule and he was advised it would be checked and he would be advised if
satisfactory. By copy of these minutes we are advising the Contractor his progress schedule has been checked and
approved as submitted.
RIGHT OF WAY
At this point, Ms. Oglesby called on Mr. Mickey Renfrow, with our Division Right of Way Unit, to cover the right of
way for this project.
Mr. Renfrow advised he presented a letter to the Resident Engineer with copy of right of way agreements. All right of
way for the project has been acquired. All right of way and easements were required through negotiation, with the
exception of Parcel 025, which was acquired through condemnation. Under Section 215, there are no items to be
deleted. There is no known asbestos contamination, underground storage tanks or soil contamination within the right
of way of the project.
He also cautioned the Contractor to contain his operations within the right of way or construction limits of the project.
Should the need arise to perform work outside these limits, written authorized from the property owner shall be
acquired prior to performing the work.
UTILITY CONFLICTS
Mr. Dennis Jernigan covered this portion of the contract. The following utility companies have facilities that are in
conflict with this project:
City of Rocky Mount - Have completed relocating and removing electrical facilities up to Y-14. There is to be a
Division Purchase Order contract due to some additional work that will have to be done at this location.
Water - City does not intend to relocate until after work begins. No major problems are anticipated.
Gas - Will be relocated on site.
Sprint - Performing splicing operations now. Will take approximately 30 to 45 days to complete. Poles and cable to be
removed after splicing is complete. They have a conduit under the curb and their work will be coordinated with the
Contractor. It will be easier to do conduit work after Contractor has completed storm drainage work.
Cablevision - Poles and cable is to be removed after splicing is completed.
EROSION CONTROL
Mr. Ted Sherrod reviewed the kinds of seed and fertilizer and the rates of application of seed, fertilizer and limestone.
During periods of overlapping dates, the kind of seed to be used shall be determined by the Engineer. All rates are in
pounds per acre.
All areas adjacent to lawns must be hand finished to give a "lawn type appearance", and the lawn seed mix stipulated
shall be applied to these areas.
On cut and fill slopes 2:1 or steeper add 30# Sericea Lespedeza January 1 - December 31.
Fertilizer shall be 10-20-20.
Crimping will be required on this project adjacent to all sections of roadway where traffic is to be maintained or
allowed during construction. In areas within 6-fect of the edge of pavement, straw is to be crimped and then
immediately tacked with straw tack.
Temporary Seeding - As stipulated.
Fertilizer Topdressing - Fertilizer used for top dressing on all roadway areas except slopes 2:1 and steeper shall be 10-
20-20 grade and applied at the rate of 500# per acre. Fertilizer used for topdressing on slopes 2:1 and steeper and
waste and borrow areas shall be 16-8-8 grade and applied at the rate of 5009 per acre.
Supplemental Seeding - No centipede seed will be used in the seed mix for supplemental seeding. The rate of
application may vary from 25# to 75# per acre; however, the actual rate per acre will be determined by the Engineer
prior to the time of topdressing and the contractor will be notified in writing of the rate per acre, total quantity needed,
and areas on which to apply
Mowing - The minimum mowing height on this project shall be four inches.
Crimping Straw Mulch - Crimping of straw in lieu of asphalt tack will be allowed on this project subject to the
conditions noted in the contract.
Temporary Diversion - As stipulated.
Waste Areas and Borrow Sources - Payment for temporary erosion control measures, except those made necessary by
the Contractor's own negligence or for his own convenience, will be paid for at the appropriate contract unit price for
the devices or measures utilized in borrow sources and waste areas.
Permanent Seeding and Mulching -Ms. Oglesby asked Mr. Sherrod to cover this special provision as well as the
erosion control items. Mr. Sherrod advised this is put in the contract as an incentive to the Contractor to perform
permanent seeding and mulching as soon as practical after slopes or portions of slopes have been graded.
Mr. Sherrod advised the DOT would like for this to be a high profile project. There is a set of erosion control plans and
Mr. Sherrod advised the Contractor be encouraged to do seeding with 15 work days or 30 calendar days. Warren
Walker advised the Contractor should go ahead and do seeding in sequence as he complete areas, not wait until you
have completed the job. Holland Landscaping will perform seeding.
There were no further comments and/or questions concerning erosion control items.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Hemang Surti advised this special provisions are standard; however, there may be a revision. The City has purchased
some property on Nashville Road. He advised the contract calls for the use of metal poles; however, the Contractor my
want to hold off on ordering the poles until we determine what is to be done.
