19970501 Ver 1_Complete File_19970604

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
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-2501
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 24, 1999
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Proposed NC 43
Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate, TIP No. U-2218, WQC Project # 970501, COE #
199400662 in Edgecombe County.
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3237 issued to the NC Department of
Transportation dated June 24, 1999.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
970501.wgc
Sincerely,
err . Stevens
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. This certification authorizes
the NCDOT to place fill material in 13.38 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in Edgecombe County
pursuant to an application filed on the 23'd day of May 1997 to construct the NC43 Bypass from
NC43 to US 64 Alternate.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the proposed
jurisdictional wetlands in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application, as
described in the Public Notice. Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and
submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the
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 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below. In addition, you
should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge
and Water Supply Watershed Regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR Regional or Central
Offices) shall be utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water
quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers not designated as trout
waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in
trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to
the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices
in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
3. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI
or ROD is issued by the State Clearinghouse;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
5. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or stream, compensatory mitigation
will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
• f
Compensatory mitigation shall be done for 26.75 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. We
understand that you have chosen to perform mitigation through an in lieu payment to
the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP), and that the WRP has
agreed to implement mitigation for the project. In accordance with 15A NCAC
2R.0500, the contribution will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under
15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until the Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears
your check (made payable to DENR - Wetland Restoration Program), wetland or
stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at 919-733-5083 ext.
358 if you have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. The
payment to NCWRP shall be sent within two months of issuance of the 404 permit.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and
may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area
Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon the expiration of the 404 or
CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the
form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes
and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 24 day of June 1999
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Rrr.evens
C:\ncdot\TIP U-2218\wqc\970501 wqc.doc
f i , ?
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
authorized to impact the surface waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the
purpose of constructing improvements to NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate in
Edgecombe County (T.I.P. No. U-2218, DWQ Project #970501). All activities associated with
these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with the conditions listed in the
attached certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID
WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND
RESTORATION:
LOCATION: Improvements to NC43 Bypass from NC43 to US64 Alternate in
Edgecombe County
COUNTY: Edgecombe
BASIN/SUBBASIN: Tar-Pamlico in Cataloging Unit 03020101
DWQ No.: 970501
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to
compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation
of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or
degrade waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program
must be rounded to one-quarter increments according to 15A 2R.0503(b).
26.75 acres of Class WL wetlands
26.75 acres of wetlands in Cataloging Unit 03010101
0 acres of Class SWL wetlands
0 linear feet of stream channel
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is
through payment of a fee to the Wetland Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R.0503. If you
choose this option, please sign this form and mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the
address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon
receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED
UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN
PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM.
Signature
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC, 27626-0535
[phone] ext. 358
Date
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax:[phone]
Apr 7 '99 1300 P.01

JAMES B. HUNT)IL
Q1 )VERNOR
STATE OF NC)mi CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or T11,ANSPORTATION
F.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611.5'201 .
s
E. NoRiitS TOLSON
SECRETARY
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?jF?AjX COVER SHEEN'
DAM.- q) I Please deliver the following pages to:
Phone: r 3 3-
This Telecopy is being sent by:
Name:
Phone Number:
Ext..

Number of pages (Including Cover Sheet)
,If you do not receive all ,pages clearly, call (9I9? 733-3141 as :soon as possible.
Project Development & Environmental Analysii Branch Fax Number [phone]
'133 -'7?3t
AP-11)
144- ,, NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax:[phone] Apr 7 '99 1300 P.02
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RitsOuRcEs
DIVISION Or WATER QUALITY
April 1, 1999
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: NCDOT Project #U-2218
Edge combe County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is willing to accept
payment from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) for wetland impacts. associated with the subject project in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the
NCWRP and the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. Based on information
supplied by the NCDOYin a memorandum dated March 26, 1999, the
impacts associated with the subject project are as follows: 13.35 acres
of wetlands. Assuming a 2.1 rati6for compensatory mitigation, the
NCWRP will provide the amount and. type of required.mitigation in
Cataloging Unit D-3020101 of the Tar-Pamlico River.
If you have any questiots concerning these projects or need
additional information 1 can be reached at 919.733-5219.
Sincerely,
Ronald E, Ferrell
Program Manager
Wetlands Restoration Program
cc: John Dorney, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Robinson, NCDOT
P, V. OO% MV9414, AA6410M. NORTH CAROLINA 97029-0020
PHONE [phone]o16 FAX DI G-733-7!496
AN COUAL OrrvnYvN ITV /AFeIAMATIV0A9T10M LMrLOYCn- 50% nLGTGL[WtO% ramr-CON4UMf.R rAr4R

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick.
,&Oja
[D EHNR
July 21, 1997
DWQ #970501
Edgecombe County
On 23 May 1997, you applied to the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a 401 Water Quality
Certification to impact 11.26 acres of wetlands or waters plus 2.12 acres of temporary fill in wetland for the NC 43
Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate in Edgecombe County. Your project has been forwarded to Mr. Danny
Smith [phone] of DWQ Raleigh Regional Office for review. This review will likely require an on-site
inspection prior to the approval, modification or denial of your project site. If you send additional information to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning this project, please be certain that our staff have copies of this material
so we can use it in our process in making a decision.
According to our preliminary, in-house review since you propose to disturb greater than one acre of wetlands,
compensatory mitigation will be required by DWQ for this project as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h). The
exact amount of impact any required compensatory mitigation will not be determined until the project is reviewed by
our Regional Office staff in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506. Please note that if compensatory mitigation is
required but not provided, this project will likely have to be denied. Also if a mitigation plan is required, we will
place this project on hold until its receipt in our Central Office. If mitigation is required, you have these four
options for satisfying those requirements:
1. Payment of a fee established by the Environmental Management Commission into the North Carolina
Wetlands Restoration Fund (see attachment),
2. Purchase of credits from a private wetlands mitigation bank,
3. Preparing and implementing a wetlands restoration plan (see attachment), or
4. In limited instances, donation of land to the Wetlands Restoration Program or to other public or private
nonprofit conservation organizations as approved by the Department.
At this time, options 1 and 3 are the only viable options in North Carolina. If you are interested in options 1
or 4, please contact the Wetlands Restoration Program at (919)-733-5083, ext. 358. Enclosed are materials
describing compensatory mitigation requirements for this program as well as the Wedand Restoration Program. You
have proposed debiting the Mildred Woods mitigation bank for this project. Please be aware that we cannot approve
further use of this site until the existing site problems are remediated. You should provide documentation of your
efforts to resolve this issue if you prefer to use Mildred Woods in this project. Please call me at 919-733-1786 to
discuss these matters if necessary. Until a mitigation plan is provided, this application is considered to be
incomplete and our processing time will not start.
We recommend that you not impact any wetlands or waters on your project site until a 401 Water Quality
Certification has been issued from Raleigh, The issuance of a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit does not mean that
your project can proceed. According to the Clean Water Act, the 404 Permit is not valid until a 401 Certification is
also issued. If DWQ staff observe impacts which are not allowable, you will be required to remove the fill and
restore the site to its original condition. I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions about the 401
Certification process.
ly,
J R. Dorney
at. Quality Certific n gram
cc: Danny Smith, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recyded/100/6 post consumer paper
4--
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
A ?a $TATL' ?
1. 1 ? MY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
• July 29, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Richard Davis, P. E. , Un-Lt Ht-
Project Planning unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unite
SUEJECT. Anticipated plant commun tv --impacts-for th.
Ease, West and --'enter Alignments and
Alternates 1 and 2 for the proposed
construction of a connector from
NC 43 to US 64 Alternate-, Edgecomb- .'o tir_tV.
TIP» U-2218, State Project = 8. 2900=,
F.A.# M-8746(1).
ATTENTION: Teresa Hart, Project Engineer ,
REFERENCES: 1) Biological report dated August 8; 1990.
2) Natural Resources Technical P.epor-I dated
April 16, 1992.
3) Memorandum dated May 8, 1992.
The referenced documents present plant community impa..-ts
of various segments of the subject project. :'iris memorandum
summarizes,- in two tables, PLA14TVCOMMUNITY impact:, "Table }
and WETLAND impacts (Table 2) of the East, West and Center
Alignments and Alternates 1 and 2.
The Center Alignment was calculated from the totals
stated in the Augus"t 8, 1990 bia-ogical report of U-22iE and
R-2423 (impacts associated wit1i,Alternates 1 and 2 were
subtracted from the totals of R=2423, since the total of 8-
2423 included Alternates.1 and 2 . The East and west
Align tent irWacts are taken from the April 16, 1992 document
and Alternate 1 and 2 impacts are from the May 1992
memorandum.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
•i
--
??? e ? Summary of Anticipated PLANT `,,i
?.?. M ' rN,-m.,
_ lm-,Dads
PLr-:SIT COMMUNITY EAST WEST CENTS L: ALT
1 ALT
2
Agricuitural/Oldfield 4.2 7.3 2.7 .
4.0 .
2.2
•lesic Pine Flatwood 1.6 2.1 2.6 0.6 ?
3
Resid-•nt -al 2 .4 . e . _ .
0
Wet Pine Flatwood 4. 0. 6 1.4 C' 1
6
List* Wet Pine Flatwood 1.7 2.8 0.3 2.2 .
n
_3 S.0 6.4 4.1
Ta25 =e _. Summary of Anticipate'. vJE''L:!-_,- o.:'- --I ct
PLANT COMMUNITY EAST WEST CENTER' ALT. 1-- ALT
2

t Pi lln F1c.tWOGd 4 =
C,
J Li 'v 1 ? J .

-s.. `et Pine Flatwood 1.7 _.8 0.8 2.2 ? J
J
_ _'TAL Q 6. 0 A 2.2
c

Liote : Dist* = Disturbed. Estimated Impacts "re
Pro-nosed right-of-way width of 80' for.road oast:'1
1401 fro bridge construction. Values shown are in ;;: ?-es.
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head,
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Pd. Randall Turner, Env-J.ronmej.tal Supervisor

4-
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
A ?,: $U1F o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
May 8, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Davis, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Anticipated plant community impacts for
Alternates 1 and 2 only for the proposed
construction of a connector from
NC 43 to US 64 Alternate, Edgecombe County,
TIP# U-2218, State Project # 8.2290401,
F.A.# M-8746(1).
ATTENTION: Teresa Hart, Project Engineer
REFERENCE: 1) Biological report dated-August 8,•t1990.
2) Natural Resources Technical Report dated
April 16, 1992.
Th2•'?eferenced Biological report presents plant
•bommunity impacts of R-2423, which included impacts of both
Alternates and the remainder of TIP # R-2423 together in the
stated impact estimatep. The Natural Resources Technical
Report does not include plant community impacts of Alternates
1 and 2. Presented below is a breakdown, by plant community,
of the impacts associated with Alternates 1 and 2 only.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
ter- _
PLANT COMMUNITY ~ALT. 1 ALT. 2
Agricultural/Oldfield 4.0 2.2
Mesic Pine-Flatwood .0.6 1.3
Residential 0.6 0
Wet Pine Flatwood 0 1.6
Disturbed Wet Pine Flatwood-? 1 2.2 0
TOTALS - 1 6.4 4.1
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a proposed right-of-way
width of 80' for road construction. Values shown are in
acres.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
M. Randall Turner

-r' -

IOUZ)H 1,10.1
REVISED SEP'T'EMBER 11, 1989
Edgecombe County
Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of status review species which may occur
within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification.
These species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be
protected under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do for them.
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus) - SR
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) - SR
,

?Y

? r

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 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........3
2.1.2 Wildlife Communities .......... 4
2.1.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........4
2.2 Physical Resources ................................4
2.2.1 Soils ... ...................................4
2.2.2 Water Resources ..............................4
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........5
3.0 Special Topics ........................... ..........5
3.1 Jurisdictional Issues .. ..........................5
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts ...........................6
3.1.2 Permits ......................................6
3.1.3 Mitigation ...................................7
3.2 Protected Species ........... 7
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..................7
3.2.2 State Protected Species ......................8
4.0 References ..........................................10
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1-Project Location Map ............................2
TaN e 1 Summiiry of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts .... 3
Table 2 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Alignment ..........6
Table 3 Federal Candidate species listed in
Edgecombe County ... ...............................8
Table 4 State protected species listed in
Edgecombe County .................................9
-r

? y
4__1 ' I
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The project is located east of Rocky Mount in Edgecombe
County (Figure 1). This project was once part of TIP#'s
U-2218 and R-2423. The biological report for these two
projects was completed August 8, 1990. Since the biological
report was completed, the scope of the project has changed.
Two new alternates, the East and West Alignments, are now
proposed entirely on new location. Construction of a 2 lane
facility is now proposed. A bridge will be constructed over
US 64. The project extends from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate.
Total length of the project is approximately 1.2 miles.
Proposed right-of-way width is 80' except for bridge
construction which is 140' wide.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes the natural resources in the
project study area and anticipated impacts to these
resources. This information is submitted for inclusion into
a federal Environmental Assessment Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located
County in the Coastal Plain
study area is located in a
fields, forested areas and
the project. Topography in
Elevation is approximately
east of Rocky Mount in Edgecombe
Physiographic Province. The
rural setting. Agricultural
several residences are crossed by
the area is gently sloping:
120' above mean sea level (amsl).
1.4 Methodology
Resource descriptions and impacts in the referenced
report address a different study area than the proposed
project. This report supplements the earlier document and
includes descriptions of new areas. Natural resource
information is updated, where necessary, using current
methodologies.
Aerial photographs (1"= 2001), USGS quadrant maps (Rocky
Mount), Edgecombe County Soil Survey-(Soil Conservation
service), and hydric soils list w6K'e utilized during in-house
research. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified
made on April -6 -7, 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
, 16
? •
% 1.
• •
• •. %
{ '?" r '._' N ?Tt7wv . t. .3 . 1250 I ? - ?'" ?F..._ ?•• ?-??..?,
erg LP J / /p iWhibkers U Rosin '?. ..a'y-•i
•? " •Su five-I1Y i • ,?/ •' 111111 • •?• • Ja r ?•
eater
41 1 • !. i ••• 1 1 - • i
? b> w ? .aj `?.• lswrcntt ? • .
1 •, : • ti id1 !1 r 7`3 .7' •• •••• t? pocky MoW • 7 5
6 r '•n_ `{.??:r^id i•'f1 ;il 41 .?[, ? II 'i la[[etl s
ti ' /;. •:i ln{y.`I' '„,!? 1 . 6K? 1. \T r • y Soeed?
7 ¦. /? :L y ?a{r2 /: :1 emu/ E. B E l
rincerillelt s
h•r s0 ` +lartOn
rJ /? ?o? I •CJ I ?F ?, • f;,{?i •?f?. Y ` /J 2541 sp 2 I
(\J J11 }{ .^4 •`/ T+.lt ?Y ' .5~}:1'-' :i,• COn[f0
/? pp? ? ?/ / •. Pineloos 7 2 1 y
7 ? r Imo/ "'ti4t i s 17 7 )
w ELyb nisi T• ea t i _, II Fr i %kitstieta Grilso//. JG!
J. yY, r rM.r?J7i 1. r
. ? ? ? ,/?% _ I, TES t ?JNf ??.. ? r ? • •
t , °-' - ? 41/12 ?-
v . , J BOAST
/ ?'SY31ti_. Radio o. Rock ' f :t :+' 'r?.:•
T 1H.Bue--' f ...Jt J •? r trr`j,L?(? i
iS"n.-''? ?? .• 1? t1•.1"I?:1' 1? .? j? ?.M i 1 - ?'._ r' -
c , U f . 1231 f '-..yr t:,• ,;;..
64
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Diount Olive- ? / \+ V ,1ii... F.•-r•, ?;;, . ? O { !,• t.:;;-?. ;? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISIONbF HIGHWAYS
4,e_ " \' /jf • ;? ` - i' ' .. RI.A?INING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
•?- `/ -7 •• ?, i w { i:'nJ'? /?.. r. i BRANCH i
bdg?z
/?2 ..j.. / O • s r •1,.• ROCKY MOUNT
;?' ` • !•/ i- M _ - ': t' NC 43 BYPASS ANp-SR 1250 EXTENSION
• • • , 1 ??t FROM NC 43 TO US ti•r6USINESS (RALEIGH STREET)
f9 !• i , , ow EDGECOMeE 000NTy, U-2216
O, mile . _ 112
•
.7 ' J. '• '7 ' ''r,i}•... A??Y.t, r'T r?1 . \ .., t ?./?, .. ? l I 1 .FIG. I
3
service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
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.
2.1 Biotic Resources
The referenced report provided descriptions of Plant and
Wildlife communities in the study area. This report
supplements the referenced document. Plant community and
Wildlife Community (previously called Animal community)
descriptions in the study area are similar to -those reported
in the referenced report and briefly summarized below.
2.1.1 Plant Communities
Five plant communities are located in the study area.
Three were classified as upland plant communities:
Agricultural/Oldfield,-Mesic Pine Flatwood and Residential.
Two communities were classified as wetland plant communities:
`:Wet Pine Flatwood and Disturbed Wet Pine Flatwood. Plant
community descriptions are stated in the referenced report.
2.1.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact five
c<?nmunity `impacts are presented in
based on the East and West Alignmei
the remainder of the project which
reported in the referencdd report.
plant communities. Plant
Table 1. Estimates are
its only and do not include
have been previously
These estimates may
change-with :final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY WEST ALIGN. EAST ALIGN.
Agricultural/Oldfield 7-r-3- 4.2
Mesic Pine Flatwood Y2.1 1.6
Residential 6.6 2.4
Wet Pine Flatwood 0.6 4.3
Disturbed Wet-?Pine Flatwood x•2.8 1.7
TOTALS .-? )13.4 14.2
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a proposed right-of-way
width of 80' for road construction and 140' for bridge
construction. Values shown are in acres.
r
4
Potential impacts from proposed construction include
reduction of forested acreage and loss of use on agricultural
land. Large forested tracts are adjacent to both alignments.
Since the proposed project is over 1 mile long and on new
location, plant community impacts are high.
Construction recommendations include: minimizing
vegetation removal (especially in wetland areas) and strict
enforcement of Best Management Practices and Sediment Control
Guidelines. Placement of fill should be minimized in wetland
communities.
2.1.2 Wildlife
Wildlife Communities were previously discussed in the
referenced report. Complete listings of terrestrial and
aquatic organisms can be found in specific references
presented in section 4.0.
2.1.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The project is proposed on new location. Potential
impacts include fragmentation and the loss of wildlife
habitat. The East and West Alignments are adjacent to large
forested tracts and construction will fragment existing
wildlife habitat. Construction will cause an increase in
traffic and noise. Proposed construction may form a barrier
to certain organisms and may prevent normal migration of some
species. These impacts may reduce the numbers of sensitive
species and result in a change in species composition,.
'2.2'Physical Resources
2.2.2 Mater Resources ,.
Soil-end water resource information in the study area
'?7as previously discussed in the referenced report. Additions
or updates to this information is reported below.
2.2.1.Soils %
Soils information is the same as reported in the
referenced-document. Soil information was obtained from the
Edgecombe County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service,
1979).
Ditches-cross the project ?n,numerous places located in
disturbed areas such as edges of fields and adjacent to US 64
and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. The ditches are 1' to
6' wide, slow flowing, choked with high algal concentrations
or other vegetation and the-substrate is composed of sand and
silt. These ditches do not flow into nearby streams or
rivers and are unclassified by the Division of Environmental
Management.
5
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient TNetwork (BMAN)is part
of an ongoing ambient water quality.
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.
No impacts to Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality
Waters or waters classified as WS-I or WS-II will occur from
proposed construction. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) dischargers are not located in the
study area.
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may have a number of impacts to water
resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
- 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.
3.0_ Special Topics
3.1 Jurisdictional Issues
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 amendbd-(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.
Jurisdictional wetlands at 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
6
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). Surface waters and
wetlands are two subsets of "Waters of the US".
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts
Both wetlands and surface water impacts are anticipated
from proposed construction of both the East and West
Alignments. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The
vegetation is classified as hydrophytic based on composition.
Soil color is hydric based on low chroma values. Wetland
hydrological characteristics include standing water and high
water levels. Identified wetlands are located in all
forested areas and logged sites throughout the entire
corridor for both alignments. Table 2 summarizes wetland
impacts by location. These estimates may change with project
design.
Table 2 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Alignment
LOCATION WEST ALIGN. EAST ALIGN. C' ti1t?Z
1 2 1 2
Begin Project to SR 1232 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.7
SR 1232 to US 64 - 0.3 1.0 -
US 64 to US 64 Business - 1.8 2.4 -
a
TOTALS 0.6 2.8 4.3 '1.7
.1 and 2-"denote - Wet Pine Flatwood and Disturbed Wet Pine
Flatwood-;*espectively.
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on a proposed right-of-way
width of 80' for road construction and 140' for bridge
construction. Values shown are in acres.
3.1.2 Permits
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5
(a) (26) are likely to•be applicable for proposed
construction. Nationwide Permit"3j CFR 330.5(a)(14) is
likely to be applicable at all ditch crossings. 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)v 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,
7
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.
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) is likely to be
applicable in jurisdictional wetlands such as the wet pine
flatwoods and disturbed wet pine flatwoods and is authorized
under the following conditions: 1) The discharge does not
cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the US.
For the purpose of this Nationwide Permit, the acreage of
loss of waters of the US includes the filled area plus water
of the US that are adversely affected by flooding,
excavation, or drainage as a result of the project 2) A 30-
day notification to the District Engineer is required if the
discharge would cause the loss of waters of the US that are
greater than one acre. For discharges in special aquatic
sites, including wetlands, the notification must include a
del-ineation of affected special aquatic sites including
wetlands, 3) The discharge, including all attendant features,
both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
Final permit decision rests 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
The project is likely to be authorized under several
Nationwide Permits. Generally, no mitigation is required
according-to the MOA between the corps of Engineers and the
'-qnvironm Qital Protection Agency (1989). The final decision
rests with the Corps of Engineers.
3.2 Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
determine'if any protected species are located in the study
area.
^Y
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species
one federally protected specie is listed by the USFWS in
Edgecombe County as of March 16,1992: the Tar River Spiny
Mussel (Slliptio steinstansana). A discussion of this
species as it relates to the subject project follows.
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 course sand substrate is also
preferred. The study area does not support suitable habitat
for the Tar River spiny mussel. John Alderman, of the NCWRC,
is under contract for NCDOT and will determine if impacts to
the Tar River Spiny mussel will occur from proposed project
construction.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Edgecombe County (Table 3). 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 3 Federal Candidate species listed in
Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name _ Status Habitat
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2 Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata C2 No
Atlantic--pigtoe Fusconaia masoni C2 No
`Yellow lampmussel Uampsilis carioca 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
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal candidate
species that are state protected and may occur in the study
area are presented in Table 4.':
Speciea 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. -Though all or some of these
species may be present in the study area, no surveys were
conducted.
9
State protected species listed in
Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata T' No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T No
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T No
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.