Dennis Jernigan advised Jerry Page, with our Division/Design/Construct Unit, mentioned that the drainage might
change. There are catch basins to be installed but the radius might have to change. Mr. Page advised this hinges on
what the City wants done.
Alan Barnhill asked if this work would be part of this contract. Mr. Page advised the City has purchased property and
the DOT will let a Division Purchase Order Contract to put turn lanes at Nashville Avenue. Mr. Barnhill advised that
Watson Electric would be performing signal work and they will put him on hold until we hear from the Resident
Engineer.
Mr. Page advised it would change the signal and modify the drainage in this area. As soon as the City tells us they
have the property and have everything out of the way we will execute a Purchase Order contract. Warren Walker asked
if the Purchase Order Contract would be complete by the time of this project. Mr. Page advised, if there are no
problems it should be okay.
Mr. Barnhill advised they have a contract with the City of Rocky Mount to resurface up to Church Street.
Mr. Jernigan advised that the City has a major distribution line at Nashville Road on the west side.
The Contractor asked if this work has been discussed will, the Traffic Engineer with the City of Rocky Mount.
Mr. Jernigan advised, once we get time frame on demolition of building, etc, from the City we will advise the
Contractor.
4
Mr. Page advised the signal design has been revised. Mr. Jernigan asked if there were any major changes. Mr.
Hemang Surti advised that it has changed from metal to wooden poles and changed to a 5 signal head. The signal will
stay under this contract.
Copies of the plan revision will be sent to the Resident Engineer.
All other requirements of these Special Provisions are standard and Mr. Kite advised the Contractor to adhere to same.
There were no further questions and or/comments concerning these special provisions.
GENERAL
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages:
Date of Availability - August 30, 1999
Contract Completion Date - November 1, 2000
Liquidated Damages - $800.00 per calendar day
Ms. Oglesby pointed out when observation periods are required by the Special Provisions, they are not a part of the
work to be completed by the completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the contract. Should an
observation period extend beyond the final completion date, the acceptable completion of the observation period shall
be a part of the work covered by the performance and payment bonds.
Intermediate Contract Time Number I and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall complete the required work of
installing, maintaining, and removing all the traffic control devices for lane closures and restoring traffic to a two-lane,
two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close a lane of traffic on NC 97 or US 301 during the following time
restrictions:
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
The time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor begins to install traffic
control devices required for the lane closures according to the above.
Completion time for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor is required to complete the removal
of traffic control devices required for the lane closures and restore traffic to a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern.
Liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00. per hour.
Mr. Steve Kite, with our Traffic Engineering Unit, advised the DOT is trying to use Type II barricades on this type of
project instead of the Type III for better sight distance. The supplier is charging more for the Type 11.
Cooperation Between Contractors - This is dependent upon the Contractor getting the Purchase Order Contract that is
to be let and if the City has a Contractor performing work adjacent to this project. The Contractor on this project shall
coordinate his work to the extent that the work can be carried out to the best advantage of all concerned.
Major Contract Items and Specialty Items - As stipulated in the contract.
Price Adjustment -Asphalt Cement for Plant Mix -The base price index for asphalt cement for plant mix is $119.40
per ton.
Schedule of Estimated Completion Progress - The Contractor was advised if he anticipated accelerating the progress
shown, he should submit a request, and approval would have to be obtained should he want payment for performing
work beyond that progress noted. In the fiscal year 2000, 83% of the work is scheduled to be completed and 17% in the
year 2001.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises - Ms. Oglesby covered pages 5 thru the middle of page 14, pointing out the
following:
DBE goals for this contract are established at 10% for DBE's. The contract was awarded with a 3.3% participation.
She called particular attention to the reports and certifications that are to be submitted by the Contractor to the Resident
Engineer.
Mr. Willie Bryant with our Civil Rights Section in Raleigh covered the following:
The Contractor's EEO Officer is Mr. Jimmy Hughes. The Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all action
complying with EEO. The Contractor's EEO Policy Statement is to be posted on the weatherproof bulletin board along
with required posters. A compliance review will be conducted sometime during the life of the project. All
subcontractors and material suppliers are responsible to the same EEO requirements. The prime Contractor is
responsible for monitoring the EEO activities of the subcontractors to ascertain if they are complying with all EEO
requirements.