Table 4
10
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
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 Survey 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.
Menhenck, 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 o 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.
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water. {nvertebrates 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.
11
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. 1979. Soil Survey: Edgecombe 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.

sub
.r A o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN I
GOVERNOR
l?,v«? Ka 'c i
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY August 8, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart, Highway Engineer
Urban Unit
Project Planning
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: Susan Corda, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Planning and'Environmental services
SUBJECT: Biological report for the proposed
construction of a 2 lane facility on new
location in Edgecombe County, TIP tt's U-2218
and R-2423.
The following report is prepared from surveys and field
studies conducted on July 26 and 27, 1990. Both projects are
federally funded. Due to their geographic juxtaposition, a
single Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) planning
document will be prepared.
-Among the state and federal agencies who were provided
scopinglinformation for these projects the following resource
agencies have provided comments and feedback as of 8/6/90 :
State Natural Resourde Agencies
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
-Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Division of'Land Resources
Division of.,Water Resources
-Division of Forest Resources
-North Carolina Wild-1- ife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
Federal Natural Resource Agencies
-'US Fish and Wildlif6 tervice (USFWS)
These comments and/or requegts for information are addressed
in this report, where practicable.
Proposed projects-will result in creating new access
between SR 1250, south of US 64 Business, and NC 43, mostly
along new location. As proposed, U-2218 is approximately
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
F?7
1600 feet of two-lane 28-foot curb and gutter connecting the
southern terminus of SR 1250 with the northern terminus of SR
1329. Alignment will require construction of two overpass
bridges, one at the crossing of the eastbound lanes of US 64
Bypass and the other bridge at the crossing of the westbound
anes of US 64 Bypass.
is to be a 24-foot shoulder section facility,
R-2423
originating at the SR 1329/SR 1232 intersection and termi-
nating either at a curve in SR 1230, north of NC 43
(Alternate 1);, or (Alternate 2) at a junction with NC 43,
approximately 1000 feet west of the NC 43/SR 1230 inter-
section. Alternates diverge from the main project alignment'
south of the east-west Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks.
The project is located east of the Rocky Mount city
limits in Edgecombe County. The area is agricultural, rural
and residential in nature. Topography in the area is gently
sloping, with little elevation change.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Impacted wetland communities along both project
alignments are classified as Wet Pine Flatwoods. This
community occurs in flat areas and is seasonally flooded.
Trees are found growing on slight elevations throughout a
relatively flat landscape. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
dominates this community. Other canopy dominants include Red
Maple ( cer rubrum), Water Oak (Ouercus ni ra) and, on
slightly drier islands, White Oak (Ouercus alba). gUnder-
story dominants include Red Maple, Sweetgum (Liguidamb.sr
stvr`ac.if?), White Bay (Magnolia virginiana) and Red Bay
(Pers-is"borbonia). Ground cover species include Sweetpepper
Bush (61?ethra alnifolia var. alnifolia), Cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), Horsesugar (SVmplocos tinctoria), invasions of
Privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Netted Chain Fern (Woodwardia
areolata). Cane and 'Sweetpepper Bush were dominant ground
cover species in certain areas. Cane appeared to grow
intensely in disturbed wetlands, especially along Alternate
One. Canopy dominance varied along the project corridor
depending on the amount of disturbance in wetland
.communities. Some sites have a canopy dominated by Loblolly
Pine, while other areas are dory-inated by a mixture of
Loblolly Pine, Red Maple, and-.'Water Oak. Sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum sp.) occurs in sliglit depressions. These
depressions were dry at this time of year but are presumably
wet at other times. In more'-disturbed areas, catbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia and Smilax walteri) were dense and
tangled. r-
r
Mesic Pine .Fldtwood'upland communities are located in
slight=.rises adjacent to the Wet Pine Flatwood communities
and are dominated by a canopy of mixed hardwoods and pine.
t±
Canopy dominants include Loblolly Pine, Southern Red Oak
(Ouercus falcata), Water Oak and Post Oak (Quercus stellata).
Dominance of loblolly pine varied. Understory dominants
include Dogwood (Cornus florida), sourwood (Oxydendron
arboreum) and Mockernut Hickory (Carva tomentosa). Ground
cove species include Dangleberry (Gaylussacea frondosa),
Swee?tpepper Bush, Blueberry (Vaccinum sp.) and Virginia
Creeper (Parthenocissus guinctuefolia). Poison Ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) was not very common along the
project corridor but was found in scattered locations
throughout the uplands.
r.
Agricultural fields that are currently farmed or
abandoned will be impacted. Various crops such as cotton,
soybeans, tobacco and peanuts were noted in the project
vicinity. These fields reach large acreages and sometimes
contain more than one crop.,
Impacts to plant communities are listed below: (Acreage
estimates are based upon proposed Right-of-Way dimensions of
80 feet)
Wet Pine Flatwood
Disturbed Wet Pine Flatwood
Agricultural/Oldfield
Mesic Pine Flatwood
Residential
U-2218 R-2423
Alt.l Alt.2
0 Z27 1.10 2 .6 6
0.27 2.66 0.46
- 6.61 4.86
1.01 2.11 2.85
0.46 0.55 -

•.:..;.11-2423 will bisect a large tract of relatively undevel-
oped forest and agricultural areas. Alternate One is
approxim,ately 700 feet longer than Alternate Two. Increased
``iplant community takings are anticipated from Alternate One.
As a result of either project, further fragmentation of plant
communities are expected.
U-2218 will impact the Right-of-Way property of US 64
Bypass and established residential areas associated with SR
1250 and.SR 1329. Portions of the US 64 Bypass median have
been cleared previously and are now maintained in low growing
condition. Due to the disturbed nature of the area, minor
vegetational impacts are anticipated.
Y.,
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Terrestrial animal communities will be impacted by this
project, since only minor-drainage ditches are crosses( by the
alignment. Mammals.-charactetistic of Mesophytic Forests such
as Opossum, Short-Tailed Shrew, Eastern Mole, Eastern Cotton-
tail, Eastern Chipmunk, Gray Squirrel, Southern Flying Squir-
rel, White-Footed Mouse, Raccoon, striped skunk and White-
Tailed Deer are most likely to be found along the project
corridor. Occasionally one may encounter mammals such as
Hairy-Tailed Mole, New England Cottontail, Woodchuck, Deer
Mouse, Golden Mouse, wood Rat, Jumping Mice, Spotted skunk,
Long-Tailed Weasel and Gray Fox.
Open agricultural fields support mammals such as South-
eastern Shrew, Eastern Mole, Eastern Cottontail, Woodchuck,
Old Field Mouse, Cotton Mouse, Cotton Rat, Pine Vole, Eastern
Harvest Mouse, Red Fox and White-Tailed Deer. other species
that may inhabit this community are: opossum, Least Shrew,
Short-Tailed Shrew, White-Foot Mouse, House Mouse, Meadow
Jumping Mouse, Raccoon, Least Weasel and Striped Skunk.
Reptiles common to moist forests and open fields include
Eastern Box Turtle, Woodturtle, Eastern Fence Lizard, Black
Racer, Rat Snake, Brown Snake and Copperhead. Amphibians
that inhabit moist forests and ditches include the American
Toad and Gray Tree Frog. Squirrel Tree Frogs are common to
open woods, but might be found around buildings. Spiders
were unusually plentiful in the Loblolly Pine dominated
communities along Alternate Two.
Avian species one might expect in the project area
include Red-Shouldered Hawk, Bobwhite, Mourning Dove in open
fields, Blue Jays, Tufted Titmouse, and Robins in residential
areas.
WETLANDS
';...,,,The following wetland communities will be impacted from
C011Stru4C.ti011:
?., U-2218 R-2423
Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Forested Wetland 0.27 1.10 2.66
Disturbed Wetland 0.27 2.66 0.46
Alternate One will impact the most wetland, both
forested and disturbed. Due to the amount of wetland acreage
that will be impacted by this project NCDOT, will be required
to apply to the Army'Corps of Engineers for an Individual
Section 404 Permit.
S,OII,S
The following soil series are located within the project
corridor: Marlboro sandy Yoam,.Rains fine sandy loam, Norfolk
loamy sand, Norfolk-loamy sated, Exllm very fine sandy loam,
Granthum very fine sandy loam and Goldsboro fine sandy loam.
Rains fine sandy loam and Granthum very fine sandy loam
soils are classified as hydric according to the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Rains and Granthum are poorly
drained soils with slopes of 0 to 2 percent that formed in
coastal Plain Sediments. Rains and Granthum soils are found
in the Wet Pine Flatwoods.
Marlboro sandy loam soils are well drained and located
on broad, smooth or rounded upland areas. Most of the acreage
of this soil is cultivated, with the remainder in woodland.
Slopes range from 0 to 6 percent. Norfolk loamy sands are
also well drained soils found on uplands with similar slopes':
Goldsboro fine sandy loam are moderately well drained soils
found on smooth, low ridges and flats, and in shallow
depressions in uplands. Exum very fine sandy loam are
moderately drained soils located with slopes of 0 to 2
percent.
WATER RESOURCES
There are no special surface waters of concern within
the project boundaries. Project U-2218 crosses one
intermittent stream on existing SR 1250 that is unclassified
by the DEM-DEHNR. Project R-2423 crosses two drainage
ditches; the first in an abandoned field south of the
railroad tracks and the second at the border between an
agricultural field and an old field, approximately 375 feet
south of SR 1232. Both ditches are also unclassified.
Portions of these ditches may need to be rechannel ized. If
so, consultation with appropriate.agencie"s in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 USC et, seq) may be necessary. A small pond is
adjaceht.to Alternate One. It is not anticipated that road
construction will impact this area.
RARE/ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Natural Heritage Program files report no rare or
endangered species in the immediate vicinity of the project.
However,-the USFWS reports that the following species might
occur in the area: Tar River Spiny Mussel (Elliptio
('Canthvria) steistansea), the garolina Madtom (Noturus
furiosus), River bank Sand Grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) and
HensloW s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). The state
and federal status as reported by the NC Department of
Agriculture, Plant Conservation-Program and the NCWRC of each
species is listed below.
Tar River Spiny Mussel
(Elliptio (Canthvria)
Carolina Madtom
(Notorus furiosus)

steinstansana)
NC Federal
E E
PSC -
moor"
Riverbank sand Grass E C2
(Calamovilfa brevipilis)
Henskow's Sparrow - SR
(Ammodramus henslowii)
E - Endangered
PSC - Proposed Special Concern
C2 - Candidate species presently under review for federal
listing
SR - Status Review
The Tar River Spiny Mussel and the Carolina Madtom, a
fish, occur in the Tar River drainage system. The Riverbank
Sand Grass occurs in savannahs and sandhill seeps. It is not
anticipated that these species will be impacted from project
` construction due to lack of suitable habitat.
The Henslow's Sparrow is found in large, early
successional, grassy.areas. Examples are wet, clear-cut
timber areas. Disturbed sites along the project alignment do
not fit this habitat description. Impacts to the Henslow's
Sparrow, therefore, are also not anticipated.
MITIGATION
Use of Best Management Practices such as sedimentation
control measures should be required during construction to
.reduce erosion. Minimize the use of curb and gutter section,
where possible, which tends to trap pollutants and channels
them directly into nearby surface waters.
??,` ArAs adjacent to disturbed wetlands, especially along
Alternate one, may be restored with native vegetation in
efforts to mitigate losses from project construction.
REFERENCES
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina Biologt"al Survey and North Carolina
State Museum of Natural Hib ory.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Rept'i'les of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press. ;
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1990.
"Endangered wildlife Of North Carolina". NCWRC.
Plant Conservation Program. 1990. "List Of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Plant Industry Division. North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
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.Thet°
Natural communities Of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA-SCS. 1979. "Soil Survey: Edgecombe County".
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing office.
cc: V. Charles Bruton
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.

Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199400662
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ,
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 23 19 ?' -1?--
ti?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch 116
North Carolina Department of Transportation d U n,
Post Office Box 25201 Lu
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This correspondence is in reference to my September 16, 1997, correspondence to you
regarding the Mildred Woods mitigation site associated with the U.S. Highway 64 project it
Edgecombe and Martin Counties, TIP Nos. ' and also serves to confirm
your discussions with Messrs. Ken Jolly and David Lekson of my staff at the interagency meeting
held in Raleigh on October 16, 1997.
It has been our policy for some time that compensatory mitigation work undertaken on
large sites, that have not been established as mitigation banks, be surveyed to identify the limits
of the mitigation work designated to offset impacts associated with a specific project. Although
my staff has previously requested that your staff provide a survey of the acreage utilized from the
Mildred Woods site for the above referenced project, we have not received the requested
information. By copy of this letter, you are formally requested to identify and survey the 217
acres of non-riverine wet hardwood and swamp forest at the Mildred Woods site utilized to
satisfy Condition (a) of your permit (Action ID 199400662) and to provide a copy of the survey
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh and Washington Regulatory Field Offices, within
30 days of the date of this letter.
Additionally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has utilized the Mildred
Woods site to compensate for impacts associated with the R-2112BA & BB segments of the
U.S. 64 project. Twenty-three (23) acres of non-riverine wetland restoration and fifteen (15)
acres of riverine preservation were used from this site. By copy of this letter, you are formally
requested to identify and survey the 23 acres of non-riverine wetland restoration and 15 acres of
preservation at the Mildred Woods site utilized to satisfy Condition (r) of your permit (Action
ID 199601404) and to provide a copy of the surveys to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Raleigh and Washington Regulatory Field Offices, within 30 days of the date of this letter.
-2-
As referenced in my correspondence of September 16, 1997, the Corps of Engineers will
not consider further use of the Mildred Woods mitigation site until success can be documented
on the site.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Michael Bell, Project Manager/NCDOT Coordinator, at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone], extension 26, or Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Project Manager/NCDOT
Coordinator, at the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Chief, Regulatory
Division
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
J?J -/ AR7
JJJ- ••? L.
.97050 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVENNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
May 23, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
E0
L; } 1997
?IAY
SUBJECT:"' PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NC 43 BYPASS FROM NC 43 TO US 64
ALTERNATE, TIP U-2218, EDGECONIBE COUNTY.
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the above referenced project.
The proposed roadway is a two-lane facility, 24-feet wide with four-foot paved shoulders mostly
on new location with two bridges (north and south bound) over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over
the CSX Transportation Railway. The project begins at the intersection of NC 43 and SR 1230
(Brake Road). It proceeds north on the existing SR 1230 alignment for 1100 feet then continues
on new alignment until it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road) at its northern terminus. The
total length of the project is approximately 2.2 miles. The West Alternative was selected as the
preferred alternative as detailed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Finding Of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), signed January 1994 and June 1995 respectively. The state project
number is 8.2290401 and the federal aid project number is M-8746(1).
The project will impact nine jurisdictional wetlands totaling 13.38 acres. All wetlands are
above headwaters. No surface waters will be impacted. The impacted wetlands are marginal and
not connected to any type of riverine system. They are all disturbed or surrounded by disturbed
lands. Wetland sites 1-5 and 7 are best described as wet flats with vegetation consisting of sweet
gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), various oaks
(OUercus W.), sweet bay (Magnolia vir,iniana), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and green
brier (Smilax rotundifolia). The remaining sites are also wet flats in early successional stages due
to recent logging. The vegetation is scrub/shrub composed mostly of loblolly pine, red maple,
0

2
and sweet gum. The Division of Water Quality rating system was applied to each site. The
highest score received by any of the wetlands were sites 1 and 9 with scores of 24. The wetland
communities and quality analysis are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. NC 43 Bypass Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin class. DWQ rating Acres impacted
1 PF04E 24 2.50
2 PFO 1 E 16 2.99
3 PFO 1 E 16 2.38
4 PFO 1 E 20 1.56
5 PF04E 13 0.85
6 PSS4E 13 - 0.42
7 PFO 1 E 21 0.43
8 PSS4E 20 1.43
9 PSS4E 24 0.82
PF04E: Palustrine Forested Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PFOIE: Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PSS4E:.-- Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
This project will become part of a circumferential loop which was identified in the city of
Rocky iVlount's Thoroughfare Plan adopted July 1, 1985. This proposed section of the loop
meets the current need for a direct north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount and
therefore has independent utility. The northern terminus on SR 1250 is dictated in the
Thoroughfare Plan in order to connect with the existing northern section of the loop. There are
currently no plans to continue from the southern terminus of this project in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Subsequently, the NCDOT deemed the southern
terminus that provided the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43
was to tie in with existing SR 1230. Considering these exigencies coupled with the necessity not
to restrict other transportation improvements identified by the Thoroughfare Plan, it is the opinion
of NCDOT that the current project design is the best alternative for providing the public the
north/south route while remaining consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan.
In response to agency comments, the NCDOT considered imposing partial control of
access along the project to avoid heavy development along the proposed bypass which could
eventually necessitate a "bypass of the bypass" as well as further impacts to wetlands. It was
found after reviewing the current zoning of the area, while a few quadrants on the northern
portion of the proposed road are zoned for varying business districts, the majority of the land is
zoned A-1, agricultural district. In addition, as stated on page 10 of the EA, city officials
anticipate that slow or no growth will remain the prevalent development pattern even when the
proposed roadway is constructed. Finally, even if circumstances dramatically change necessitating
the need for more roadway in this area, NCDOT purchased enougli'right-of-way to accommodate
a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Considering these factors, the NCDOT did not impose any

3
access control along this road. These findings should help alleviate agencies concerns over the
possible secondary and cumulative impacts related to this project.
Another issue relating to control of access is the settlement with a landowner regarding
the number of driveways for a proposed development in the area south west of the intersection of
the proposed bypass and SR 1232 (Meadowbrook Road). It has been resolved that four
driveways will be constructed along the proposed bypass and a fifth along SR 1232. Only the
southern most driveway at station 26-70 along the bypass is located in wetlands. The secondary
impacts associated with this driveway will be minimal since it will reach a PC field after
approximately 140 feet.
This project was serving as a pilot study in which the NCDOT was attempting to locate
the borrow site for the contractor to utilize for fill. However, NCDOT and the Associated
General Contractors have mutually agreed to discontinue the investigation and pursuit of state
furnished borrow sites on new construction projects. Normal pay items for earthwork will be
utilized for this project.
Wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The delineations were verified in the field by %,Ir. Eric
Alsmeyer of the DOA Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. Of the 13.38 acres of wetland impacts
associated with this project, 11.26 acres will be permanently filled while 2.12 acres will be
temporarily impacted by clearing and grubbing actions associated with Clearing Method II. In an
attempt to minimize wetland impacts, all fill slopes in wetlands will be 2:1. Additionally, seven
cross pipes will be placed along the project to facilitate the conveyance of water between
wetlands which are being bisected.
The NCDOT proposes to utilize the tilildred Woods 1,litigation Site to mitigate for the
wetland impacts. Using the 1.6:1 ratio for restoration that was supported in your letter dated 15
November 1995, 21.41 acres of restored bottomland hardwood will be offered to mitigate for the
13.38 acres of wet flats that will be impacted by this project. Both the project site and the
mitigation site are located in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
The ACOE stated they would require a full accounting of the acreage available at the
Mildred Woods and Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Sites before they would accept any further
projects proposing these sites for mitigation. The attached spreadsheet depicts the original
acreage, the projects which have utilized and those proposing to utilize the sites for mitigation,
and the remaining acreage.

4
1 It is anticipated that these activities will be permitted under an Individual Permit. By copy
of this application, the NCDOT requests that the N.C. Division of Water Quality review the
proposal for authorization by 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact i?Ir. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincer ly,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dornev, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer

N
3
0
N /a
_ U ? ^ O
_ 7 ^
u
M
n 1
I N 1 I I ;?

'
=
n N
u'
1? N c]' A
ty • C
?C

CD
N
N a
Q7- I
' o
N
n
N
U cn O I N

• q
Q
Q 1 N '
U O

N
U _
'N
C v

.r
fV

N
?
U

j 1
o
N
w O

^ 0
^
N

N
_
p ?
rte.
N O
?
- 4

N_. N N
:J N

?

_
^ ©
^
y

C N

C N
U
? N

C
? o to

O
Q

(j C,
N C14
U -

N
^
- N u N
C C
O

N N
N
C N
C
N ^

N CI
U ^
N
N
C ? C

C)
0 a
0
h
C h
C
. i p
e ,a
G. 1 O ; 'Col to l) p
N N co
_ u N tD• C
L
•
I I L
( V

C C
O O
S
._ 7
F
O
N ?
0
O J ?
C S
_

0 O
W
G'
M LL. LL M
a
i
Y
n N i7 ir
7 N
7 _
J (L .U. 1 7

CL
0
U
U f? ,i7
^ N
? v7
C)
n; ? 1
"u o ^ ?i o - v
a N
u
V
in 1 N• Cl '
4
n
N
U p
u O? U
v N
O
O
u c?
rus
N
U ?
U ,

N
U

ill i
.
U
U .P•.
N,^ Y N N.
Q M co) N

I n
i
U
C C
O O
n 7
i

p
? `O t7
u
7
N Nom. U _
U O
C ?
_
u ra
G u
U
Z 4S
c N

mo d... a W CL N N
-l n J n - ? O
V) co N r- 1-

.r.r ..?.
ENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR D"cPART7,I VIVID Mr?,.v
Expires October 1996
_
(33 CFR 3251 reviewing instru
reviewing the collection of for information. S ndton v
'ublic reporting burden for-this collection of informationns the data needed, and completing and response,
^rc::i,:g existing data sources. gathering and maintaining
ty aspec of this collection of informaon, including suggestions for s burden, to
^ur•.nts r of'DeftrnsotSWa hingt n Headquart stService Directorate of InformationOperotions and R port . 1215 Jeffer oncDais'Hichway, Suite
?ar:ment
i ^(;•^.., Ar'.ington, `JA 22202-3302: and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
-0E03. Please DO NO nETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
iu,i:s.mic.tion over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT 3, S
require
The
404
erm Authority: 33U of the United Sta es'?ho discharge of dredged orlfill material into was rs of the Uni etd St tes,tand ino, or dredged ;
na teri3l waters for t
for a a not be
Disclosure it into ocean waters. Routine Uses:
l for the purpose of dumping
of requested information is voluntary. Information If informa ion is not provided, owtlever,rtha permit application can
for a permit. Disclosure: D
processed nor can a permit be issued. sed
attached One sat of original drawings or good reproducible instructions) and be submitted to the 0 strict Eng charachater gtjudsdiction over'the locationeof the proposeds
application (see sample drawings
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
11TEWS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLEttu
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
N. C. Dept. of Transportation
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
Planning and Environmental Branch
P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
APPLICANT'S PHONI= NOS.-WrAR
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE r.n.s•^(isnorr.Cuif.d)
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
a. Residence
a. Residence
ti R., einnes J [phone] b. Business
A
1 1 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
I hereby authorize,
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
DATE
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE Is.s instructions)
NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate; T.I.P. Number U-2218
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN er.vv-k•aoi
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS Gr.aarc.cil
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
NC N/A
Edqecombe
rni INTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,. IF KNOWN, (s-insatrcrions)
N/A
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE

r -ttyre of Activity (Description al proiecr, incluae aillesruresl
Construction of the NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternative. Proposed roadway is
a two-lane facility, 24-feet wide with 4-foot paved shoulders. B egins at intersection
of NC 43 and SR 1230 and ends at the intersection of US 64 Alternate and SR 1250.
19. Project Purpose iDescrnbe tAs resson or purpose of itm proiecr, see instructions/
Public Road
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Building of public road on new location.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
84,500 cubic meters
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled artinstrucr:onsl
11.26 Acres of wetlands will be permanently.filled :chile 2.12 acres will be temporarily cleared.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completes' Yes No X _ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK

24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached drawings.
25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovalsiDenials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ' DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is o plate an rate. ur r certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
dul t or' ant of pplic
X30 9
Sl NATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
'U.S.GP0:199a-523•+79 cZ018
- 40, Owl
r wr` 1% -?Scnti+nd Mec¦ t
fSal? 7 Avanton - .? y l+ itOr1- C.
y L " / t y l8 , _ ` , die
o -} , t3 7 s 5 I WsKer 11 Rosinlath {:s P myr+ E E E R pre.`
5el 56 Cast+lu Gold Rock y r
v
Al Ca Mna
r 1 JYSIlce ' } t Baltlenao `- ! Mobcood
? µap lie e 58 Red Oak 7 r?W 1 311 l+•renct 97 5 '7% s + W n-
/ Dortcru r
10 39 .- sal ro _ 2 It 17 r ¦onl, 0mtzna
II * ? e 9 ueeett k SDee00akGty of 4yc',. _c Gr+ntwrp
P New Mope Sprln( ktomet!' 0: B E \ y =`` 1? 1\ ' -/^`•. 11•.
r ' Bunn Moot , of Mule 1 '? s .6?A ?' \ - ,y?.••,o
0 \ ^!a i 1 a ire __C /1) •`
^R. l, y E r 6lA ' a 7 97 \ M `CS+ E `e+s \\??// ', I r 1 17S „?Lt!?
Pe+rces ], Pnncerdle e t Y,
i a i ? { ?' ¢ /2 1 ?. 4 Car NMI;
4 Pilot 1 +T7thu(I It ' i ??
}?, ?t .c3. na 77 1 a I T4 huDSOur
LL..(( 1' E' ?rsonnue
lefiel 1 5 E SUnlane Coneto [se A
t _ / armNe R• T
. q 1
i ??? E Sal Dor.o .y / Elm CdrY D?To„n\ t Pmttoas •1 ?' l2 , ` r ! Bethel
i e D ul" : h s +w•... Sg . I ` creek .` ' 7 r u Gr+s? ;E
1 a i 213 { t 3J
... ?. ` Scab of Miks lea ' 1 ±. 1
2iC so j 7l st
t 0 c 10 20 30 iasfI Id ({IrStats
5' /jalklan II L+ \ \
10:0 30 40 48
-Scale of Kilomet-.......? )i: Bruceyl.5 . w,,.,.. ?-: _.>? ?__ _'
33
4-?')0 ti- L?-
r.1
o. 'o END 1 F
' 1 ? /? ?` " PROJECT
? es w v
a c S/ y
0, 7'
s ?G
\ IM1 ° ?
C ? I
;
ns 1_. !AU .04
- 1 ,?, •. tut ?, } 1 '? ..,,
ly! V.Y
z - --,
1
BEGIN
/ ?•• » is PROJECT
1-4 1 -' ; 10 I
J e'T
l 1. l
t 1]
SCALE
I w11
0 ------ --?
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT:8.2290401 (U:218)
MAPS LENGTH =3415 KM (21%MI?
INC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET I OF IQJ
L'

z
0

<<
R r
1 ,?
Ko< ` ?y
40 o y ?? _ 4?CV
y.
c -- c z F

J Z
Q
w
w
)
r ?.
' I
O
'
- z

U)
CD G
V)
O ,, z

z n

z

/

Ln / c <
/
I V
o
/ e

I r

4J O

I ? ? a
i y ,5 PQ?

t
r
z
c
Q

X&
M s _ c

,
S N
L'.
?.
< <
1' O
,
L
LLJ

co
\
J \ Q

w \1 a m
S

O
\ W N

<
`
)<

LLJ
r
x V)

Q z c z
O c -
CL O(A'
< a
Kxx

1 \ ` CI
•. I
`
rai

C '
O /

/ o
/

/ O

Q-
Ln
I y
r
z
0
V, I
A\l
?nJ \ r
x
3
?? •\ r / ter. i
le?
1 ?
? Q
? O
J
U
? { 4
t

N `I
1

V
t
I
I
I
? I
? I
C
JC
c/l i `1 ? t 1 ? ?
J
U I
. I
? I
I
'I
z i
o
m I
Q
1 N

z
a
F
? v

' ? .c x C '' O

z
I ?
I w
I ? c
I N ?
V?
I a -'
I V
I
I N
I ?
t 1
?1 I
1i
l
t
V
I
\i
I
? •1
1
?I
cc3ll
V
J
Q
W
H
Q
J
z
r
i-• Z C•
?1i J :n n Z_
C C '?
Z Z tl
'vy

;n
0

z
0
E- '-
C
C C
G r ^+
< c _ -
? z
m
N
N z
x J
L J U
N ( z
:G ; a e Z
i I o
?.
m
a- >-
<
rz
m
to
V) Q
Q J
U ?
O
.c
I ? U
O
O ,
E '
Ln
ti
W
CD
C)
C
Q
U]
LLJ
Q
J
U
O
N
z
C
' z
? Tr
G
..0
• v
v
• ? rv-1
r

4
9
?i
ti
R
.- v
M
V V ?r
Z Z
iQ
z
z
c z
z

L
E
L

U
O

Ln
A4 X M-1
z
c

ti r
N.. R

cc,
z Z _

C Z +

c? -

= N c' Y c
N
LLJ
L.J Q

( J
L1J U

_ Z A

Z i
LL.
i
N L
C3 W
a
W U

a O
U
In
O
E
ul

W
cr-
F""
0
O
Q
0
Q]
Lid
0
a
J
U
CLn
co
N
0
4
z
0
y
r
i.
V
z

N/ J

C
P
V'
c ?
:n Cn
? V
y
M
R R
r
Z Z C'
Ln
z
<
:n
c e Z
F E..
Z 1 z

?u
u
O
O
E
Ln

Z
co
tn q
Z T U ;n
I y J ~! I I ^ z r M ?,.,
1.0
I r?p I I U
I _ I I
I I IF F
I I o I ?
I ?I o I Y ? z
_ _ t z
I ?
I I I ?'??
N I ??
I? ! I
w
I o ? I
I ?
I a LL
I o N I
I M ! j v
I w a cn
o ?
I a I o
I J I
I U
to
0
Ln
A '
i ? fw I yz° =
I Z Z
I ? I
I W ,
I
J I
I ' I
u
I ? ` I I
0o I y W
I t I U I W ? y_ Z J7
O I V 1 •••
p eJV.. O ^ L
I < ? f u ?' Z '.: Z
? / C J
I a
yF 39 I O
W I O
' a
' D
a ?
W
u \
N
W 0.6
Q N
c:l I I o o?.,?
p "_ f3
I _; I o
J
`-" a I
V
V
=1 E7 I €3 ???? ? ?
I = IQ I a?. ?

flifl
/ * Q
S
W ?
V
1 C N
N
C r

\ S J

\J I

Q
u \

W ,

O W ?
? z =
?
\ J
\aJ,1
1" a u
\ Cis
\? \ b
p? \
J
i
M I
L i
?SS7 j I?y??
1L I _
4

Z
O

r? ^

? W T r s ?_

^
^ r ?
..r
?
Z
\ V
\ /V
o
a
N \
N :
U
W
a?
uo¢
r
WW v:
U
N -
O
r O
V O / o
s
` v
0
y9 _

,\ a

,. `" 3
z

C_? z t_ z
G a -
7y

Q
?J V

0
N

0
w

z
c
L

`
' z c
I ?il ? ?
? c ? ? ¢

I
O I : C
^
? L ."..
? ^1
C r
r ?
I M i
I \ ? v T R _.,_

I ? ? r ? _ V Z z

I z
\ \ 1 ? L C

I
?
O z
I n
j \ ` • I c ;
'` ? d z
t
LLLJ .

C C O
y

a
v Q
-, U
\

\ V V

a \ \
V) \ /

\
\
\\

\

\ Ln

C
F
z

O
1~1
Q
?
?
C
T
? -7
4
z -
v
•r

f
z
r
N
r -_
r
z
c ?
i
I
L
b
A
Q
r
O
O ,
ti
z
0
r ? x
• I / ^ ^ ` •?? / / "'1 ,?,1 •' 1 - ^ M ?. Sam/
rte.'; •\? O - G - '.::
N ?
r
1
1
<X LLJ
W Z Z
Lij
LLJ
r-n-
Q F--
CD
\ L.
\ \ )
o,
Ln

2

'n v
_

,
\ n C C Z
-

,
'
L

I

'
. <
z

N U` < \ H Z n
W
\\
,`
C s C
`

W
LLI

<
<?, `<
Q -

c
ti ?

Q)

Ln
?i
-.--
PROPERTY (C)TNE RS
NAb1ES AND ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAIMES
O ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ROSA A. WORSLEY,ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
HENRY L. BRAKE
JULIA S. RAYBORN
1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
404 MENDENHALL RD.
JAMESTOWN,NC 27282
CLAUDE B. DAUGH T RIDGE. JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING. JR. ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
ESTHER B. GRIFFIN
CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE
MILTON STANLEY
DAUGHTRIDGE
UNKNOWN
4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
UNKNOWN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290401 (U2218)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 45 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET 170 F (9

PROPERTY (07VITNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
Og FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
10 WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES. INC. 2o 0 Y EAST MOUNT, , NC B 593
R 27801
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290401 (U2218)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET 'l 8 OF 19

Wetland Summary Sheet
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
March 21,1997
PROPOSED DISTURBED
STRUCTURE FILL IN AREA IN
SITE STATION TYPE WETLANDS WETLANDS
(SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES) (SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES)
14+74 to
1 17+85 -L1- 600 RCP 8213.4 0.82 2.03 1900 0.19 0.47
23+52 to 600 RCP &
II 25+52-1-1- 300 FOP 10857.6 1.09 2.68 1267.5 0.13 0.31
26+44 to
III 29+09 -L1- 600 RCP 7908.8 0.79 1.95 1747.5 0.17 0.43
30+82 to
IV 32+20 -L1- 600 RCP 5141.8 0.51 1.27 1160 0.12 0.29
35+40 to
V 36+20 -L1- 300 FOP 2914.5 0.29 0.72 510 0.05 0.13
36+80 to 450 RCP &
VI 37+02 -L1- 300 FOP 1457.2 0.15 0.36 255 0.03 0.06
38+95 to
VII 39+27-1-7- 300 FOP 1524.7 0.15 0.38 207 0.02 0.05
.40+23 to
VIII 41+64 -L1- 300 FOP 4819.4 0.48 1.19 972.5 0.10 0.24
41+87 to
ix 42+72 -L1- EXTEND FILL 2763.4 0.28 0.68 570 0.06 0.14
TOTAL 45,600.80 4.56 11.26 8589.5 0.86 2.12
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE HEADWATERS.
ALL FILL SLOPES ARE AT A 2:1 RATIO.
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC43 to
US 64 Alternate
SHEET 19 OF 19
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY F,y`?RONJig
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers ,q? Tq
Post Office Box 1890 °"?tisQ?F,y?Fs
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199500517 June 26, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS, (NCDOT), POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27611-5201, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit
TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL MATERIAL,
IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 13.38 ACRES OF WETLANDS, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
NC 43 BYPASS (T.I.P. No. U-2218) BETWEEN NC 43 AND US 64
ALTERNATE, CROSSING WETLANDS WITHIN THE DRAINAGE BASIN OF COKEY
SWAMP, COWLICK BRANCH AND THE TAR RIVER, EAST OF ROCKY MOUNT, IN
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant and from observations made during
onsite visits by a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show the
placement of fill material impacting nine jurisdictional wetlands
totaling 13.38 acres. These impacts are necessary for the
construction of the NC 43 Bypass (T.I.P. No. U-2218). The
proposed highway will extend from the intersection of existing NC
43 and SR 1230 (Brake Road), on new alignment to north of US 64
Alternate, where it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road).
The project is a two-lane facility, with two bridges (north and
south bound) over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over the CSR
Transportation Railway.
The wetlands to be impacted are generally wet flats on
interstream divides and are not associated with natural drainage
features. Three of the wetland sites (2.67 acres) are in early
successional stages due to recent logging. The proposed
construction will permanently impact 11.26 acres of wetlands,
while an additional 2.12 acres will be temporarily affected by
clearing and grubbing activities associated with sediment and
erosion control at the project boundaries. No surface waters
will be impacted.
To minimize wetland impacts, the applicant proposes to
utilize 2:1 fill slopes within wetlands. Seven cross pipes will

2
be placed across impact areas within wetlands along the project
to facilitate the conveyance of water between the bisected
wetland segments.
NCDOT is proposing to utilize the Mildred Woods wetland
restoration/enhancement mitigation site near Princeville in
Edgecombe County to compensate for the proposed wetland impacts.
21.41 acres of restored bottomland hardwood at the Mildred Woods
site are being offered for the 13.38 acres of wet flats that will
be impacted (1.6:1 ratio).
The project will become part of a circumferential loop around
the City of Rocky Mount, which will allow traffic to bypass Rocky
Mount while maintaining access to the business district. The
presently proposed section of the loop meets the current need for
a direct north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount. The
applicant considered three corridor alignment alternatives for
the project, a Center, East, and West alignment. Additionally, a
Southern Alternative was considered but not recommended due to
increased project costs and wetland impacts, and a "no project"
alternative was rejected "since the construction of the NC 43
Bypass will provide a more efficient and safer cross-town route
for the City of rocky Mount. Plans showing the proposed
construction are included with this public notice. Additional
information regarding the mitigation site may be reviewed at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office at 6508
Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North Carolina
27615-6846, or at the offices of the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality at the address shown below.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

3
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of
the National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise
unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be
lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other

4
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Post-office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-
7687, on or before July 18, 1997, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention:
Eric Alsmeyer,until 4:15 p.m., July 25, 1997, or telephone
[phone], extension 23.
i

z
0
r
??'' d E~ ? C v
r
L
;:> > O Z 7 F'
L Z
J , Z
Q
I-
W
w >- z
J ' I I W d
In J F
C cr- '.0 p C 3
O C z
cn ` a z
O In F F
O o o
cr w C z
I \
/ o ?
/ O
O
.- Q
I I .,
CD \C-D w?? o
I I r ?
I ?
?' I P Ln
I
1

LL
Y
Q
cc
r
z
Cr-

k4
z
0

'
? Q F. ci O

G co C

... U)

U Z
z
0
c
J
J
/
?m<
x .,
y a
0
CPS z ?
a
z
z
z
0
z
m

Q
U
E
O
O
E
U1

i
AO` 3 I`
z
0
d p. y. N ? E?

z v t?
a o z z F
c W w
z
z
CA
LLJ
`? I I m
r
Z
Li
o
o
? o
I ?
i

V) N
C) cn
C) a
U
co
I T?

z
o c
w z
? t 7
F '-Fil
oa
z N
m w
c .: o
Z ? m
A? =

w
d
U
E
O
O
s
Ln
I z
I °
z I ? ?
m C Z _z d
d z
d ? -
\ a I o °° o 0
1 ? I I = A?_\
Y/
I z
I
I w
Y Z
Q ?I K
F
y h
m co
I c
\ 3 m Z.
rT2
,1 a J ? F mi
mot- I v Q b I c a
N I ?rj ?z
11 1 I z z
I v> o o c
a
I ?1
A
a T
CL
N a `I J t!
N?????? E
J .? . I, ,.. w o
L) I it a
I J
1-
? I ?
u. ? . I o
=ij
Oil Ln
v-

1
7
Ld
U
0
0
Q
m
W
Q
J
U
O
N
L
F
Z
O
z
Z
C ?
? G
o
r U,
M,
i
ci
C
r
T
C
c
:v
c?
ao
LV
Q
C
? F^
L .P
... ?r
CJ)
d
? O C
F.
M M
R R I _
CJ (i
Z z
:n
c
z
e
F
? m L 3
z
o ?
z z
? a m
rr``?? c .c c
b
C?
r?
L1
.a
U

O

Lf)
r
i
1

op
N
w
0
r,r
U
Q
0
m
w
0
M
a
J
U
CLn
C
z
0

C d E ci C ,.?
o z ? ? ? d
a

c n ? O
oel
F
.,
o O F' R

? ? z
c z r

C ? V
U Z

z
!mod
I--?d
2

z
a
z
<
.a
F
o c a
a a z
a ?-
z a z
o < ?
a
d
U
E
O
O
E

v
y
z
O
Q
E. er ? Er
0 3 z ? c d
I ? I i a S O W c:. R '* '?
I ? -
I - I I ? ?? m °y, Z Z
I I ? G c.
I I I cc v
I\\\ ? ? I I N Z
I ? I I ?
I -_ I I o
I I I c
I 0-0 F
--5 0
I i o° I w °z a
CF)
Cl\i
cr-
I?
to ? I ?
z i
N I
o ?
I m u
I w a
o ?
I a o
I J I
I O i
O
E
Ln

I
I
I
I
I
I

?
I
I
I
I °
m
I ?

I
I ?
? I
I
I
I
I

m
W
O
z
O

z
0 3 ? c d

L- ? °O C Q ~
o z ? F

c

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ?
a ?
o °
I J
3
W I
? _ I K
a ll?
G?
d
Q
Ai 1
L Q
J
u
r
z
t
H
p D 3
p •?
?I c ? c
z
a
U
O
v
Iy

Ev
J
4 •
a
w ?
V
4 N
R ?
I

? a
f ?O O W \ \\ \ a0? ?
s W \
Age \ WuW N
M ? mNm ?y©\ ? ? ?? VVVJ
Q 59 a
E31 \ \ /0
\ \ :t \
\ \ \ \`?'?. s' ` odes
y
G
?+ z
F
0 o a
c < z
F ?
a =_
? ? v
C
o <
CPS

W

U

N

z
0
3 z
? U
L W
O p
z
o w
c
w
1..1
C

0
O
'T
c
er
ry
U
w
0
C
G
2 E-
0
L, .r
G
C
M M
?T
L
zz
-n
1 'O
r
Jr
H
c
z
e
F
h ?
? A 3
? ? F z
>N -'
a
z
z m z
?I?C m
? c d c
m
CI-
N Q
N?
Q
? CL bid
U?
A? w
U
E
O
O
E
Ln

4
Z
O
r
\ C 3 Z ? C -C
< Ems.. G 00 O c:.
N \v rr0 p F" M M C
O w V -r .r
Z C? U
u
r
in z
? \ z r G ?ir
V) V
?- a N z
o x
LIJ
i "- z o
LLJ z
LLJ h? F
J I I ( Q Mid p G 3
I \ c? _
I ? ? o
z
I a Ego z
\ 'fit _ z a z
I < i O ? .r, o
w
J \
H
I LLJ
I ? 4 I
I ? \ ? LLL-11J
I ? U
• \ i (?
I \\i o
II
0
E

CL
a
CL
m
N
N
a
J
U
d'

- (;?3
z
p
O-W
a

F
z

?
?

IZ

?
..

?