Contractor's License Requirements - If the Contractor does no hold the proper license to perform specialized work in
this contract, he will be required to sublet such work to a properly licensed Contractor.
Domestic Steel Products - The Contractor was advised he can use only 0.1 % of the contract amount or $2,500.00,
whichever is greater, of foreign steel in the project, except fasteners which will be domestically produced.
Ms. Oglesby called particular attention to the third and fourth paragraphs, noting the Contractor is required, before
each steel product is incorporated into the project or included for partial payment on a monthly estimate, to furnish the
Resident Engineer a notarized certification certifying that the product conforms to out lined requirements. The Resident
Engineer shall then forward the certification to the State Materials Engineer for approval. On each purchase order for
steel products the Contractor shall note they were processed in the United States. Separate files will be kept on steel
products for verification.
US Department of Transportation Hotline - To report bid rigging call 1-800-424-9071.
Quality Management System for Asphalt Pavements - Section 609 of the Specifications have been deleted in entirety
and replaced with the specifications noted in the contract. All provisions of Division 6 of the Standard Specifications
shall apply, excepted as modified in the contract.
Ms. Oglesby advised, if the Contractor would like a price for superpave, the DOT is open to that change.
On page 19, it was pointed out that failure of the Contractor to fully comply with mix verification requirements shall
result in immediate production stoppage by the Engineer, and normal production shall not resume until all mix
verification sampling and testing, calibrations, and plant inspections have been performed and approved.
The Contractor shall provide at least one certified Asphalt Technician Level I at each plant site and he shall also have a
QMS Roadway Technician with each paving operation at all times during the placement of asphalt.
On page 21, the Contractor is reminded should his testing frequency fail to meet the minimum frequency requirements
as specified in the current HMA/QMS manual, all mix without the specified test representation shall be considered
unsatisfactory. If the Engineer allows the mix to remain in place, payment will be made at 50 percent of the contract
unit bid price for the mixture.
On pages 30 thru 34 testing and sampling procedures for nuclear density and cored samples and reductions for failure
to meet testing requirements is pointed out.
Attention is called to a letter from Mr. Sanderson dated March 4, 1997 sent to all asphalt Contractors regarding paving
and noted the DOT would be adhering to the requirements outlined.
Also pointed out is a letter dated August 18, 1997, for Mr. Sanderson, regarding asphalt determination, sampling and
testing. He advised the Resident Engineer to make sure we get verification cores when using core sampling. This is a
FHWA requirement that we apply to all projects, whereby 10% sampling is done independently from the Contractor.
These are random samples.
Final Surface Testing - Asphalt Pavements - As stipulated. The following is noted:
Type of straightedge to be furnished and operated by the Contractor to determine and record the longitudinal profile of
the pavement on a continuous graph. Final surface testing is considered to be an integral part of the paving operation
and is subject to observation and inspection by the Engineer. Proper procedures for use of the straightedge were
pointed out. The Contractor was reminded, at the completion of each day's testing, he should evaluate the graph and
submit to the Engineer within 24 hours after profiles are completed. The Resident Engineer will furnish results of the
acceptance evaluation to the Contractor within 48 hours after receipt. The Engineer shall retain all graphs.
Mr. Alan Barnhill advised, previously on surface testing they ignore the curb line and just go straight through. Mr.
Walker advised the Contractor match up curb would not be required.
There were no further questions regarding acceptance and/or corrective actions as noted in the Special Provisions.
Asphalt Bases and Pavements -As stipulated. Certified Weight Certificates shall also include the DOH's job mix
formula number, if the ticket is to be issued for asphalt plant mix.
Tack Coat - The maximum rate of tack coat shall be increased to 0.04 to 0.07 gallons per square yard.
Guardrail Offset Blocks - As stipulated.
Plant Pest Quarantines - Ms. Oglesby advised the Contractor to abide by the requirements noted in the contract.
Recycled Products or Solid Waste Materials - As outlined. Ms. Oglesby advised should the Contractor come up with a
way to utilize recycled products or solid waste materials on the project, he should submit to the Resident Engineer for
review and if approved, a supplemental agreement will be executed.
Pavement Marking General Requirements - As outlined in the contract. Ms. Oglesby asked who would be performing
pavement marking on this project. The Contractor advised Roadmark would do pavement marking.
Drainage opening in solid pavement marking lines should be spaced every 100-feet.