.J
p

.
p
p
c Z
? U
Y?^wMJ F.,
O R
? r
?
? _
Ir?Li
. c c.
U ?

z
o

o
? c
z
F

?d D t%

zz
w
? z

c

7 77
X
\
rill
_ I

CL z
Q
m
N
N
Q
J
U
L']
U
rn
E
O
O
E
Ln
A
z
0
F .•

C @ F `' O

1
\ ? ? v
? 1 `. ?
C
Z q
J L
:p M
F L
1 ?' ti '

c \

1
.
w ?` A s
N z

CL \

w
?\ z
o z
o

z ?\
DOO
w
LL) ? ?_
.
.

cD
M

O
O
E
LO

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ROSA A. WORSLEY.ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
HENRY L. BRAKE 1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
JULIA S. RAYBORN 404 MENDENHALL RD.
JAMESTOWN.NC 27282
CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE. JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING. JR. ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
ESTHER B. GRIFFIN
CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE
MILTON STANLEY
DAUGHTRIDGE
UNKNOWN
4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
UNKNOWN

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
10 WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES. INC. 1200 EAST ST.. POB 593
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801

Wetland Summary Sheet
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
March 21,1997
PROPOSED DISTURBED
STRUCTURE FILL IN AREA IN
SITE STATION TYPE WETLANDS WETLANDS
(SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES) (SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES)
14+74 to
1 17+85 -L1- 600 RCP 8213.4 0.82 2.03 1900 0.19 0.47
23+52 to 600 RCP &
11 25+52 -L1- 300 FDP 10857.6 1.09 2.68 1267.5 0.13 0.31
26+44 to
III 29+09 -L1- 600 RCP 7908.8 0.79 1.95 1747.5 0.17 0.43
30+82 to
IV 32+20 -L1- 600 RCP 5141.8 0.51 1.27 1160 0.12 0.29
35+40 to
V 36+20 -L1- 300 FDP 2914.5 0.29 0.72 510 0.05 0.13
36+80 to 450 RCP &
VI 37+02 -L1- 300 FDP 1457.2 0.15 0.36 255 0.03 0.06
38+95 to
VII 39+27-L1- 300 FDP 1524.7 0.15 0.38 207 0.02 0.05
. 40+23 to
VIII 41+64 -L1- 300 FDP 4819.4 0.48 1.19 972.5 0.10 0.24
41+87 to
IX 42+72 -L1- EXTEND FILL 2763.4 0.28 0.68 570 0.06 0.14
TOTAL 45,600.80 4.56 11.26 8589.5 0.86 2.12
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE HEADWATERS.
ALL FILL SLOPES ARE AT A 2:1 RATIO.
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC43 to
US 64 Altemate
SHEET 19 OF 19
j

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM
July 2, 1997
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
MAI
JOM%
ED EHNR
Rccc???FO
U
1I?1-99J
?NTq? S
Ci
c FNVeS
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199500517 dated June 26,
1997 describing a proposed project by NC DOT - Edgecombe Co. is being circulated to interested state
agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 7/25/97. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, N!Mfy? FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
R 1
State of North Carol
Department of Envir
Health and Natural
Division of Coastal Man
James B. Hunt, Jr_ Gc
Jonathan B. Howes, S
Roger N. Schecter, DI
ry
July 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
ATAAAA2 Aft
A up
N - 111111=11k I Wa
1DEHNR
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199500517 dated June 26,
1997 describing a proposed project by NC DOT - Edgecombe Co. is being circulated to interested state
agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 7/25/97. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, NoFAX 919-733-1495
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199500517 June 26, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS, (NCDOT), POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27611-5201, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit
TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL MATERIAL,
IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 13.38 ACRES OF WETLANDS, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
NC 43 BYPASS (T.I.P. No. U-2218) BETWEEN NC 43 AND US 64
ALTERNATE, CROSS.TNG WETLANDS WITHIN THE DRAINAGE BASIN OF COKEY
SWAMP, COWLICK BRANCH AND THE TAR RIVER, EAST OF ROCKY MOUNT, IN
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant and from observations made during
onsite visits by a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Plans submitted with the application show the
placement of fill material impacting nine jurisdictional wetlands
totaling 13.38 acre-,9. These impacts are necessary for the
construction of the NC 43 Bypass (T.I.P. No. U-2218). The
proposed highway will extend from the intersection of existing NC
43 and SR 1230 (Brake Road), on new alignment to north of US 64
Alternate, where it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road).
The project is a two-lane facility, with two bridges (north and
south bound) over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over the CSR
Transportation Railway.
The wetlands to be impacted are generally wet flats on
interstream divides and are not associated with natural drainage
features. Three of the wetland sites (2.67 acres) are in early
successional stages due to recent logging. The proposed
construction will permanently impact 11.26 acres of wetlands,
while an additional 2.12 acres will be temporarily affected by
clearing and grubbing activities associated with sediment and
erosion control at the project boundaries. No surface waters
will be impacted.
To minimize wetland impacts, the applicant proposes to
utilize 2:1 fill slopes within wetlands. Seven cross pipes will

2
be placed across impact areas within wetlands along the project
to facilitate the conveyance of water between the bisected
wetland segments.
NCDOT is proposing to utilize the Mildred Woods wetland
restoration/enhancement mitigation site near Princeville in
Edgecombe County to compensate for the proposed wetland impacts.
21.41 acres of restored bottomland hardwood at the Mildred Woods
site are being offered for the 13.38 acres of wet flats that will
be impacted (1.6:1 ratio).
The project will become part of a circumferential loop around
the City of Rocky Mount, which will allow traffic to bypass Rocky
Mount while maintaining access to the business district. The
presently proposed section of the loop meets the current need for
a direct north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount. The
applicant considered three corridor alignment alternatives for
the project, a Center, East, and West alignment. Additionally, a
Southern Alternative was considered but not recommended due to
increased project costs and wetland impacts, and a "no project"
alternative was rejected "since the construction of the NC 43
Bypass will provide a more efficient and safer cross-town route
for the City of rocky Mount." Plans showing the proposed
construction are included with this public notice. Additional
information regarding the mitigation site may be reviewed at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office at 6508
Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North Carolina
27615-6846, or at the offices of the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality at the address shown below.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

3
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of
the National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise
unaware of the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown
archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be
lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other

4
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-
7687, on or before July 18, 1997, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
. P
r
r
P
Written comments pertinent
above, will be received in this
Eric Alsmeyer,until 4:15 p.m.,
[phone], extension 23.
to the proposed work, as outlined
office, Attention:
July 25, 1997, or telephone
t
f

J
Q
H
W
W
J
N
O
Q
a
N
O
rf,
C(li
V

z
0

ti 00
T

L.
r.. ?
L' 1 ? l v
r n
:;> > O Z 7 F
w
C G ;?
v z

z
Z
F
_? p C 3
m 2
? c d z
k? F F
m -:
o
o d o
z ?
a a
D d
L:V
.7
Q'
U
O
O
E
L.n
?l
LL
a
cr
z
LL
Cr-

z
Q
F .,

o 3 z ? ? `?

G
O 0.•` ?
r' Q

w j ,
. C z Z F
?
v
U ?

z
Z
o?
< z
o ?
? ? z H
C? zz z
c?
c
J
1
/ U
O
O
E
L1
? t
I
1
- r

Z
d
r
D
w z
o a
?T1 y z
?- ° z

z
0

?3 Z C4
in Q Q .r L .'
.J
r.
_
Q M
? _ O Z Z
G ? W
z
z
1
.a
U
E
O
O
E
? r
.r
C
v
T
CV
?L
r
Lr
Q
A
r
V)

s
h?

r

rq
z z >_,
H
z
w 10
3 °w z
z ?
N
i o
w
z z ?
0 0 ?

A

J fn
c
E
L O
t
J

E
Ul
d
h .j

W
0
0
?06
a
0
CD
Li
0
a
J
U
O
N
L
E
L
z
0
F
rj)
? O
? O v
. , r
c?
C
0
c
c?
c?
m
Q
I
O w,
C
d
? C C
M M
R ? I
z z
z
rn
0
z
F
a a a
z
? ? c z
F ?
°z z
r?T?
z
U

O
O
E
LO
r

I
N
d
W
QD
0
QD
o<
a
0
m
w
0
M
a
J
U
CLn
0

z
0

C d F. O
0 3 z ? ? ?
z o w R

? -
w c
? O ? c O
°0 E
., O
O G ? U R ''

.. w

C G
z
?n
z
a.-a
a?
b
C?

c

c
z
<
a
F
0o a
z
a ?-
0
Z a z
o < c
w
d
U
m
E
O
O
E
Ln
r
•

z
0
0 3 z ? r ?
I ? I I z? 0U T v`ni cn
I I I C ,. ? c?v
I =- ? I I r O C ac d F p
I ? - I I o z U A M T
? O w R ?-
?
I? I I ? c ?
I I I co
Z
\? I I N
I ?' I I V
I - I I o
z
I ? I I ~
6®I F
I I O I o o a
II I ?; z
I T
z
I ?i? ? ? I i c e o
\ z
m
I
N
I? I
w i
Ica ?
I o
I ? Y
I QQ L.L
I V)
I co
w
? I U
I w a
o ?
I Q o
I ? I
I O
0
E
Ln
0,10 "p I
I
I
I
I
I
I ?
I u
I °
I
I °
m
I ?
I
u
I ?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
? LL
u
W
O
i
z
O

z
O 3 c?
W

? ? U R ? cn Jr,

F, O c? c? G O ,.

- O J U R T -
E
c C:

G G :s:
? z

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
? I W
o u
I
I
° I o
°
a I J
3
W I
OlQ\
Q
[7
Q
a
x ? \
I= r
7 16 Y
D N \
m' ?.?'na uCJ
J jy
u i
C
z
t
F
p D 3
o
W d Ct7
? p ti' C
b

V
..7
U
E ?
O
C)
O
n
•
• ? x
4
rc
W m
V
4
a
? u
0
J
J
W
N
0
CD
Q \` \ I
vi
u Q\ \
W a\ \ I
J ? \
o
\ ?T

J
bv,
MBSI q rMM ?
J
° ;nOOM
1 °
\a
\ Q
N \
\ f3
ddgW?
Wuj
-9 /
H
=N u=
O Q
6
Y Q?.
Oy
OS
,
H
c
?+ z
F
c o a
c ? z
? y
U
C
z z
c ,? c
P=l n
r
U
V)
O
N
O
c)

i
z
0
z o
? U
O p
z Q
Q w
i tr
C
r
v
O
T
C
U
ti
N
G
o ?
cn ^
M
T .P t?•
.i
D
Z
F
A
? ? F z
h $
A ..
m
N Q
Q ?
J .
U
E
O
O
E

•
I
z

? Q
? G W
C U
? T
U ?
U -
-
c a
i z

0
z
F? F
1?1 0 3
Q z
F ?
0
z w z
z
L
U
E
O
O
E
Ln
s

? ? -
- \ \ is
• ?;.5/' ? ? _ . -

Q-
Q
CL
m
N
Q
J
UI

?

` U
Z
I N
W
N
Cl-
I w
Z
LL)
N W
QD
F--
C'
\? I
0
IS
F
z
0
4
a 3
z z
0 ? ?
': Q
-P

p C
U S

o
A? z
c 0 3
? Z
z
z
z z
C
?^ e; C
r?

<Q
cl?

m ? O
N
N
Q
J
-U

Lr)
Y
e

z
0
\ C 3 z
U 11 ?? t r L 7C __ y
rC \
`C \
i
f \ ?' w Z
z 1? c z
w
V) Z
\ \\ z zz
W o o
w KXX
o ?\
a
O \
C\j f \
r
0
0
E
Lr)
M ,

?
aa
i
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ROSA A. WORSLEY.ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
HENRY L. BRAKE 1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
JULIA S. RAYBORN 404 MENDENHALL RD.
JAMESTOWN,NC 27282
CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE. JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING. JR. ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
ESTHER B. GRIFFIN
CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE
MILTON STANLEY
DAUGHTRIDGE
UNKNOWN
4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
UNKNOWN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290401 (U2218)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET 1 7 OF 19 1

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
10 WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES. INC. 1200 EAST ST.. POB 593
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
M#,
Wetland Summary Sheet
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
March 21,1997
PROPOSED DISTURBED
STRUCTURE FILL IN AREA IN
SITE STATION TYPE WETLANDS WETLANDS
(SO. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES) (SO. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES)
14+74 to
1 17+85 -L1- 600 RCP 8213.4 0.82 2.03 1900 0.19 0.47
23+52 to 600 RCP &
II 25+52 -L1- 300 FDP 10857.6 1.09 2.68 1267.5 0.13 0.31
26+44 to
III 29+09 -L1- 600 RCP 7908.8 0.79 1.95 1747.5 0.17 0.43
30+82 to
IV 32+20 -L1- 600 RCP 5141.8 0.51 1.27 1160 0.12 0.29
35+40 to
V 36+20 -L1- 300 FDP 2914.5 0.29 0.72 510 0.05 0.13
36+80 to 450 RCP &
VI 37+02 -L1- 300 FDP 1457.2 0.15 0.36 255 0.03 0.06
38+95 to
VII 39+27-L1- 300 FDP 1524.7 0.15 0.38 207 0.02 0.05
. 40+23 to
VIII 41+64 -L1- 300 FDP 4819.4 0.48 1.19 972.5 0.10 0.24
41+87 to
IX 42+72 -L1- EXTEND FILL 2763.4 0.28 0.68 570 0.06 0.14
TOTAL 45,600.80 4.56 11.26 8589.5 0.86 2.12
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE HEADWATERS.
ALL FILL SLOPES ARE AT A 2:1 RATIO.
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC43 to
US 64 Alternate
SHEET 19 OF 19
.ti 4..VAi
M STAFF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOvERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. 40X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 7, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
RECEIVED
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
,J!!! i! 9 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
e- .0,4
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Deer Sir:
f
SUBJECT: FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR CHOSEN ALIGNMENT FOR NC 43
BYPASS IN ROCKY MOUNT, TIP U-2218, EDGECOMBE COUNTY.
As you know, NCDOT applied for an Individual Permit on 23 May 1997 for the
referenced project. The proposed roadway is a two-lane 24-foot wide facility with four-foot
paved shoulders mostly on new location. Bridges will be constructed over US 64 Bypass and the
CSX Transportation Railway. The project begins at the intersection of NC 43 and SR 1230
(Brake Road). It proceeds north on the existing SR 1230 alignment for 1100 feet then traverses
on new location until it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road) at its northern terminus.
The application attempted to explain why NCDOT decided to build on new location as
opposed to utilizing existing roads. It stated that "this project will become part of a
circumferential loop which was identified in the city of Rocky Mount's Thoroughfare Plan
adopted July 1, 1985. This proposed section of the loop meets the current need for a direct
north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount and therefore has independent utility. The
northern terminus on SR 1250 is dictated in the Thoroughfare Plan in order to connect with the
existing northern section of the loop. There are currently no plans to continue from the southern
terminus of this project in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Subsequently, the NCDOT deemed the southern terminus that provided the safest and most
efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43 was to tie in with existing SR 1230.
Considering these exigencies coupled with the necessity not to restrict other transportation
improvements identified by the Thoroughfare Plan, it is the opinion of NCDOT that the current
project design is the best alternative for providing the public the north/south route while
remaining consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan."
Nn.
0 W 4'A #&^

2
The ACOE responded that this explanation still does not adequately explain why existing
roads could not be utilized for this project. They need this explanation to document that this
project satisfied the avoidance and minimization criteria of the National Environmental Policy
Act. The following is an attempt to expand upon the stated explanation thereby satisfying the
NEPA criteria.
The Thoroughfare Plan for Rocky Mount is based on a plan that has been proven to
provide the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow around any central
business district. This design specifies concentric ring or loop roads surrounding the most
heavily developed/traveled area. This allows for a relatively straight flow of vehicles, optimizing
sight distances and reducing the number of corners that must be navigated.
Again, this project is to provide the eastern portion of a loop road around the city of
Rocky Mount. The northern terminus of this project must tie in with the existing northern
section of the loop, Springfield Road. Since the southern section of the loop has not yet been
built, the NCDOT determined that tying the southern terminus of the project into existing Brake
Road provided the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43 onto
the loop road.
Some existing roads were considered as alternatives in the planning stage of this project,
but all except the small portion of SR 1230 were found unacceptable for reasons stated in both
the EA and the FONSI. Utilization of any other existing roads would have resulted in
construction of a road that contained multiple turns that would reduce the smooth flow of traffic.
Consequently, the road would not be consistent with the loop design and the Rocky Mount
Thoroughfare Plan.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Domey, Division of Water Quality

.POP

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael "Smith
July 7, 1997
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR CHOSEN ALIGNMENT FOR NC 43
BYPASS IN ROCKY MOUNT, TIP U-2218, EDGECOMBE COUNTY.
As you know, NCDOT applied for an Individual Permit on 23 May 1997 for the
referenced project. The proposed roadway is a two-lane 24-foot wide facility with four-foot
paved shoulders mostly on new location. Bridges will be constructed over US 64 Bypass and the
CSX Transportation Railway. The project begins at the intersection of NC 43 and SR 1230
(Brake Road). It proceeds north on the existing SR 1230 alignment for 1100 feet then traverses
on new location until it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road) at its northern terminus.
The application attempted to explain why NCDOT decided to build on new location as
opposed to utilizing existing roads. It stated that "this project will become part of a
circumferential loop which was identified in the city of Rocky Mount's Thoroughfare Plan
adopted July 1, 1985. This proposed section of the loop meets the current need for a direct
north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount and therefore has independent utility. The
northern terminus on SR 1250 is dictated in the Thoroughfare Plan in order to connect with the
existing northern section of the loop. There are currently no plans to continue from the southern
terminus of this project in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Subsequently, the NCDOT deemed the southern terminus that provided the safest and most
efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43 was to tie in with existing SR 1230.
Considering these exigencies coupled with the necessity not to restrict other transportation
improvements identified by the Thoroughfare Plan, it is the opinion of NCDOT that the current
project design is the best alternative for providing the public the north/south route while
remaining consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan."
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
?r

2
The ACOE responded that this explanation still does not adequately explain why existing
roads could not be utilized for this project. They need this explanation to document that this
project satisfied the avoidance and minimization criteria of the National Environmental Policy
Act. The following is an attempt to expand upon the stated explanation thereby satisfying the
NEPA criteria.
The Thoroughfare Plan for Rocky Mount is based on a plan that has been proven to
provide the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow around any central
business district. This design specifies concentric ring or loop roads surrounding the most
heavily developed/traveled area. This allows for a relatively straight flow of vehicles, optimizing
sight distances and reducing the number of corners that must be navigated.
Again, this project is to provide the eastern portion of a loop road around the city of
Rocky Mount. The northern terminus of this project must tie in with the existing northern
section of the loop, Springfield Road. Since the southern section of the loop has not yet been
built, the NCDOT determined that tying the southern terminus of the project into existing Brake
Road provided the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43 onto
the loop road.
Some existing roads were considered as alternatives in the planning stage of this project,
but all except the small portion of SR 1230 were found unacceptable for reasons stated in both
the EA and the FONSI. Utilization of any other existing roads would have resulted in
construction of a road that contained multiple turns that would reduce the smooth flow of traffic.
Consequently, the road would not be consistent with the loop design and the Rocky Mount
Thoroughfare Plan.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorsey, Division of Water Quality
Jt,
i
1
m n Z `- m Gmi
DN=?? o C:
Q O oz G1 Z
M o o =
n G)
G) G)
= = O II 71
2
rn
m m 1Z ^ oCo
? C O
n ?p
Z D ? ,- . y zoG ? ,, ? ?
Z ? O z„
U1
Z o
i i. C, D C p i
p ¦ ¦o Z z
0
i ¦ ?00 -I
¦ ¦m
II ?

w
m?
Z ?

F?
M*114
7
i
L,r- __I
Ili F,»

oszt
FTC
r
z 3 *? r = Q
?m D Z C- M G7
0 3E
O
z o a G) Z
m m o _ T
n C C: "11 Q N
o -n ?I 711
= D , m Z ^ o
X p " Co
0 C:
H
OD p ,
r O
O z C o
i i C
m ? D j
OI¦a z Z
i i 0o -I
1 ¦ N
? y
1
J , i
- 1

I
?Y

A ?

4
k/R
kff?. --1
¢1! F-?

oczl
.a 0'131.
i
? I
/ '

1 '
------------

--o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
05 0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
u _r 19yZ
SUBJECT: PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NC 43 BYPASS FROM NC 43 TO US 64
ALTERNATE, TIP U-2218, EDGECOMBE COUNTY.
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the above referenced project.
The proposed roadway is a two-lane facility, 24-feet wide with four-foot paved shoulders mostly
on ne%v location with two bridges (north and south bound) over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over
the CSX Transportation Railway. The project begins at the intersection of NC 43 and SR 1230
(Brake Road). It proceeds north on the existing SR 1230 alignment for 1100 feet then continues
on new alignment until it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road) at its northern terminus. The
total length of the project is approximately 2.2 miles. The Nest Alternative was selected as the
preferred alternative as detailed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Finding Of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), signed January 1994 and June 1995 respectively. The state project
number is 8.2290401 and the federal aid project number is M-8746(1).
The project will impact nine jurisdictional wetlands totaling 13.38 acres. All wetlands are
above headwaters. No surface waters will be impacted. The impacted wetlands are marginal and
not connected to any type of riverine system. They are all disturbed or surrounded by disturbed
lands. Wetland sites 1-5 and 7 are best described as wet flats with vegetation consisting of sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), various oaks
(Quercus spp.), sweet bay (Magnolia virl-11iniana), giant cane (Arundinaria,iuntea), and green
brier (Smilax rotundifolia). The remaining sites are also wet flats in early successional stages due
to recent logging. The vegetation is scrub/shrub composed mostly of loblolly pine, red maple,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O.1BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 23,1997
0 ..7.
0:
0 1 'W
1)
and sweet gum. The Division of Water Quality rating system was applied to each site. The
highest score received by any of the wetlands were sites 1 and 9 with scores of 24. The wetland
communities and quality analysis are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. NC 43 Bypass Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin class. DWQ ratin-_ Acres impacted
1 PF04E 24 2.50
2 PFO 1 E 16 2.99
3 PFOIE 16 2.38
4 PFOIE 20 1.56
5 PF04E 13 0.85
6 PSS4E 13 0.42
7 PFO 1 E 21 0.43
8 PSS4E 20 1.43
9 PSS4E 24 0.82
PF04E: Palustrine Forested Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PFOIE: Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PSS4E:.-- Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
This project will become part of a circumferential loop which was identified in the city of
Rocky Mount's Thoroughfare Plan adopted July 1, 1985. This proposed section of the loop
meets the current need for a direct north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount and
therefore has independent utility. The northern terminus on SR 1250 is dictated in the
Thoroughfare Plan in order to connect with the existing northern section of the loop. There are
currently no plans to continue from the southern terminus of this project in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Subsequently, the NCDOT deemed the southern
terminus that provided the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43
was to tie in with existing SR 1230. Considering these exigencies coupled with the necessity not
to restrict other transportation improvements identified by the Thoroughfare Plan, it is the opinion
of NCDOT that the current project design is the best alternative for providing the public the
north/south route while remaining consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan.
In response to agency comments, the NCDOT considered imposing partial control of
access along the project to avoid heavy development along the proposed bypass which could
eventually necessitate a "bypass of the bypass" as well as further impacts to wetlands. It was
found after reviewing the current zoning of the area, while a few quadrants on the northern
portion of the proposed road are zoned for varying business districts, the majority of the land is
zoned A-l, agricultural district. In addition, as stated on page 10 of the EA, city officials
anticipate that slow or no growth will remain the prevalent development pattern even when the
proposed roadway is constructed. Finally, even if circumstances dramatically change necessitating
the need for more roadway in this area, NCDOT purchased enougli'right-of-way to accommodate
a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Considering these factors, the NCDOT did not impose any
- Jk
access control along this road. These findings should help alleviate agencies concerns over the
possible secondary and cumulative impacts related to this project.
Another issue relating to control of access is the settlement with a landowner regarding
the number of driveways for a proposed development in the area south west of the intersection of
the proposed bypass and SR 1232 (Meadowbrook Road). It has been resolved that four
driveways will be constructed along the proposed bypass and a fifth along SR 1232. Only the
southern most driveway at station 26+70 along the bypass is located in wetlands. The secondary
impacts associated with this driveway will be minimal since it will reach a PC field after
approximately 140 feet.
This project was serving as a pilot study in which the NCDOT was attempting, to locate
the borrow site for the contractor to utilize for fill. However, NCDOT and the Associated
General Contractors have mutually agreed to discontinue the investigation and pursuit of state
furnished borrow sites on new construction projects. Normal pay items for earthwork will be
utilized for this project.
Wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The delineations were verified in the field by Mr. Eric
Alsmeyer of the DOA Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. Of the 13.38 acres of wetland impacts
associated with this project, 11.26 acres will be permanently filled while 2.12 acres will be
temporarily impacted by clearing and grubbing actions associated with Clearing Method II. In an
attempt to minimize wetland impacts, all fill slopes in wetlands will be 2:1. Additionally, seven
cross pipes will be placed along the project to facilitate the conveyance of water between
wetlands which are being bisected.
The NCDOT proposes to utilize the Mildred Woods INlitigation Site to mitigate for the
wetland impacts. Using the 1.6:1 ratio for restoration that was supported in your letter dated 15
November 1995, 21.41 acres of restored bottomland hardwood will be offered to mitigate for the
13.38 acres of wet flats that will be impacted by this project. Both the project site and the
mitigation site are located in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
The ALOE stated they would require a full accounting of the acreage available at the
Mildred Woods and Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Sites before they would accept any further
projects proposing these sites for mitigation. The attached spreadsheet depicts the original
acreage, the projects which have utilized and those proposing to utilize the sites for mitigation,
and the remaining acreage.
- At?
4
1 It is anticipated that these activities will be permitted under an Individual Permit. By copy
of this application, the NCDOT requests that the N.C. Division of Water Quality review the
proposal for authorization by 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincer ly,
J
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
i\,Ir. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NNIFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
iVlr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer

v
j ?.
3
o
_

U
^
I
I
1 I o? I
'N. ? I ` I I
? I
?•
I I

0
v O 1
a
N y
U

N .
U
'N

N
U ^ 3
? N GJ
N

O

N rz
O
w
04
- R -

W O
O N N
n. ^_
J r
N
C
u N
L

O
?
C _. ^! 4
O 9 m
E N C14
N ` N
CL C U
v
O ! O

I9 N N N
U _
^ o rt u?
N
^
_
L N N

O
Z

^ Q
N
N N
C
03

r
N
n oS

^
N
C `
U
? 04 N
C
c ! m
(9
C)
0 C9
m
0
C C

C
EL ?.
U,
0' o h C,
'2 d
`C
U o
N N O
N
N
I (D
•a
I
j
C ^O
72
- - 7
a'
O N
N ?
Q
O C '
y

-
Q U v
)
?
C
_
? O O n
_

J ? r

a
3
N
U
-
7 7
U fD In
O ^ (7

10
',
• C', a
N N
i I ? i I 1 1 i I I
j
-
IU
U N
R
v , O

U
n R
O
U pj C)
O
R
U ?
U
N
U (•7
u ?
O

U
n
y
cl, I
U V' C7 C7 ^ N
U ^ M '(7 n
I ,
u
r C
O 0
U
O ?
O _ _

VI 7
U O S

O ?
u., u. c --
d Q:, W CL vi m
a ? ? i ? n n
J 0_ S
_ 9 N co W Z)
M-
V-
i

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 3251
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710.003
Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for-this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
^rcl:i.tig existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
.rt,rr:::rits regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
C^par:ment of Deftrnse, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
i'Ariington, VA 22202-4302: and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
70503. Plonso DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navi;ablo waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged .
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
OTEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPtICANTI
5. APPLICANT'S NAME S. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE tan agent is not repuAed)
N. C. Dept. of Transportation N. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
Planning and Environmental Branch
P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS.'W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
1 1 . STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this.application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate; T.I.P. Number U-2218
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN of oppac.C/e)
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Edgecombe
COUNTY
NC
STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS rirsppacsoici
N/A
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, Is"Instrucrionsi
N/A
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
F.Nr; FOR" 4 .. F? :.. rn r!n,l r.c :con ; is rc:cnl r..? .., •?^^? .i .:
at Activity (Description or project, include air lea lures)
Construction of the NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternative. Proposed roadway is
a two-lane facility, 24-feet wide with 4-foot paved shoulders. B egins at intersection
of NC 43 and SR 1230 and ends at the intersection of US 64 Alternate and SR 1250.
19. Project Purpose /Describe the reason or purpose of the project, tae instructions!
Public Road
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Building of public road on new location.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
84,500 cubic meters
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (seeinsrrucrrons)
11.26 Acres of wetlands will be permanently.filled while 2.12 acres will be temporarily cleared.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completes' Yes No X_ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
.? r
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached drawings.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER * DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hnreby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is o plete an rate. u r certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
dul t or' ent of pplic
.51, 9
7 1' SI NATURE OF APPLICANT D TE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
'U3 GPO: 1994.520.479 42018
1
5<1 \^pScotlsnd Neck r 5
1 Arenton
5 7
t ? / i 9 /B I 33 1 ? _?? 1 g .110 0
4 E R
Dur e 1 13 5 Whllaker U R. leatn 1 P Myra
O 7?541 56 Castalta Gold 1 3 (? t t Drew\
(m
6 MaDl evdle 1 luStIce 1 1 1 8attle0ao 3 5 E NoDQ d R_ 1 CaDaDa x
Red Oak 1 6 301 Lawrence 97 175 > 4 Wmee-
10 511 / IC Dorlchmi 5
` L.-tt 6 ` Oak Clty II 1 or "0ep Ouitsna -/
q 11 7 SDeed\ Ic °^ Grabtown
New HDD'e Bnn SDrmQ MomeYr 7 N : 7 ~E•-D-t 0 B E f i
1 mVS MoD! INasnrdh 7'?` H - ? VI \ .•? _?, ;? ? I?
es 6/A ?,ri f
RJe Pe rces9 v NA 1 3 !+ 7 " 97 \ + ^`Ci.r 6 is=3pat \ i? 1 1^ i E 1 ? 75 ??? ?,
Pilot 1 t 'E +iarbJr - 1 1 II 42
•1.161 a J h Air sDm "r ter 3 S`
96
lehel ' 97 5 6 StfnDOOe / /Jrr '\ ' csto Coneto E?'t?s?¦?yr'V?"E? rsonv lie
1 6 6 571 w,„,.. 5/ Ai3 I Ffamele I A Rl' T
' ` 4; Dvr.v Elm Cdy Pmetnos t 5 r 8elktl / - -
- ,.--? 1 Mo ev. Y' Tarn Q f ?r Grais
r .` 36 1:1 1 3\ ` ,' 16
1 e?ulo . 51 7f 5 _ V 58 . {Ir. Creek 3
E Scale of Mies 1717
1 0 5 10 70 30 a esheld 2;Cr,SD 1 1 e1 ` i
1 •? Stokes
- -- 6' ?Talklan ll .V t ?
O:110 20 30 40 48 !' ::: e \ 1 1 S i ?.
i - - Swte of K{iomerten........ - ?.-t .. r Dw ,. „Bruce 5 . 3 IL
-
D ??` 7 Z
5r
1) 501 01
?t
1 puE o auiy tb?
END F
e? PROJECT
o
e7 ? \IOCf 1 \: 1))?
\.t 1 n ° !31
of - i
-- i .1.
cl,
-^% 11lI IAV p0 1. ?1
I 1 1
`. LIiE JJ ? 1?/
\ 1V e
I
BEGIN
'.. "•,v: , I. PROJECT ?'•
0
?.
.10' 1 _i ; f u
SCALE
0 1 wU
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT:8 2290401 (U2218)
MAPS LF-NGT-=3,416 KM (2,12W)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET I OF I°
,lk
z
o_
F
. .L! cn ao

40 y_ ?'

z
J
a
w

W y.. z
CD
Q vo
a
V) Q N z
O ?

r
/ C D

o G
.

y

liJ Q
U

I I lo
cc ? P Ln
??
OL
z
0
j Q
O y

v,
.^.

m
J
\
\
Q
i
Z
W J
Q
CD
LLJ V)
V) r
/
?C j W v c
G z
<
z

/ I Q C? z w
/ I (n C
O a
a

{
a

m
\? \ U

r
V)
O
U

I i I
- a
/
I
O
L
Ln
.1w
z
0
I R
7) rz
k PXA, < \ ! =?
x
LLJ
< z
r? F
LL J z w z
O
D a
i
? k
74
m U
f\ p cNi? ?
o a
U
I
I ? p
E
Ll
1w
z
? o
z I
1

m
o
z 4
1
a

01
<
< -? I C Z ? ?' R M

^ z
y ..
\ I
I
\
. i a-
c
w

< < i m co

N Q ° zi

I 0 c
Z
m
I ?'
^ s
\? I o
, \

°4 VVII
IXX"
l
I I ?? NA/
I
s

I
1

N ?
111C111
Q U
? I
U I r ?
a
I
I J
I ?
}
? I
_
I

z
0
Fr ?' c, ?-
a__?
L
a?
I I? q ? I y
Z M
e
Cl-
I w
?\ I
I ?
m
? I a z
J C
U F
O
C\j
? z
c Q o
Z t?
a-00<
O
co
LL r
V) Q
a -
J
U I ? ?
S
.r
U
rz
O
O ,
Ln
.Ak
z
_. o
y
10 oe-
i z = r ,.
ti
06
W Q I vi `v \
I I ??? i z
F
I
I ;lam ?' ? < z
3
? V p y u.
I I '? ?s
I I
I I b
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
I
I I
- I i
LLJ
J -
t
i
i o

O
N
E- -.
clir,
z
c. ti ,
=z
i
-Z- z
°z a
v? cz ? c d z
LLJ ..
D ?' z J
w
r? ? - ? C' p d O
f? = z z
N _ CD
06 o C c
- Q LL-
7
V)
C T
ui Q
a
it L1J U
C7 ? '
C7 Y
:D C,6
Q LL.
m LLJ
w Q ? d
Z
Q
J C?
O
E
U1

z
- o
Q
o?
I ? y Q x ? ? 0 ?
I \ ? ? zc?Q o ?Ir
I s o
I w _ d o
I o ! o o q
V
I F- LD U
CD
I M? i ?
I ? N \? Z cn
I m w
I Ld Q \
a !? N
z
v I? <
m °z 3
F
O ?
Z w
cn \ o < o
a
r m
Oo
o i c < c
? m
N
Q
i <
o
0
Ln

z
o
o F'
w ? ? as
R
I I I _ ? ? o
s':? ,? I I r o `c ? ' F
I = - I I ? ???, q zz
I ? I I ? c cam.
r
m Z
N
a
I ? I I ?
I I I z
I = 1 o i .?? o o z
I I o l y Lo z
? ? s z
I ?
I "
i -- 1
I
IL i i
I o
I = z !
I_
I
7-) od
I M N
I
I C° ?
I w a
I :D
0
I y
I O
0
Ln
-A + , 's
? I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
I u
I ?
I °
a
I
m
I
J
I
I V
I
I
I
I
I
fli I
u
m
a
W
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
U I W
o ?
a I o
a
° I a
o °
I J
3 O
?L
W I
r
a
Q
a
Q
r
i
0
z
00
? N 3
o ..
L

Q
U

N
C

0

? m
n?
\ \, 0 -
a
a
w m
U N
O
(L i
r-
V
U
7
Q
O
J
J
W
N
Vf
-1
?r
\ CD
z r /
f 3 \ '?? ? \ a (((?fff???
J fv?
vi , \
¢ Q? / \ 1
a\ \ 1
w \
O O
T5? v \
\ ST
\

r ov,
MB$I Y ?YM??_?'
1 a -?`?y
\ Q
a Q
Q
a Q
m
N \
N /
\ i
\',
i
QW?
a°
°xW
?Na]
r
ww
0
~ %\
O
O
?Q
G.
? z
? o ?
? z
c c z
?7 V
F O
L ; z
C
?I
r?
U
N
Q
O
.4 * .s
z
0
F
I ? s U
LL. c+
I o H I ° I ? ;? o? ? r "'
I I ? r!, I X 2 9 U ;T ?`;9
W w --
I o I ??° o zz
I I i w I c"
I ? I U .T.
? + J I
U I z
J I ? ? s z
W
O '? O
a
4
? I ? m 44
db;, a
o ., a T
' v
Cl-
N \ \ /
N
Ln
A., Jt , s
z
0

W ? ,n J

o z z ?.

.
< `? w
z

.
I ` CL

w w z
a w

? z
f :;
I J n Q z
c

T
?

o r
I <??
-
' '' Q
o z
o

U ]
s

Lij
I I ?
LLJ

f \

I ?? .y A

\I O

I ?
O
E
u1
i i?% , 4
z
0
cli
I / ,^^ \\\ ? i -rte \\\ / L ? ,,, ci
,,,(/ /1 rye
WW \ °-
i
o
Lj
In
< W c
b
?.` 0- o c
W w
w
w i
a ;• ?"
\ L1
\ n- U
\ , co
o
\\ J
C)
0
Ln
tt b , ?
z
4

10

L ,

U 3
w
V)
cr

\ _
z

?- \
\ o o
z z
w
`
z
w \?\

w
o \ ?? \ \

f ?
N
r
\ f

F.Y.
O

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES

O ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
O ROSA A. WORSLEY,ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O3 HENRY L. BRAKE 1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
4O JULIA S. RAYBORN 404 MENDENHALL R D.
JAMESTOWN.NC 27282
O5 CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE. JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING, JR. ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
6O ESTHER B. GRIFFIN UNKNOWN
7O CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O8 MILTON STANLEY UNKNOWN
DAUGHTRIDGE
A ? .A
PROPERTY OWNERS
NADIES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NADIES ADDRESSES
O FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
Ip WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES, INC. 1200 EAST ST., POB 593
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801

Wetland Summary Sheet
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
March 21,1997
PROPOSED DISTURBED
STRUCTURE FILL IN AREA IN
SITE STATION TYPE WETLANDS WETLANDS
(SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES) (SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES)
14+74 to
1 17+85 -L1- 600 RCP 8213.4 0.82 2.03 1900 0.19 0.47
23+52 to 600 RCP &
II 25+52 -L1- 300 FDP 10857.6 1.09 2.68 1267.5 0.13 0.31
26+44 to
III 29+09-1-1- 600 RCP 7908.8 0.79 1.95 1747.5 0.17 0.43
30+82 to
IV 32+20 -L1- 600 RCP 5141.8 0.51 1.27 1160 0.12 0.29
35+40 to
V 36+20 -L1- 300 FDP 2914.5 0.29 0.72 510 0.05 0.13
36+80 to 450 RCP &
VI 37+02 -L1- 300 FDP 1457.2 0.15 0.36 255 0.03 0.06
38+95 to
VII 39+27-L1- 300 FDP 1524.7 0.15 0.38 207 0.02 0.05
. 40+23 to
VIII 41+64 -L1- 300 FDP 4819.4 0.48 1.19 972.5 0.10 0.24
41+87 to
ix 42+72 -L1- EXTEND FILL 2763.4 0.28 0.68 570 0.06 0.14
TOTAL 45,600.80 4.56 11.26 8589.5 0.86 2.12
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE HEADWATERS.
ALL FILL SLOPES ARE AT A 2:1 RATIO.
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC43 to
US 64 Alternate
SHEET 19 OF 19

,} a r1i
D O O J .J$ ' . R.?^'?.."_• _._,_ OLD L7 HALIFAX 1",: a •? ?j ,
/ Z
i• In -1 -c Q ?'? J - - ?, °-- "_•-.__°*.. : / , / ??i
o c) z 1544
0 0 = P .?
i' C C p I Q ?' jt ?--•
?I n p ` I y 0
Z D D rn Z o a f y
^r Z
--------- ----- -
rn
Y .'1
------------ - --------------
) Ic
1 0 p I Z O o I ! V E- i t` \ 1 I
13
O 1 Is p z 3,e
1 0 0 v ---{ 0 q0? A ."?--- =•. '1- n? y 3'1 S N I M i .. ?'? .
0 o doa- y% rr ft !-? %
O I i
??ti/•
k
k

c) U)
C:) -1
a) c:
n
I
I 0,.
r_? ,( G tax.-/
l FF ? ?
pdE4
• i ? ??,." O Q _ ?•_+ US 301 DYPASS 1 ' P-
. c
713,
J ;•
,
-------------------------
r; _ -v -•:?• ? (•. ,J s "f' ? ,??tia 2°s '?'"•_ 1 h
?\?+7,,,,•?1 S s f 4s \ > 1 Siy j y ti N Sr
\• \ a. +N?
•??i ,q•"w?"'k.,,++r ..?A1`/ r / ? i ?.' r?, `f ???? ?l ?I.;' L? I ,I •i ? ` `. 7- i D .'-..: ?`,? lj
j tip a:ti++.+.. w4t I'i % .? `, ! 7 w• Il 15'i
`_q9 7
k N + * r 1•a f r i 1 l?' ?? { i ?1 Ji "t ' 37m
I ?' + ? '-t7r
r--?? ? fxr\. ?.,` '1?'?•„!?4tiK7r./ f? 'I%-?,!' /t,??.? 7 {i SJt fi, =
I- j
-i\ © -•`M'+W .'±1
° ? Z', ? r, I. ! . Vic,, - ,?:? a _ ? ,?'` , •' ?? .? / ??
,.??.
lo,
l S / o
?Gl-- ?•?: ?ifi s cy if '', i?T': '9+7.,,.? '.,..
M
a d .\ 4 - - \,..yy •. S MA3 Nt.} - y x'`1 . 1 • 1c?^'1 l ('+? C
I 1 ?i
13
1 +
Ou yl?tM q yu aA ?) - {I ate. • .?. ??' It?r ' t /?"l ,• 0
p ..
40
wt.
!< I l?l l)i????llll?l ? ? ti? to°? Q r 2' a... -•? ' " ? oczt
` •'? I ; ? , ? ?y(!r,! ?Q(rf(41?ifi(I((????I)? '?,????Jl,{J)??')J)'1i))I))`?'`? 1 III 111 ? ? -_ - p I D y
(((Il?u? I I N ill II?1 :.-? ? ti ' ? ,
31 ra
9 an
-02 C) rn r ffl 2?? raH \? C N Ftl.
Qm ?cw ?o A V w
M
dM
- o Lzz-n l03r0Hd •d '1 •l
I _ A1Nn00 3evjoo3Oa3
1NnOW ANoou
31VNH3lIV b9 Sn Ol £b ON WOHd
SSVdAB £b ON
HONVUU
7V,LNMi LNO2HAN3 aNV ONINNV'Id
SAVAIHOIH dO NOISIAIa i C?
NOLLVJ H0dSNVH.L
d0 LN3vmrvdaa VNi ionVo H.LuoN I
p
-6-C -1i
t t.
R octt 9? Q IOEWOad
NIJ3B
+ ICLI
s°. , I Q
1 (7rornrra 0
4
I IECI 0
LO'
it SO' QO 8LC1
tiCt
f S l o !S' 0
atCt _ A ri<
LCLI '';:
19
96 GO ' 60' nyi
1...,
tccC [[
L"
(,

i !
auq
? f
C
?
Z

\

' r 3v1
Z? n
-,? , a,peaDOUd o?cq?
V
z r

? v r9
3
'
?' ?paaASQ S
t tuaaa?
luI
L6 )aJuarrl?
.
i 'boa
l:
1
I
i?it j
I
I
I
I ' ? _1x3 I
KI
1
t
i[Lt
I (t,
. la
0
r
1 Cr
• ?sne
i! r 9
now
r,/
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS u
`??""U P.O. BOX 1890 50'
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 -•?.M
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
June 26, 1997
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199500517 RECEIVED
JUN 3 0,1997,
UN RONNIENTAL SCIENCES
• ru
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, for a Department of the Army
permit and a State Water Quality Certification to discharge dredged or
fill material in waters of the United States, for construction of NC 43
Bypass (T.I.P. No. U-2218) between NC 43 and US 64 alternate, crossing
wetlands within the drainage basin of Cokey Swamp, Cowlick Branch and
the Tar River, east of Rocky Mount, in Edgecombe County, North
Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a
valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii)
of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water
quality certification may be required under the provisions of Section
401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be
granted until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after
receipt of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State
action. Therefore if you have not acted on the request by
August 25, 1997, the District Engineer will deem that waiver has
occurred.
_ w
Please address questions or comments to me at [phone],
extension 23.
Sincerely,
Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
J.