Flowable Fill - The Contractor has the option to use (a controlled low-strength material) flowable fill as a substitute for
conventional fill material. If this option is used, the Contractor shall adhere to requirements stipulated herein. The
Contractor was reminded that he would have to submit a job mix formula.
Shoulder Slope Changes - The Contractor was advised (hat he should apply the shoulder slopes shown in Standards
560.01 and 560.02 of the 1998 Roadway Standard Drawings instead of the slopes shown in the project plans and
details.
Aggregate Production and Concrete Brick & Block Production - The Contractor was reminded he should use a
producer who utilizes the new QC/QA program, which is in effect on the date of the letting.
Fine Aggregate - As stipulated.
Recruitment of Department Employees - The Contractor is familiar with the requirements; however, was reminded if
he did not comply it may be justification for disqualifying him from further bidding.
ROADWAY
There is no subsurface information available on this project.
Clearing and Grubbing shall be Method III.
Select Granular Material - As stipulated. Shall be used over the previously placed fabric for soil stabilization in the
widened areas. Select Granular is shown to be paid for by the c.y. instead of by the ton. Mr. Barnhill advised an
addendum to the contract was sent out showing it would be paid for by the ton.
Fabric For Soil Stabilization - As outlined.
Street Signs and Markers and Route Markers - The Contractor shall move existing street signs and markers and route
markers out of the construction limits of the project and install same so they will be visible to the traveling public if
there is sufficient right of way for these signs and markers outside of the construction limits. Near completion of the
project the Contractor shall move the signs and markers and install them in their proper location in regard to the
finished pavement of the project. State Forces shall stockpile any that cannot be relocated due to insufficient right of
way or will no longer be applicable, at locations for removal. The Contractor will be responsible to the owners for any
damage to any signs, marker or route markers during above operations.
Asphalt Plant Mixtures - ACBC material shall be placed in trench sections with asphalt pavement spreaders.
Removal of Existing Pavement - As outlined in the contract.
Guardrail End Delineation - As stipulated.
Guardrail Anchor Units, Type 350 - Contractor has the option to furnish any one of the guardrail anchor units noted in
the contract.
Building Removal - Previously covered.
Police - The Contractor shall furnish police officers and marked police vehicles to direct traffic during construction of
the project. Police officers shall wear police uniforms and marked police vehicles shall be equipped with police lights
mounted on top of the vehicle, and police vehicle emblems.
Police officers and marked police vehicles will be required to be provided simultaneously, or separately to direct or
control traffic. The plans or the Engineer will designate the locations where only police officers are required, where
only marked police vehicles are required, or where they are both required to be utilized simultaneously.
The Contractor was advised the quantity of police officers and police vehicles to be paid for would be actual number of
hours that every police officer is provided to direct traffic during the life of the project. He was also reminded he would
not be paid for using police officers and marked police vehicles unless prior approval for each use is obtained from the
Resident Engineer.
PERMITS
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
Ms. Oglesby advised that representatives with the US Army Corps of Engineers would possibly visit the project to make
sure all conditions are being adhered to. She stressed to the Contractor, should he not be in compliance the Corps of
Engineers will shut down his operations.
Ms. Oglesby advised she had been in contact with Mr. Eric Alsmeyer with the US Army Corps of Engineers and he
asked that the following information be passed on to the Contractor.
The importance of the Contractor staying within the permitted footprint of the project in waters of the US, including
wetlands, and of avoiding waters for borrow and/or spoil sites. Contractor should maintain sediment and erosion
controls particularly in stream and wetland areas.
If the Contractor should encounter any wetlands and/or any areas he is not sure of, he should stop operations and
contract the Resident Engineer, who in turn with contact the Corps of Engineers so a determination can be made.
Mr. Sherrod advised the Contractor he just needs to maintain erosion control. Mr. Sherrod also advised there is no
condition in the contract for stripping or undercut. Should the Contractor encounter any he should stockpile for use on
the project.
The Contractor was asked if he anticipated utilizing a commercial pit. The Contractor advised he did not. There is a
piece of land on Springfield Road that they will use and he will forward Reclamation Plan to the Resident Engineer
Jerry Page advised he would just like to alert the Contractor to the fact there is a section of this road that is a high
volume pedestrian area, and he should be guided accordingly.
There being no further comments and/or discussion, the conference was adjourned.
/t
BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY
L74 - S
DATE OF APPROVAL NAME AND ITLE
8/25/99