SUSPENSE
r ,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT )R DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
clov 'Nor' P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 23,1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GA&t? P8'AFXR QC"
SECRETARY
SUBJECT:"'- PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NC 43 BYPASS FROM NC 43 TO US 64
ALTERNATE, TIP U-2218, EDGECOMBE COUNTY.
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the above referenced project.
The proposed roadway is a two-lane facility, 24-feet wide with four-foot paved shoulders mostly
on new location with two bridges (north and south bound) over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over
the CSX Transportation Railway. The project begins at the intersection of NC 43 and SR 1230
(Brake Road). It proceeds north on the existing SR 1230 alignment for 1100 feet then continues
on new alignment until it connects with SR 1250 (Springfield Road) at its northern terminus. The
total length of the project is approximately 2.2 miles. The West Alternative was selected as the
preferred alternative as detailed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Finding OrNo
Significant Impact (FONSI), signed January 1994 and June 1995 respectively. The state project
number is 8.2290401 and the federal aid project number is M-8746(1).
The project will impact nine jurisdictional wetlands totaling 13.38 acres. All wetlands are
above headwaters. No surface waters will be impacted. The impacted wetlands are marginal and
not connected to any type of riverine system. They are all disturbed or surrounded by disturbed
lands. Wetland sites 1-5 and 7 are best described as wet flats with vegetation consisting of sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pines taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), various oaks
(QuercussRp.), sweet bay (Nia,nolia virginiana), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and green
brier (Smilax rotundifolia). The remaining sites are also wet flats in early successional stages due
to recent logging. The vegetation is scrub/shrub composed mostly of loblolly pine, red maple,

2
and sweet gum. The Division of Water Quality rating system was applied to each site. The
highest score received by any of the wetlands were sites I and 9 with scores of 24. The wetland
communities and quality analysis are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. NC 43 Bypass Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin class. DWQ ratinil Acres impacted
1 PF04E 24 2.50
2 PFO 1 E 16 2.99
3 PFOIE 16 2.38
4 PFO 1 E 20 1.56
5 PF04E 13 0.85
6 PSS4E 13 0.42
7 PFO 1 E 21 0.43
8 PSS4E 20 1.43
9 PSS4E 24 0.82
PF04E: Palustrine Forested Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PFO 1 E: Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
PSS4E:.-- Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Needle-leaved Evergreen Seasonally Flooded/Saturated
This project will become part of a circumferential loop which was identified in the city of
Rocky Mount's Thoroughfare Plan adopted July 1, 1985. This proposed section of the loop
meets the current need for a direct north/south route on the east side of Rocky Mount and
therefore has independent utility. The northern terminus on SR 1250 is dictated in the
Thoroughfare Plan in order to connect with the existing northern section of the loop. There are
currently no plans to continue from the southern terminus of this project in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Subsequently, the NCDOT deemed the southern
terminus that provided the safest and most efficient design for facilitating traffic flow from NC 43
was to tie in with existing SR 1230. Considering these exigencies coupled with the necessity not
to restrict other transportation improvements identified by the Thoroughfare Plan, it is the opinion
of NCDOT that the current project design is the best alternative for providing the public the
north/south route while remaining consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan.
In response to agency comments, the NCDOT considered imposing partial control of
access along the project to avoid heavy development along the proposed bypass which could
eventually necessitate a "bypass of the bypass" as well as further impacts to wetlands. It was
found after reviewing the current zoning of the area, while a few quadrants on the northern
portion of the proposed road are zoned for varying business districts, the majority of the land is
zoned A-1, agricultural district. In addition, as stated on page 10 of the EA, city officials
anticipate that slow or no growth will remain the prevalent development pattern even when the
proposed roadway is constructed. Finally, even if circumstances dramatically change necessitating
the need for more roadway in this area, NCDOT purchased enough 'right-of-way to accommodate
a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Considering these factors, the NCDOT did not impose any
3
i access control along this road. These findings should help alleviate agencies concerns over the
possible secondary and cumulative impacts related to this project.
Another issue relating to control of access is the settlement with a landowner regarding
the number of driveways for a proposed development in the area south west of the intersection of
the proposed bypass and SR 1232 (Meadowbrook Road). It has been resolved that four
driveways will be constructed along the proposed bypass and a fifth along SR 1232. Only the
southern most driveway at station 26+70 along the bypass is located in wetlands. The secondary
impacts associated with this driveway will be minimal since it will reach a PC field after
approximately 140 feet.
This project was serving as a pilot study in which the NCDOT was attempting to locate
the borrow site for the contractor to utilize for fill. However, NCDOT and the Associated
General Contractors have mutually agreed to discontinue the investigation and pursuit of state
furnished borrow sites on new construction projects. Normal pay items for earthwork will be
utilized for this project.
Wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation ily'lanual. The delineations were verified in the field by Mr. Eric
Alsmeyer of the DOA Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. Of the 13.38 acres of wetland impacts
associated with this project, 11.26 acres will be permanently filled while 2.12 acres will be
temporarily impacted by clearing and grubbing actions associated with Clearing Method II. In an
attempt to minimize wetland impacts, all fill slopes in wetlands will be 2:1. Additionally, seven
cross pipes will be placed along the project to facilitate the conveyance of water between
wetlands which are being bisected.
The NCDOT proposes to utilize the Mildred Woods Mitigation Site to mitigate for the
wetland impacts. Using the 1.6:1 ratio for restoration that was supported in your letter dated 15
November 1995, 21.41 acres of restored bottomland hardwood will be offered to mitigate for the
13.38 acres of wet flats that will be impacted by this project. Both the project site and the
mitigation site are located in the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
The ACOE stated they would require a full accounting of the acreage available at the
Mildred Woods and Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Sites before they would accept any further
projects proposing these sites for mitigation. The attached spreadsheet depicts the original
acreage, the projects which have utilized and those proposing to utilize the sites for mitigation,
and the remaining acreage.
4
It is anticipated that these activities will be permitted under an Individual Permit. By copy
of this application, the NCDOT requests that the N.C. Division of Water Quality review the
proposal for authorization by 401 Water Quality Certification. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincer ly,
r
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
NIr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer

a
_II
a
C
C
O
.C
O
?.
N
C
O
C
N
E
cU-
?.
m
r-
0
Z
u ?
ri
d
?
N
3
o 0
U
c E

J ^ O U ?
C-i
t` '
n C
)
I N I I ?' I !
I `S ' I ?
I I I I ? ?
f

U; kc) n;
of ?c
'n
U- r?
gyp. .? CD C co
4 r v N N
, 17

U
U 'C., H
O ^
N U
U I
Iv O I .j v
Q
U
U. ° y. o a

a

U

U
N co

••-
N
N

U
J ^ O
C? O N U
4 -
r
?
N
U
U N
? U
U ?
pj G

L

N
N r
N N
U
l / /

U
CL
U C
)
v. . r v
. O

N
u

tai rn rm
N
N
?

ch
U
f3 fV ^
? U
n C7
N
N

N
n M
N
U
U
v N N U
v
I r . .
m
C

N' rd N ?
U cD (7 a] . C U v m cn . ^ N
co Cl) C14 EL

5.
c o co
0 co
o
o
3
: .
- -
c
a
o _ o o
_ _
c: ;E
0 0 O _T Q O I'J N _a

n y .L
d 2 d
i
i Q
'v O U_ C `l ...
d d W a°
N

2 = ? n i
? Y
N
:3
o
y - - = n`
? rn
n
n S -° m N co N D ?°- co
°-
C
N
c`I
D
co
:J
?
N
N
O
v
d
N
N
C
Q
N
N
I?
C
a_
L
h
O
O
y
?
W
J

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
f33 CFR 3251
OMB APPROVAL' NO. 0710.003
Expires October.1996
Public reportinq burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, Including the time for reviewing instructions,
..: •::r:::i.ig existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
^vr,.nts rularding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
C :nxr;rnent of Defunsu, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
..'.L•:. Ar!irmton. VA 22202-4302: and to the Office of Managomunt and Budget, Pnperwork Reduction Project (0710.0003), Washington, DC
-0(-13. Plon.so DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jtt.iu i,:tion ovor the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigibla waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
f,)r a permit. Disclosurn: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot b
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in'full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLE 1
(ITE1t1S BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT(
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 3. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE icn agent is norrevuiredl
N. C. Dept. of Transportation H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
Planning and Environmental Branch
P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS.'?VIAREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate; T.I.P. Number U-2218
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN W eppilceeie)
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Edgecombe
COUNTY
NC
STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, is" instructions)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS uoppiicuoiel
N/A
N/A
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
3. 1''.ture of Activity (Description of project, incluee all lee lures)
Construction of the NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to US 64 Alternative. Proposed roadway is
a twD lane facility, 24-feet wide with 4-foot paved shoulders. B egins at intersection
tof NC 43 and SR 1230 and ends at the intersection of US 64 Alternate and SR 1250.
19. Project Purpose !Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions!
Public Road
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Building of public road on new location.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
84,500 cubic meters
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled rsesinstrucitonsl
11.26 Acres of wetlands will be permanently.filled while 2.12 acres will be temporarily cleared.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No -L- IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK

24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached drawings.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ' DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is h reby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this
application is o ploto an rata. u r certify that 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
dui tor' ent of pplic
x.30 9
SI NATURE OF APPLICANT D ATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
'U.S.GP0:1994.520•478.82018

I
561 I - °?'\ ' f6 \?Scolland Neck
! I r Avanton r S/ }?
,
1
33
S i L I N t '
put` t 43 3 !
D o EMI 56 Castilla I
v
1 Gold Rock
I / _ ` 6 ile o
'
Wntta ker I7 Ros Cream 6ts P mpa E I E R ! Dlew"
k,
h
b
!
6 ' Justice ®
Mad enlle r ?
'
Red Oak 1
* a
it
Battie0«o Co
I G - f HoD¢ood . z
?
t
D
6 301
, sal r/ Jo I atcRes?
10 39 ` Lawrence 97 175 1 +Wind,
ockylouQt- I1 / 1
J
Il * ` e ?'- - Legg- tt 6 `OakGh os aln cr Qwtsna..b
9 n I Soeed? , rc ^. ^=' Gfslowp
° New Hooe ¢ tAOmer• 7 O
Bunn S NroDa
Mdlc
1 .. 2 I
I :''f
O6 B E ! -
t
? ?'
1
'
laS
1
?`
rtrVt - /
e
9 r 6lA I I
^
\ ,c. (.
y!
?
640,
11 /
^ 1 x?
\ i t '
'
tar Sea
c
`i \
5 6
Ril
Pe rtes r I 97 I +
I / 6
Pilot 1 .? 6 t
Cit 6
I
I! .u•
iEa 11 %
Prmcealle
'6 +iarhor , , /7 !
YVlllli
II
'S 3 ?` :?
'
-
n. ve.
•1.164 77 I harDSDwY 11
7
96
?'t:? f. •r sonvrlle
SlantloDe / // ?\ I
lei el 97 !
o Goneto
?'
'
6
/ 6
?•
/
` _
7 rest t
2 Y?"l, armel[
l?
, A /R
T
o
Elm C+Ir 1" Town
?% .?
'•-"
t Pmeto°s 7Q S f Betne
-
i
71,4 - 68 >/ti. Creek
/ It ?ul6 !} 3
e rr'
iii 1 I \ /
? -at Grass
` J-IE',
' Scale of Miles 7. ' II I ' •' •
Crisp j , 1\ j 11
2 / ?? 1
! 0 5 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48 ?
SlOkes
:Its field
r 777 6 . S - , t 1

_ __..^„? _ `•_t ?
Scale of Kilometer 1
,; t yi e... „ „Bruce s , 3 30

/ J
b
?U

L
LVA.
°
r
.r o
'
3 i e?
° END
PROJECT 7
sy
n ` 1
97
JOGS f, '

0
? -
?
` 1001
??.? ot,
n
:l
t?]I
i

v I
??
1 S. O
r0
7 It]I 1AU ,a)

.I ??
..
ti
".
BEGIN j
I
Tr j '•U:/0 Is PROJECT

J L ? ? ,? i l 1r7r

SCALE
'
o f wtt

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT:8 2`!90101 (U2218)
MAPS LENG-1-=3,4 16 KM (2,12 NW,I
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
1?] J '
I
OF
SHEET
z
0

c

- C!
z

t _
9 .:. C •J
rn

? c; 'z
z
J
a
w I
9
>-
LLJ
I u d
.a
Cl:
Q I J
?? p G
O

Q - d Z
V -
Q ?l 1 C s.
V)
O
cr- Q v, Z y
N F d o
O z z
N /
? ? p d
O
P?

/

Y
W
?

I ? f o
PQ L
f
z
0
Q

?
z

L-Li

?

?
L

c zz '-
Y

CL Z

L-
?
Z J
W

®rl) W N
W v ? c

/ J < Z
/ < < cl: F
O
3
? c

'
Q LO
I
\ I \ ° z
/ I a CII?
z c

. N
\
? Q
J
I

Fa
O C:V

/ C)- I

/ O

Ln
i
z
0

co

z
Lij

CO a Z
It z

-
I/ cl?
Z
o
* o
J? w z z
o
77
o

I <X X

Q ?

I + m ?
C) N O
_ o a
J
U
1 O
E
Ln

z
z f ??
co I z ? :r
1 W
i> N - ci
`.
O-T
n-
a
t I ? w z
m cc
\X f N
ul J ?? E^
U Q p ?i
0 0 ?
t I ?
', z z
I ?f
I 11
s
Q..
U
•? a
w O
L) I =? t c
u. ( f o
I
j i Ln
14
z
0
I C ..
< /? C Z e-e
I\ I < z ?
m
N
- N c
a z
'^ J ?
U F+
L )
v? L]
? z
r
I o ? o
o
ct?
a O
? m
? Q
m ?
I to
V) IT 1
N Q
U i I ? °a
0
U
O
O
E
Xn

z
0
00
W I < ? Z ? ? ? ? y-
I
C'l
ids i I A?_ q zZ
o I -
Ed LU
v
I I ? e? ( z
I ;I? ? b a < z
N I ??
I ? ? ? F F
o ? z
I I ? ?
I I
I I ?
I I c?
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i I
X4
uj
N
I
i
I
E
Ln

z
C L J c Q C
? I
z
? z
I i ? F
w z a
{ - - LLJ N -
7 p -? H z
w c.
F-
z z z
D
N t" CD Y G C
- Q 06
V)
m L
w a
-, a
J
L U z
U O
= z ?
°6
Q L
cn ?
m w ,
w a
(m --.) ( U
M
J ?
U
O c
O
E
?1

z
o
I `? q 3 z ?
I L Q -? P
9
I o ? ! ? Q J cFj ? R
I 2 Z ? J? .:. C Z' Z 'r
Z) °6
Q LL n
I ? LLJ
I w a
Q
u e
z
00
O ?
z
F
0
n- o
a
N o o < c
I
i
0
L,n

z
0
i I I Q
I ?
I ?? I I r? o ? a F ?
I I ?zc,, r MM
? I '"r I I ? r ?'- 9 L L
I I z
I `t.:.1 r U
I I m
.n
I\? ? I I N z
I ? I I ?
I ? - I I o
I - I I
Ii °o Io °z' z
I -r ; ?, ?\? ? I z m z
I i,?11 ??? I o o
I
I ? I
I ?
N I r?
L 1 I
o ? I
I =
I ::D Y
I o N I I v
w a
I =
0
u
O
0
It
I 1
I I 1 I ??? ?? ?.
11 I z v o '? a r,
i Q
I W L; :
I I `c c. :.
I m ? I
o I
I ? I
I Q I I
I
I o! 3
I ? I I ? c
I j .? I I ? F w' -
I of ? ?a
A
o y w
I ? ? _ r o a o
a z
M
a I o I o
W I O ?..
11
. Q
a
u \
to - w 1 a%a
z 4 ?Q/ r
? I ci f3? ci
vi z
W
O 1 ° © ON
I
m
J
L v
_ I
I°I b I Q ° / o
t
1
x,
1 O N /
i
CO
a\ \ 1
v '
¢ Q \
J J \ \ ?
O G ?
i
pW W\ \,\

? \\ \b
i
U-1:
rn
Oy
gs
r
? z
a
? z
z
a < z
F v
z N
w ?
F F
1
17-1

b
d'
U

E

N

0

a -n?Or
a
m
J

\ Q
?\ Q
2 \
C Q
m \ Q
N \
N /

O W
tW?
a s
(`?
?U 0 6 ` ``
mNm f4`I

Y
'/\Y
WW
V
0
a¢
N S
O M
I O ? o

a

? Y
U1

a
z
0

q;

I o ;-, o I z - v ?? .?
c G =

CD

p

o c!

c'!

n
00
'- I =

I LLJ
-
-
° °
I w I
I
v
r
I
.

a
? ??e
J
J I

, I
?
o \ O

f? d z
a
W
. I
3

?\
\
z -t z
Z

CL

o N =
h Q
Q- T
J b

Ily
IL
Q \
\
V) \?? \
?

\ \
J CL
\
i
A
...
U=
\ \ ! ?,

\
\
\

\ Ll
i
z
0
1 ,• z y ? V HL'
<<1 W Z
< In
LLJ
z
z
LL)
Q F
LIJ
I I < LD _ o
<< o
;I r \
LLJ
0
I ti
I . ?
0
41
z
0
13
I jti- 1\1 i jti• \\1 L Q Ct n
.. C.
O C G
C\i ` v z
o
j
< U c 3
c:v Z
W 3 .?
C l-
' FO
0
I w z
LLJ
LLJ i
a `•.t i
c'
m (? ? p d
N o T?
N
?? I \ L
\ \ \ <!
\ \ m ? O
\ \ N
'o
u")
z
0

1 ? ?'?- ? > a z z

w U _ 3
..
\
CL \ z z
LLI
?' .
\.? \
•c
o
z
w ?

w ,-
?
\

cr-

0
0

Ln

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
OI ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O ROSA A. WORSLEY,ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O3 HENRY L. BRAKE 1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
4O JULIA S. RAYBORN 404 MENDENHALL R D.
JAMESTOWN, NC 27282
O5 CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE, JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING, JR. ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O ESTHER B. GRIFFIN UNKNOWN
7O CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O8 MILTON STANLEY UNKNOWN
DAUGHTRIDGE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290401 (U2218)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 43 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET 170 F 19

I R(C)P ERTY (OWNERS
NADIES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NADIES ADDRESSES
O FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
10 WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES. INC. 1200 EAST ST., POB 593
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
w A S e.

Wetland Summary Sheet
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
March 21,1997
PROPOSED DISTURBED
STRUCTURE FILL IN AREA IN
SITE STATION TYPE WETLANDS WETLANDS
(SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES) (SQ. M) (HECTARES) (ACRES)
14+74 to
1 17+85 -L1- 600 RCP 8213.4 0.82 2.03 1900 0.19 0.47
23+52 to 600 RCP &
II 25+52 -L1- 300 FDP 10857.6 1.09 2.68 1267.5 0.13 0.31
26+44 to
III 29+09 -L1- 600 RCP 7908.8 0.79 1.95 1747.5 0.17 0.43
30+82 to
IV 32+20 -L1- 600 RCP 5141.8 0.51 1.27 1160 0.12 0.29
35+40 to
V 36+20 -L1- 300 FDP 2914.5 0.29 0.72 510 0.05 0.13
36+80 to 450 RCP &
VI 37+02 -L1- 300 FDP 1457.2 0.15 0.36 255 0.03 0.06
38+95 to
VII 39+27-L1- 300 FDP 1524.7 0.15 0.38 207 0.02 0.05
40+23 to
VIII 41+64 -L1- 300 FDP 4819.4 0.48 1.19 972.5 0.10 0.24
41+87 to
IX 42+72 -L1- EXTEND FILL 2763.4 0.28 0.68 570 0.06 0.14
TOTAL 45,600.80 4.56 11.26 8589.5 0.86 2.12
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE HEADWATERS.
ALL FILL SLOPES ARE AT A 2:1 RATIO.
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC43 to
US 64 Alternate
SHEET 19 OF 19
!
\ 0
rn CI
- `
D Z 0 t?•- - ,^-•__-^-. Ul0 _d HALIFAX RO'_-?".••--?,,.w
= 0 ^ O `'s --- I r SR 1544
O ,
M C ?I D O I , o r j
M M 10
fir--`.-----------'
FD 0
?.. { @ C]
11 v { ?`
'?J { Q
INV
gi 901
13
S
l
6RE
. ` k ,\O /?`/nJ?/ri{.. _.?__..._.. ?l ??'?`? -.. w,•,._,...301 BYPASS_ ?? L 4!•• i'd..n.
If yam. U?
UAf?/ ) r???-??l ? '? ??/ pJ?\f,???/?" ?t, a ?• ??j .?ii?,' r r??.•.'` .ili1 ?•C+? •? ??`?// ''?, 1
! bS '01 r rq !II
,/? ??-tty?* ©`?'w?©?,yE•SS ?' : I` ?! '? r M-? ? r' ; it '• ?;1 f?l??_ ?. t `? ' ? raY?nR ?'t. ?? ? ?`?? r ? : ?f'j9 d f
1 ro..? '1. ! J f\\ j ? ? .._ 1- , f O r ?? ??? _ '?? ,• llr Cl
' .r?• A., (i? ???? ??3 .?? ?.
'-,_. brew `f,''•?,,? {f r?.. f ' ! ?+' ' / ?- d 1F? 1 3?V ?. F \ ,/ Gt q
\. - "i I 4ac -rte! P ?:i'?-. i .?? `l?? f„!1•I ! i Ij - ?l i.?i •i\/:. !!•-, L?1,j.f''? a,
Z. v
? '• 5 r 'S. '?.' ..,S _ fry I-A \?.. r.,t' "„?,. ;r,?
--,^•`• ? ?' 'ppif ?.Oy l? RD. \`?- ' f i •,1? 1 k'?`, ?? Em i??? \•!?Q'F- ` "f (3,? ??\s y T?? .`'?4(?`? (??, ?1 ??\? ??? nna? I ..
, ? ?Il
_?.. \, q? -._ ?' ? add ?'?, f , , ej ?? ? ?`a ?`'??• ?
0 9T '?
? W •? ?• --? Q •sJ i.N.,, • y?i i `" , 'emu,
!rn as \ k r o ^?`?_.?-•®p W? `> Cb ON
O QU HSVN alr
1_ '!?! rczl US
'Ua 3lt,'pN3'1 i I 14
O ?r/ ,\ p + ?, fir.... S 3 a ~? o I L
?
4p '9
r
?'' / ?? { (? of tr ..? 1. ?.r-•`
-? ? i ? ? { ti? too rj, 4 t:. ? --• ', oszl '
2 f .
oil,
MIT
L ? tD N
t? Lea _
b
fm'z
f 9 () 8 t z 1, fai;5 Q y A
pp0
;0? ?AZd \ C j y
G C CD O \\\- G
+oc$a d??d
c?
r mu

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources @o
3 Division of Environmental Management '? c y/ L
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn4fp
Monica Swihart
From: Eric GalambZ?4
Subject: FONSI for Rocky Mount NC 43 Bypass
Edgecombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.2290401, TIP # U-2218
EHNR # 96-0122, DEM # 11023
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 waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project will impact 5 acres of waters and wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water 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.
nc43bp.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativo Action Employor 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumor paper
C.'- r I
f
Department of Environ nt Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative?? Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date:
U - D / Z2. E -el, ,
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
s U I? lI
fit PAU., a?
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: p L,y? 1 r
c?i c W I D-7?'J a/t? d3 • ?o . oa.
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In•House Review
? Asheville
? Fayetteville
? Mooresville
? Raleigh
? Washington
? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Date:
? Soil and Water
? Coastal Management
? Water Resources
Wildlife
WForest Resources
? Land Resources
? Parks and Recreation
XEnvironmental Management
Monica Swihart
? Marine Fisheries
? Water Planning
? Environmental Health
? Solid Waste Management
?Radiation Protection
?David Foster
?Other (specify)
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
?Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes Incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
nG,url" lu:
Melba McGee
? All R/O Areas
?Air
? Water
? Groundwater
? Land Quality Engineer
? Recreational Consultant
? Coastal Management Consultant
? Others
PWS
PS -,o. . Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

K1 r „ .yl I
S J7I 2 / renton - ?.J _I 1 i T S cotland Neck r 5
'A- L N a I \ y
a I 33 1 ,. le ton- vrl
7m 0 t 43 1$ ?. G , le 'o
Sal Sb / Ca talia cold 2 / S whltakers 1° Rotloeath 25 P myra y
'[ R«k 4 I/??] G E E X01 R
r l Mepl eville 1 Justice r © . 8attl eDao t S t Of"
G HoDgood Car,aDa ?` .
/ Red Oak ] t??• G 3J1 33 aver rice
10 `
t 391° n "` r N porti:*«ROCkp_Pi10Unt l - -+--- 97 52 75 -
Leggett 6 /
NerrNope 7 _ 9 JI SpcedOak Gty OJ aoe7M 4 Quitsna r
e Spring MOmcYC C Hu 2 2'` 7 B E S `til ,. ?a?1 ?b Graotorr
Bu n
e.*pJ Hope / agnvdle J '? 5 + I0. ? (
on c G 99 , 64A J I + J ^. a 6/A 1 Il 1
Y Pearces 1 H 97 CSd G ^ lrlSJeasn ?, ?! / 10 l
Pllso?•1 / / G t ]<, 1. tr nncenlle 1 ?? rs ?,,? 1
?r \ e J fit 1 G 3/ J ? ? DupsDur , G Ii•T2(Cu2 I 7 r II 11 t I ?F`r or Te s.s*?,'?. 5 ?`r1
let
itl l i 2 J 6 SUnnope ?' '*??! I I S 3 ^ - J l I ri.
1 6 f sal c,n .; 10 t 2 1cs Condo tia rsonvile
,f `? ?7 1 p°<'O• Elm City a Pinetoos G - I armelei H Ri
?ulo S :6sej town J t /j 5• Bethel 1
lG
e 7 t ar Grass
'Scale of Mites t 122 J .. 13 30 IG 'I
1 0 5 10 20 30 2 Crisp /• 7 t t 17
deslield I
Stokes
JO :0 30 40 48 1 „ iJ J
I `Scale of Kilometers ?' 77 l Bruce J coal J• t /
oe
P
?w ({'.''.")Y / 1731
u o. . rs.+ J "u -'
° J 1311
_ END
: OJECT
PR
o a
wv_
n o t\,as I r1 / a.
oe ? i
cl.
I?
L2;7 \LLll ?i 1 .7 I
BEGIN
r_'7`•,,:.r, PROJECT ,e
i I ur
.ro :- , 7 , Y lit .
t
SCALE
1 0 t M4! I
.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT:8?`J90101 (U2218)
MAPS
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 13 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET I OF J
G - J;b i
z
0
E- IN
`0 a O
O Z U F' ? ?o
A? y ? z z w
J z
a
F-
w
r N
W A
J >- z
W
J
O N
a a b a
N
a N
V) F
O a
z
N w
O
/
/
/
°
?. j
Ll-
U
/ w O
I I ?
0
1 I ,C.

z
0
co
z C4 °
Cf)
. ? ?+ V Cn Cn V ?

`
a L-.
F ? co
b ° o
M
a
o -r
oz°
c? ?M
ti

Y u
c> ? 0 z z
co z Cl)
J Q
>
?

W d
J
a
w vi e
O / w J a
z
V)
/ I a ? o
/
/ I a C? w
o °
CL
a

N ?
1
N
Q
J
U

?
A
F?

O
/

?1

° CO
.0 1 c7 O
? Q? w ? z z v
o ?. w
V ?
0
z
i LLJ a
a a
J .a
w
_ _ b a
O ?
?.3 V)
0
ea
a
_ w
m U
N ?
O N ! 'Q
O N
Q
' J
U
Ln

,p }
cv
ca
0
0
cv
n
F-'
U
O
;i
a
b
w
CIS
P?
b

O

G
q
O
O
In
U
z
z
w
x

N
G
z
F
W
z
N
W
H
O
z
W

i
? LV
.a
? U
i O
t
J
O
T-
Lr)
i

0
a
C
C
c
z
0
F
cli
(r N
5 O .a

L: A C'4 -
O b 0
G:,

Z p o0
H O
O
O U
c_1
CF. ? C7
G ti' U U

o
?
? O
?'
z
z
w

N
? z
? F
U
r
z
a
? w
F
O
rTl z
k? a
F
b

w

U

cn

O

O ,.

E
Ln
9
z
rr? :7
I ?r W ? v F.1
? x U oR ? cn
I W a -
0 I C+ O b b O ?O
= z I ?o? v ?e
c. U ti U
a06? - A ; cQ? ?' z z F'
N -
cn w I ?' U
z
LL t N ?\
:D I I
a
i
O I i °
I I / b
I I ,' ? a
I I/ b z
I '`fi'g • _ ? H
I I ? ? z
I I °
PTA
t I ?
I I
I I
I I ?
I I ?
I I
1
LLJ
o

z
0
a

H O p `° p 0 O
C)c
H 4 cU?
c?
4
?' c. p ?' U U
W z z
- Q p
w
w
U
z

?
y
A
b z
b ?

w a

_ = z z
N _ ZD A
< LL.
mom
_
(
W Q
0
,
'
(y
C? J
? U

Z ?.
2
C-D Y
pl?
D
Q LL
m W
W Q
0 -?
U
M
a
o
J ?
U
O

Ln
0
z
0

I ? ? o

I fi, U CNi G ?? -
I ? ? G:. p p F' O
I O O U U
I = ? c?-a ~' Q o' z v
I
°d o a w
a
? v
N
I CO U
I w a
o
M
a Cl)
z
v
e
a

O f,l
b ..
b ?

o CL E.
a
z
E==4
N °
o o
I

<
Q
/
?"? U fro

`
I
F?

U

7- O
C
A
?1

z
0
?o
CIA

Q
z
p

I c;., Q a E-O

I c;r = 1
? I I
I ? o
? z
° U
? F
? M
U ? O
I ?3 - I i CL Q Q w a zz
I ? I I ci ?

\\ I
?
I ?I I
I
I .? I
- I
? I t
I
I N
z
I • ? H
I °
?
z

I
I
I /
I
I ?
N
I?
?
I
w

I ? ca ?
=
CD z
i
od
I a
° LL
i
I m g
a
0
I U
I O

C

Ln
VON &3 I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
1 ?
I
I
I
<
I °
m
I o
I '
J
I U
i ?
I
I
I
I
I. .
I
Pi
a
tA
u
co
W
O
I I
I I
i I
I I
I I
I I
I c I
w
o w
u
I I °
cr.
1.! o I a
I J
<
31 O
O
_? W I O
3
Q\Q.
'? er
? a
¢ /
U ?
O W , \
N
C3 W
w ' ?a,O?np?i,CJ
J
u
? O Q\

?il

z
N
A
z
a
z
F
O
z
Q
X y.,
U
U
N
O
c
O

z
x
i Z' co
5 cn 00 L< `r
\,C'???q??, ^ ?N o z?-_? Z.? V cam. a4 O
CJ? ? +
Ae4
4 O
7000p O O U `Mr N
a C g a. U ti
u
\I ?a\ L Q A W /C z z W
Q N K^ N .." I?l
f ji z
Q \
IA.
I / w
N 1
w
u
Y, c
L
a
m
\ \\ N \° ;:. \:
u
N > O?? i ? W ? T
7 `W? \ Tf ?N ?`?? lVlyy=?WW
' 40? \ M .'S' 6]N67
? W W ? Z 0 /W
a
\ Y \ \ . i I / ?u ? S l9 '.
is p
?l
z
0

-+

I
°
I
o p
? LL. I

O

O ?

\ F
q
O
CN

O
I w O b E.., O
I w I
I F z
o u U ' R M
° z z
I w I a ?
w ?
I ? I U D L`, Ga

o
. \ o c
H
\ I
I
J ? z

W
Q U-
J 1
T? t:7
F
z

? I

a
Q.
U X

U? ?? ..?

? cn

Q
e
l
4
U) 0

\

\ c, ? ? A O z U
?a
z
I
\ z AQ
a'
v I \ to U ?
?- w z
o \ cn
> I\ \
< ?
J I \
\ W
Q I
\ U Z
o
?- I \ w z
I w

I z

I o ? ?

O

\ A
I > -
L.Lj ,
f

I :
Ld

a
\
. I J

I O \
f ?

U
E

I ?
O
E
Ln

z
O
00
•? ? ?1 F ? H N '?' ?
a x x v ?
c:. q o a
Oe4
101 V- 0
O z U U .? M L.n
1\1 `ti-s C. ? A ti U U
n ?? ?_ W z z cFa
1\? I1\Ln
\ N
U
Q
z
c
U
z z
In
w
N
z
? z
w o
I- •
z
w
x
w
o ti?
? F-
m a
0
N
N ?
a ?
J
U
\\ <
\\ L U
\ N
\ \ J
U
. - - -.s
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES

O ROSA A. WORSLEY 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MILLARD L. PITT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801'
O ROSA A. WORSLEY,ET AL 2741 COKEY RD.
c/o MARJORIE W. PITT ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
r?3 HENRY L. BRAKE 1830 COKEY RD.
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801

O JULIA S. RAYBORN 404 MENDENHALL RD.
JAMESTOWN.NC 27282
O CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE. JR. 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.
& JAMES F. KING. JR. ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
O ESTHER B. GRIFFIN UNKNOWN
O CLAUDE B. DAUGHTRIDGE 4419 MEADOWBROOK RD.

ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801
O MILTON STANLEY UNKNOWN
DAUGHTRIDGE
--
41- PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O FRANCES E.CREDLE UNKNOWN
10 WILLIAM J. MEDLEY UNKNOWN
II DAUGHTRIDGE ENTERPRISES, INC. 1200 EAST ST.. POB 593
ROCKY MOUNT. NC 27801

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290401 (U2218)
NC 43 BYPASS FROM
NC 45 TO US 64 ALT.
SHEET 18 OF I J
t;-
Wetland Summary Sheet..
Project 8.2290401 (U-2218)
SITE STATION PROPOSED FILL IN WETLANDS'
STRUCTURE
TYPE (sq. m.) (hectares) (acres)
1 14+74 to 600 RCP 8245.4" 0.82 2.02
17+85-1-1-
11 23+52 to 600 RCP & 6238.6 0.62 1.53
25+52 -1-1- 300 FDP
III 26+44 to 600 RCP 7811.3 0.78 1.93
29+09-L1-
IV 30+82 to 600 RCP 5196.8 0.52 1.28
32+59 -L1-
V 35+40 to 300 FDP 2491.3 0.25 0.62
36+20-L1-
VI 36+80 to 450 RCP & 850.4 0.08 0.2
37+02 -1-1- 300 FDP
VII 38+95 to 300 FDP 1524.7 0.15 0.37
39+27-1-1-
VIII 40+23 to 300 FDP 4458.4 0.45 1.11
41+64-L1-
IX 41+87 to EXTEND FILL 2745.9 0.27 0.67
42+72 -L1-
TOTAL 39,562.80 3.94 9.73
NOTE: ALL SITES ARE ABOVE H EADWATERS.
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project 8.2290401 U-2218
Edgecombe County
NC 43 Bypass from NC 43 to
US 64 Alternate
SHEET 19 OF 19
?4
•
NC 43 Bypass
From NC 43 to US 64 Alternate
Rocky Mount
Edgecombe County
State Project No. 8.2290401
F. A. Project M-8746(1)
T.I.P. U-2218
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 23 U.S.C. 128(A)
Approved:
ate H. Fran in Vic P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
a e S ?Nic o Gra P. E., Division Administrator
F(Feder Highway Administration

NC 43 Bypass
From NC 43 to US 64 Alternate
Rocky Mount
Edgecombe County
State Project No. 8.2290401
F. A. Project M-8746(1)
T.I.P. U-2218
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
June, 1995
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
C arence W. Co eman, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Q. AA'4
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head •.••"""
??.•'??H CAROB ,,,,
?';eOF[SS/4%*1 ,s
t ?
G _ SEAL
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Ma aget 6944 =
Planning and Environmental Branch q ?.f' Q?;'?,;
?••NCINE?.•J`•`
•, yqR •......••OP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Type of Action F-1
II. Description of the Proposed Action F-1
III. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment F-2
IV. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment F-2
V. Public Hearing F-4
VI. Revisions and Additions to the
Environmental Assessment F-4
VII. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact F-5
Appendix

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
The type and level of wetland mitigation will be determined in
compliance with the Clean Water Act once the type of permit is clear.
It is anticipated that the project will impact two (2) geodetic
markers. The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to project
construction.

Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation in
Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative
action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct the NC 43 Bypass in Rocky Mount from NC 43
to US 64 Alternate in Edgecombe County (see Figure 1). The proposed
project is to construct a two-lane facility with two overpass bridges
spanning US 64 Bypass on new location, from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. The
total project length is 2.2 miles. This project also includes the
construction of a bridge over the CSX Transportation Railway (See Figure 3
of Environmental Assessment in Appendix).
The proposed improvements are those recommended in the Environmental
Assessment (Recommended West Alternative), which provide a two-lane ,
24-foot, roadway with four-foot paved shoulders. The recommended cross
section for both bridges over US 64 is a 32-foot clear structure width.
The total length of the overpass bridges is 130 feet. A 32-foot structure
width is recommended with a 23-foot minimum vertical clearance for the
bridge over the CSX Transportation Railway. The total length of this
bridge is 160 feet. An 80-foot right-of-way width is recommended for the
proposed improvements except in the vicinity of the proposed bridges. The
two bridges over US 64 will require 60 feet of additional right-of-way.
One hundred feet of additional right-of-way is needed for the railroad
overpass. The proposed improvement will also require the installation of
a new signal at the US 64/Springfield Road intersection. The total cost
estimate of the project is $4,324,750, including $604,750 for right-of-way
and $3,720,000 for construction. By comparison, the Transportation
F-2
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) appropriates a total funding $3,600,000 for
the project, including $250,000 for right-of-way and $3,050,000 for
construction. Therefore, the estimated project exceeds the T.I.P.
funding by $724,750. This is a federal aid project.
III. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) were circulated to the
federal, state, and local agencies listed below. Agencies from which
written comment were received are denoted by and asterisk (*).
Additionally, the EA was made available to the public.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency - Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of
Archives and History
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*City of Rocky Mount
*N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
IV. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Written comments on the EA were received from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. A copy of this letter is included in the Appendix. The
following is a summary of their comments which required a response.
A. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Comment:
The EA states (p. 1) that the proposed project is a portion of the
"circumferential loop" around the City of Rocky Mount. The Service
has consistently recommended that such perimeter highways be
considered as a whole and not be submitted for consideration in a
segmented manner. While the wetland impact of the alternatives for
this 2.2 mile segment will range from approximately 3.8 to 7.6 acres,
we believe that the wetland impacts for the entire Rocky Mount
perimeter highway may likely be considerably higher. Therefore, the
Service recommends that any permit application to the Corps of
Engineers address the issue of cumulative wetland impacts of the
entire Rocky Mount loop. Further, such information should be
disclosed in future similar projects so as to fully describe the
proposed projects direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts.
Response:
While the project is part of a proposed circumferential loop around
the City of Rocky Mount, the project the project has independent
utility as an NC 43 Bypass of Rocky Mount via existing US 64 Bypass.
Presently, there is not a direct north/south route on the east side
F-3
of Rocky Mount. The project will provide this north/south
connection, allowing improved access to the eastern portion of the
city and eliminating the need for traffic to travel through the
center of the city on existing radial routes. The project has
logical termini that are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. At
the southern terminus, the project will decrease traffic on NC 43.
At the northern terminus, the project will provide improved access to
US 64 Bypass. After study of the areas surrounding the project
termini, it is concluded that construction of the project will not
restrict other transportation improvements which are consistent with
the Thoroughfare Plan. Even though the project is almost entirely on
new location, the recommended alignment minimizes environmental and
residential impacts.
2. Comment:
"Based on data in the EA, the center alternate appears to have the
shortest and most direct route. The center alternative also utilizes
the existing Fosteri Road just south of US 64 while both the east and
west alternatives are on new location. The center alternative also
would produce the lowest total impacts on wet pine flatwoods, the
only wetland community mentioned in the EA. The EA states that the
center alternative would impact a total of 3.8 acres of wetland pine
flatwoods while impacts for the east and west alternatives would be
7.6 and 5.0 acres, respectively. Therefore, the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service recommends that the NCDOT reconsider the use of the
center alternative prior to a determination of no significant
impact."
Response:
The NCDOT appreciates the Service's recommendation: however, in the
opinion of the NCDOT, the West Alternative represents the least
environmentally damaging, most practical alternative.
The center alternative will produce more noise impacts than the
recommended alternative. In addition, the overpass bridges for this
alignment would require an excessive amount of fill in areas along
Fosteri Drive impacting several residential properties and making
driveway connections difficult. The center alternative will also
route more traffic over an existing low volume subdivision street
impacting the established neighborhood on Fosteri Drive. Even
though the recommended West Alternative impacts 1.2 acres more of
wetlands than the Center Alternative, the Center Alternative actually
impacts more undisturbed wetlands (See N. C. Wildlife Resource
Commission letter in the Appendix).
3. Comment:
Enclosed is an updated list of Federally-protected species for
Edgecombe County; it includes the addition of the Dismal Swamp
southeastern shrew (DSSS) (Sorex longirostris fisheri). This small
insectivore inhabits pocosins and lowland forests. The Service
recommends that NCDOT take all necessary measures to assess the
potential impacts of the proposed project on this listed taxon.
F-4
4.
Response:
Recent consultations with the scientific community, including members
of the Raleigh Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service confirms
that the Service has reconsidered its recent decision to recognize an
expanded range for the DSSS. Based upon this decision, Edgecombe
County lies well outside the putative range of the DSSS and no
Section 7 consultation will be required.
Comment:
The EA does address (p. 29-30) potential impacts to the Tar River
spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and it concludes that suitable
habitat does not exist in the project area for this species. While
the Service is pleased that field surveys were conducted for this
species, we request an opportunity to review the survey methodology
prior to providing NCDOT with our determination whether this proposed
action is likely to affect this listed species.
Response:
John Alderman of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
conducted surveys in project area streams under a collection
agreement between the NCDOT and the NCWRC. A copy of his report is
being sent to the Service for their consideration.
B. City of Rocky Mount
1. Comment:
The report Summary, page ii, and Section V.B, page 8, both indicate
that Rocky Mount does not currently offer public transportation.
This incorrect, as the City has a bus system that operates within the
city limits. Public transit is not offered in the area immediately
impacted by this project, and expansion to service this area is not
required.
Response:
2.
The City of Rocky Mount does have public transportation. However,
there is no public transportation within the vicinity of the project.
Comment:
Section I., page 1, states a total project cost of $4,171,750, which
is inconsistent with an estimate of $4,324,750 stated elsewhere in
the document.
Response:
0
The correct estimated cost of the project is $4,324,750.

F-5
3. Comment:
Section III., A, B, & C, pages 2 & 3, incorrectly refers to Raleigh
Street (US 64 Alternate) as Raleigh Road.
Response:
See Section VI., "REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT."
4. Comment:
Section IV., M, page 6, states that the only signalized location
included in this project is the intersection of US 64 Alternate and
Springfield Road (SR 1250), and that all other intersections along
the new route will be STOP controlled on the minor approach. Among
these is the intersection of Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232) and the
proposed NC 43 Bypass.
Although it does to strictly meet the MUTCD warrant requirements, .
this is an example of two intersecting routes that fall somewhere
between the "major" and "minor" classifications. While the Year 1994
volumes for both Meadowbrook Road and the proposed bypass fall short
of the minimum requirements for a "major" route, both exceed the
minimums for the "minor" designation (Warrant 2). The projections
for the design Year 2014 clearly demonstrate a need for signalization
(Warrant 1).
Response:
NCDOT has analyzed the intersection of the Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232)
and the proposed NC 43 Bypass and concluded that in the design year a
traffic signal is warranted. The traffic signal is now a part of the
proposed project. However, the additional cost that this signal will
incur is not included in the current cost estimate.
5. Comment:
In addition to carrying significant volumes , the geometrics of the
intersection are also a concern. Although the design may conform to
Department standards, the extreme skew of the intersection and
approach speeds above 45 miles per hour increases accident potential
at this location (The Meadowbrook Road\NC 43 Bypass intersection).
Response:
The NCDOT will design the roadway such that the subject intersection
would have adequate sight distance in order to minimize the potential
for accidents.
C. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our concerns regarding
wildlife and fishery resources in the project area. However, we
remain concerned that no control of access is proposed for this
F-6
D.
E.
F.
1.
project. Projects with unrestricted access encourage development at
the expense of the natural resources of the State, and transportation
improvements are quickly negated by strip development and new
industrial entrances. Loss of adjacent wildlife habitat can be
minimized by designing roadways as controlled access facilities.
Response:
Partial control of access is currently being considered for the
proposed project. Since there is residential development presently
located along the project corridor, DOT will try to limit each parcel
to one driveway access point.
N. C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Comment:
Why has DOT not proposed a minimum of partial control of access?
This segment will serve as part of a circumferential loop (bypass)
for the City of Rocky Mount. DEM believes that if access is
controlled, a bypass of a bypass may not need to be constructed
resulting in further wetland loss.
Response:
See Section IV., PART C, "COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT."
Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources Division of
Environmental Health
Comment:
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,
plans for the water relocation must be submitted to the Division of
Environmental Health, Public Water supply Section, Plan review
Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street Raleigh, North Carolina.
Response:
If existing water lines will be relocated, NCDOT will submit plans to
the Division of Environmental Health.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Land
Resources
Comment:
This project will impact two (2) geodetic markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P. 0. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N. C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N. C. General Statute 102-4.

F-7
Response:
The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to project
construction by NCDOT.
2. Comment:
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from
the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
Response:
The NCDOT will prepare the erosion and sedimentation control plans
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
G. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Forestry
1. Comment:
The West Alternative (Recommended) will impact 17.1 acres of
woodland.
Response:
So noted.
2. Comment:
The ROW Contractor should make all efforts possible to salvage
merchantable trees for pulpwood and sawtimber that have to be cut to
permit construction.
Response:
The NCDOT's general contract for right-of-way clearing provides the
opportunity for contractors to market saleable trees.
3. Comment:
Trees outside construction limits should be protected from damaging
construction activities.
Response:
NCDOT will make the effort to ensure that trees outside construction
limits be protected from damaging construction activities.
F-8
H. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
1. From the perspective of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, based on
the information in the environmental assessment, the Center
Alternative would have the lowest wetland impacts. The West
Alternative would be the second preferred alternative based on
wetland impacts. The East Alternative, and any alternatives
including the Southern Alternative, would be the least preferred.
Response:
The West Alternative is recommended because it reduces noise impacts,
avoids routing traffic over existing low volume subdivision streets,
is slightly shorter in length than the Center and East alignments,
and has a more desirable alignment from an engineering standpoint.
2. Comment:
The assessment did not discuss any design alternatives using existing
roadways to the east of the study corridor, such as SR's, 1229,1232,
and 1233, which would be expected to substantially decrease wetland
impacts, including minor relocations of the proposed roadway to
minimize the footprint within wetlands and use of steeper fill
slopes.
Response:
If SR's 1229, 1232, and 1233 were to be utilized for this project,
each road would would have to be realigned in order to tie into
Springfield Road (SR 1250) and form a continuous part of the loop
system. The realignment of these roads would likely involve
wetlands, impact residences and increase construction costs.
3. Comment:
The information in the assessment is insufficient to address
qualitative aspects of wetland impacts. The preferred alternative
with respect to wetlands may be reconsidered when specific,
qualitative information is presented.
Response:
NCDOT will work to provide the Corps with the qualitative information
that is needed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the Environmental Assessment a public
hearing was held on July 14, 1994 at the Rocky Mount City Council
Chambers. Approximately 60 citizens attended the hearing, and 19 made
comments for the record. 13 NCDOT representatives were present at the

4 F-9
public hearing. The majority of persons who offered comments on the
proposed improvements supported the project. Most of the persons who
offered comments were concerned about how the project will affect their
property. Principal topics of concerns were intersection improvements,
right-of-way, site distances, and noise levels that the project will
induce. All comments and questions were satisfactorily addressed at the
hearing and none of the concerns revealed a potential for significant
impacts resulting from the project as proposed. A transcript of the
hearing is on file with the N. C. Division of Highways.
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Recommended Alignment
There have been no revisions to the recommended alignment (West
Alternate) that was in the Environmental Assessment and subsequently shown
at the Public Hearing.
B. Cost Estimates
The estimated project cost presented in the Environmental Assessment
was $4,324,750, which includes $3,720,000 for construction and $604,750
for right-of-way. The cost of the project has not been revised at this
time.
C. Wetland Findings
Wetlands located within the project right-of-way include: 2.2 acres
of acres of wet pine flatwood and 2.8 acres of disturbed wet pine
flatwood. All affected wetland sites identified in the project area will
be covered by the Nationwide Permit as being " minor road crossing fill"
or "above headwaters". In all drainage/wetland areas, NCDOT will attempt
to employ a policy of minimization along with the use for "best management
practices" during the construction period.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The comments received on the Environmental Assessment did not reveal
any significant impacts resulting from the proposed NC 43 Bypass. As
stated in the EA, the recommended improvements would result in the the
relocation of I residence. It was determined that the project will not
result in the fragmentation of any established neighborhoods.
Based upon study of the proposed project as presented in the EA, and
upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the
finding of the N. C. Department of Transportation that the Recommended
West Alternative project will not have a significant impact upon the human
environment. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on
natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or
local significance. The project will not have significant impact on air,
noise, or water quality in Edgecombe County. The project is consistent
with plans and goals that have been adopted by the City of Rocky Mount and
the State of North Carolina.
F-10
Therefore, an
analysis will not
determined that a
project.
Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental
be required and for all these reasons it has been
Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this
CC/plr
FAU .32 33 1332
I
FAU 9. .07
.26
64
1232 A
END
1250
? PROJECT
1275
64
Q 1330
I
11234
T
D
N
?m
I
1329
1232
:: •?......r:i?: , • S/
1
1
RA/1ROA0
BEGIN \ 16
PROJECT \ 1230
43
v'7
r
1324
1328 •09
I
1331
:54
G
1231
.11
1230
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 43 BYPASS
FROM NC 43 TO US 64 ALTERNATE
ROCKY MOUNT
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2218
FIGURE 2
= _ - - ?WM,.w 13
Rosh
L
• - - - _ - ?Bsttise«o a4
ockY-Mount_
- - _ _ - 9 ? ? Swee\
S B E
r
N 64A
L:z cu 4 r 44
i fOWO ' Inncrnns
As ur /) 238 1 1 11 1 1 1
-A 1 a comto T^ ?
t Prrritoos
( r /
ri9isbcd urso
1 ?•
FEU 72 1772
77 F1U .09 .07 .26 r
6A
A
177j
6A
BUS.12$0 .N
END
° PROJECT
4]
l:1
C •}:•:? .Q 1370
1729
1 '•:::?
172A
0
1728 0 .os
9 -
.07
1331
1
B
47 I o
I
127.
? I t R-11(ROAO
T
> T
C > 1 1271
Feu i BEGIN
;1 j fxr. PROJECT t e 11 1230
1230
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
< i I TRANSPORTATION
/ 47
11,1 / DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 43 BYPASS
FROM NC 43 TO US 64 ALTERNATE
ROCKY MOUNT
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2218
FIG. 1
r

t
?PP?EN!i%PRIDE I ?
United States Department of the Interior AMERICA®
N O
? a
1+ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
qCH 3 ?55- 9 Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
! ` C E 1
November 29, 1994 jr`c'V
DEC 0 1 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch pIV(SIC'?1 C?
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation Ci f HIGHWAIYS
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, :forth Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of October 24,•1994 providing the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with a copy of the Administrative Action and
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the construction of the NC 43 bypass, City of
Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County, North Carolina (T.I.P. No. U-2218). This report
is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The EA assesses the proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to construct a NC 43 bypass east-southeast of the City of Rocky Mount
from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. The proposed project would be a two-lane facility
with two overpass bridges spanning US 64 on new location. The total project
length would be approximately 2.2 miles. The project would require the
construction of a bridge over the CSX railroad line. The project is designated
as part of the perimeter, bypass loop around the City of Rocky Mount.
General Comments
Section II of the EA presents an adequate discussion of the need for the proposed
project. Section V presents a thorough discussion on the alternatives
considered.
The EA states (p. 1) that the proposed project is a portion of the
"circumferential loop" around the City of Rb-ky Ur.unt The service has
consistently recommended that such perimeter highways be considered as a wnole
and not be submitted for consideration in a segmented manner. While the wetland
impact of the alternatives for this 2.2 mile segment will range from
approximately 3.8 to 7.6 acres, we believe that the wetland impacts for the
entire Rocky Mount perimeter highway may likely be considerably higher.
Therefore, the Service recommends that any permit application to the Corps of
Engineers address the issue of cumulative wetland impacts of the entire Rocky
Mount loop. Further, such information should be disclosed in future similar
projects so as to fully describe the proposed projects direct, indirect,
secondary and cumulative impacts.
Specific Comments
Regarding the selection of the proposed route, the Service is pleased that the
northern and southern terminals make use of existing roads. Between the
terminals the NCDOT considered three possible route: 1) an east alternative, 2)
a center alternative, and 3) a west alternative, which is currently recommended.
It .

Based on data in the EA, the center alternative appears to be the shortest and
most direct route. The center alternative also utilizes the existing Fosteri
Road just south of US 64 while both the east and west alternatives are on new
location. The center alternative also would produce the lowest total impacts on
wet pine flatwoods, the only wetland community mentioned in EA. The EA states
(p. 24) that the center alternative would impact a total of 3.8 acres of wetland
pine flatwoods while impacts for the east and west alternative would be 7.6 and
5.0 acres, respectively. Therefore, the service recommends that the NCDOT
reconsider the use of the center alternative prior to a determination of no
significant impact.
The Service is pleased that NCDOT proposes (p. 29) to restore some areas adjacent
to disturbed wetlands. The restoration of native vegetation in the these area
would serve to minimize net habitat losses due to construction.
Enclosed is an updated list of Federally-protected species for Edgecombe County;
it includes the addition of the Dismal Swamp southeastertr shrew (Sorex
longirostris fisheri). This small insectivore inhabits pocosins and lowland
forests. The Service recommends that NCDOT take all necessary measures to assess
the potential impacts of the proposed project on this listed taxon.
The EA does address (p. 29-30) potential impacts to the Tar River spiny mussel
(Elliptio steinstansana) and it concludes that suitable habitat does not exist
in the project area for this species. While the Service is pleased that field
surveys were conducted for this species, we request an opportunity to review the
survey methodology prior to providing NCDOT with our determination whether this
proposed action is likely to affect this listed species..
Due to the absence, of data regarding potential impacts to the Dismal Swamp
southeastern shrew and insufficient information on the basis for declaring that
there would be no impact on the Tar River spiny mussel, the requirements of
Section 7 of the ESA have not been satisfied.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at (919)-856-4520, ext 27.
Sincerely yours, /
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor

L

REVISED SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
Edgecombe County
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - E
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex lonoirostris fisheri) - T
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.
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Elliptio lanceolata) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masons) - C2
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) - C2
I.

DEC 0 1 1994 -
DIVISIG'\'OF _;-'
HIGHWAYS
?I1-.?ENT OF
ENGWEERING
November 29, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch t
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: NC 43 Bypass, Rocky Mount/Edgecombe County
State Project 8.2290401, F.A Project M-8746(1),
T.I.P. U-2218
Dear Mr. Vick:
The City of Rocky Mount has reviewed the environmental assessment
report for the proposed NC 43 Bypass in Rocky Mount/Edgecombe
County and offers the following for your consideration.
1. The report Summary, page ii, and Section V.B, page 8, both
indicate that Rocky Mount does not currently offer public
transportation. This is incorrect, as the City has a bus
system that operates within the city limits. Public
transit is not offered in the area immediately impacted by
this project, and expansion to service this area is not
anticipated.
2. Section I., page 1, states a total project cost of
$4,171,750, which is inconsistent with an estimate of
$4,324,750 stated elsewhere in the document.
3. Section III., A, B, & C, pages 2 & 3, incorrectly refers
to Raleigh Street (US 64 Alternate) as Raleigh Road.
4. The first sentence in Section VIII. B, page 34, is
incomplete.
One Government Plaza • Post Office Box 1150 Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802-1180
Telephone[phone] Fax [phone]
,
CM OF ROCKY MOUNT
6

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 3
November 29, 1994
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to participate in
the review process. Let us know if you have any questions or if we
can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
F THE O 14P
HEk qV.c?Donald
Traffic Engineer
MVM/wea
Enclosures
c Jimmy Lynch, P.E.
Tom Turnage
Peter Varney
Russell Byrd, P.E.
Nancy Nixon
State Traffic Engineer
Division 4 Traffic Engineer
Assistant City Manager
Director of Engineering
Transportation Planner

s
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
November 29, 1994
5. Section IV. M, page 6, states that the only signalized
location included in this project is the intersection of
US 64 Alternate and Springfield Road (SR 1250), and that
all other intersections along the new route will be STOP
controlled on the minor approach. Among these is the
intersection of Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232) and the
proposed NC 43 Bypass.
r
Although it does not strictly meet the MUTCD warrant
requirements, this is an example of-two i..tersecting
routes that fall somewhere between the "major" and "minor"
classifications. While the Year 1994 volumes for both
Meadowbrook Road and the proposed bypass fall short of the
minimum requirements for a "major" route, both exceed the
minimums for the "minor" designation (Warrant 2). The
projections for the design Year 2014 clearly demonstrate a
need for signalization (Warrant 1).
In addition to carrying
geometries of the inter;
Although the design may
the extreme skew of the
above 45 miles per hour
this location.
significant volumes, the
section are also a concern.
conform to Department standards,
intersection and approach speeds
increases accident potential at
Enclosed is a letter we received from Mrs. Ann L. Ayers of
Rocky Mount, expressing concern over the Department's
determination that a signal was not necessary at this
location, as well as our response to her. The City of
Rocky Mount shares Mrs. Ayers concerns and encourages the
Department to take a second look at this intersection
prior to construction. The recent annexation of this area
by the City makes it very attractive for a:ic
residential development, and with project completion
several years away, it is possible that volumes on
Meadowbrook Road, Springfield Road, US 64 Alternate, and
NC 43 could increase significantly before this new
connector is open to traffic.
It
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs • LA????
James B. Hunt, Governor ® ? H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee
REF: EA NC 43 Bypass, Edgecombe County, 95-0309
DATE: December 14, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

f[7?7
P.O. Box 27687, Rcleigh. North Ccrolino 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An ccuo Ccccrn nit,/A";rmc-ive :.crcn ::mcteyer !01. recycled/ 10:a pest consumer peper

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. E2
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
r
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo ei'nato
Habitat Conservation Program -
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the NC
•43 Bvpass, from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate in Rocky
Mount, Edgecombe County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-2218, SCH Project No. 95-0309.
Staff biologist's of the N. C. wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject EA and are
familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project- impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves the construction of an NC
43 Bypass of Rocky Mount from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. The
proposed roadway will be a two lane facility on new location
with no control of access. The project length is
approximately 2.2 miles. Wildlife habitat losses include
approximately 8.4 acres of forested lands with approximately
5.0 acres of wetland impacts anticipated.
NCDOT has identified the western alternative as the
preferred alignment. This alignment has an estimated 5.0
acres of wetland impacts, the second highest of the three
alternatives studied. 111thouah the center alternative
impacts less total wetland acreage, it does impact more
undisturbed wetlands.

t
Memo Pace 2 December 6, 1994
0
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our concerns
regarding wildlife and fishery resources in the project
area. However, we remain concerned that no control of
access is proposed for this project. Projects with
unrestricted access encourage development at the expense of
the natural resources of the State, and transportation
improvements are quickly negated by strip development and
new industrial entrances. Lose of adjacent wildlife habitat
can be minimized by designing roadways as controlled access
facilities.
At this time, we will concur with the EA for this
project and anticipate our concurrence with the-upcoming
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). However, we
request that NCDOT continue to implement Best Management
Practices to minimize wetland impacts and provide mitigation
for unavoidable impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to commert on this EA.
If we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone].
CC: Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
David Dell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 rA
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
?--?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 12, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn6g r
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galambf?
Subject: EA for Rocky Mount, NC 43 Bypass
Edgecombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.2290401, TIP #U-2218 -
EHNR # 94-0309, DEM WO # 10787 ...
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact 5 acres of wetlands.
All bodies of water in the state are classified for their best use. Intermittent or
unnamed tributaries (UT) always carry the same classification as the named stream
they flow into. It appears that an UT to Cowlick Branch will be impacted. Cowlick
Branch is classified C NSW.
DEM appreciates DOT's commitment to restore disturbed wetlands with native
vegetation in an effort to mitigate losses from project construction (page 29). DOT
proposes to restore wetlands at a 1:1 ratio.
Why has DOT not proposed a minimum of partial control of access? This segment
will serve as a part of a circumferential loop (bypass) for the City of Rocky Mount.
DEM believes that if access is controlled, a bypass of a bypass may not need to be
constructed resulting in further wetland loss.
Endorsement of the EA by DEM does 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.
nc43bp.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Rdeigh. North Carorina 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Cpportunty Affirmative Acnon Emoloyer 50%recycfed/ 10% post consumer pcper

Clayton, North Carolina
November 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Rocky Mount, NC 43 Bypass on New Location From NC 43 to US
64 Alternate in Edgecombe County
PROJECT: #94-0309, T1P9 U-2218
DUE DATE: 12-2-94
We have reviewed the above subject DOT document and have the following comments:
1. The West Alternative (Recommended) will impact 17.1 acres of woodland.
2. The ROW Contractor should make all efforts possible to salvage merchantable trees for
pulpwood and sawtimber that have to be cut to permit construction.
3. Trees outside construction limits should be protected from damaging construction
activities.
4. We have no problems with this project.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Roy Butler - D5
File

N V I. I.:
rltcr- \??ne?% f cc:t heVlew v,.CSpOtac
.__._...Y_S.- G.. - ----
.j .
i
'a,dJ l..yPC Of Project
• r
I. T he aU plLC;lt?l' S1 1Ot?ld be advised ch..'( plans and Spe-C•lflcaC1011S for :ill wace - S},.Scc_
L_-J unprovernencs rnusc beapprovcd by the Divisioli of Ll:vironn:encal health prior co:che•a?ia.
of a contract or the iniclatiou of conscrucuoli (as requ1 ed by 15A NCAC 13C .0300 et. sez
For inform-Acioli, COL1CaCl• the Public W-Au.-v Supply Se_iion, (919) '133-246Q.
r? This-project will be- classified as a non-coinmuriicy ouc is water supply and 1-1-I11sc comply wi
scateana federal drinl:ir.;water i110nllOl't11- reQlI1rC111encs. 1 OI- abet ;nformac:oti t e ap•p ic7-
L.. J
should contact the Public Watc: Supply Seccion, (91?'I 733-<<21.
• •• ecc• of adjac.
.If this project is consclucted as proposed, we Rill reco-nmend closure of L
L_J Viace:•s to the harvest of shellfish. For information :-egardin; the .sce!l:is-? sanitation pro
(c' 9) 827.
in, the app+lic:int shoudc' contact t,4e Shellfish Srnlcat:?n Branch ,c 7256
The slpoil•disposal area(s) proposed for this Pro'* rna: produce a nioseiiico breeding•prori
plicanc • sh C
i --? For information concerning appropriate mosquito :ont:ol . measLr:s, the zp_
contact the Public F-icalth Pest Management. Section c [phone].
The applicant should be adviseci that priOC to the removal or 6--mol,IciOn of- di.i pid
1-7 structures, an eYunslve rodent cor+_u of program -m;,. be nccessa:; i_ or?'e: co•prevent
The :.cormaclon.co!:Ce.r:a113n rGdeilt' coo
lnloCaClon Of L he rod-cats Cc adllccliC aSCa:.
concur the local he:ich depa-unem or chc Pubiic 'r:_alch Pest hha::a;ement.5ecc'or
733-6407.
.J
T1ae applicant should be advised co coacact the local health de;;artment re,ardi>=g
1 0- P 1e e?
requircments for scpt:C Min": lnsmllac:Or:S tas regi•lir?_ uhder 15A . 1\`•f'L? '"` '
For lnform?clon c^r'-C::r-mm,? :e'tlr tank and ocrcr nn-slr.r waste Glscos:ll mctllods, concac
C-l•Sicc -`<?aster; ace. S__t:or. a= a19; 7.=-2895
r--? • The applicant should ;Oc advlsc;l co cor.lrt::l tile. iota! hcalch del?r.i.u:enc ri'hard.ng the s:.:
t._ ...? IM 1116c:s rcg11i1•ed for this (;rf>>c:rt
if CY1tiL'1111 j w:1CG ll!:?:.'. will hC ICjOl:1CC;: Cllll'Inh Ci?:7 CvI1SC1tSCl:i011 . iUi Elie watt
I..- 1 _ -
I!-j rclocatiott Inusc be sui?mlctcd ca th% lli:lslon a(. Ell Ir?nlncntal i-: aril, 1'u!,lic Watc:
ry :; Sl'LCCt r?lltlt:, ??ii??) i ?
/ '1 i M.
Scetlon, Plan 1,\t_vle4J hearth, 330 St.
CLC
Section/Branch. Dace
... ?'r•i'y-iii. t'?. .? ..
..ZL
7 7 19
State of North Carolina Ley-j
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G, Marty, Govemor PROJECT R rv-13 7 COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
.Project Number: cl Y_o 3o-7 County: FrJG E2a-r256-
Project Name:
. U ?aq
Geodetic Survev
.
This project will impact Z geodetic surveylmarkersr N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construct.on at P.O. Box. 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Uelgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
P.n Equal Opponunlty AlSrmadve Action Employer
s:-
State of North Caroiina Hevlawing
SIGH REGIONAL urrit-
t of Environment, Health, and Natura l Resources
Deparlmen Project Number: Due Dale:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS q. ?? C ?? _ ?_ ry.St
ed that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtain
determin ed in
After review of this project it has been
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
d to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
Questions regarding these permits should be addresse
lative to these plans and permits are available from the same No rmal Proce.
All applications, information and guidelines re Time
Regional Office. (statutory err

mit)
ATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Rory
SPECIAL APPLIC
PERMITS
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
30 days

treatment
wastewater
operate
construct d
permit
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application

(90 days)
rawer
s, sewer
extensions, a
system
ii
?
technical conference usual
syFtams not discharging into slats surface waters. 90.120 day
permit to discharge into surface water andlor
NPOES • Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.

Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
i

(NiAI
permit operate and construct wastewater facilities Y
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES. eo
r
1J discharging into state surface waters.
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 Days
r
Pre-application technics conference usually necessary
(NIA)
? Water use Permit
7 days
Complete application must be received and permit issued (15 day,
? Well Construction Permit prior to the installation at a well. ..
Application copy must be served on esolipolacent riparian properly

nference usual. Filling
55 say
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application co
Department of
C
Fill from N AGO aa?
? Dredge and Fill Permit .
.
may require Easement to
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
60 day

er
Pollution
d operate Air
Permit to construct
15A NCAC 21H.06
NIA
190 aa?
as
Em
?
facilities andlor nd/or Emission Sources as p
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 ca
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
otification and removal NIA
' ? NCAC 20.0525 which requires n
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Grouo l90 do
• 919.733-0820.
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
land disturbing activity. An erosion d sed,menlatie
The Setiimt:.lalion Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any

fice
pro
t daccompanyOuality s10
with
fil
to
acres
e I
g
n
?
o
r
d

0 C:
130 c
if
n quire
' ? control plan will
A one fee or of 0 SW for
ac
first
he
v
off Carl mus
acr
al
o
r each aad
and 20 ,00 f
re
130 c
1
.
actii
rnni
da s be
t be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 mus
9ona amount
EHNR
.
I On-site 'Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with
f affectee lano Any area 3G c
. vt::es wets type mine and number of acres o
The appropriate bond
rmited (60 c
? Mining Permit .
mined greater than one acre must be pe
fore the permit can be issued.
b
_ e
must be receiv ed
ection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit
i 1 C
IM1
r-1 North Carolina Burning permit
L
+ nsp
on-site
e:ceecs + days
.
_
• 12
Permit
Clearance
On•sit! inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resource? required "if more
round clearing activities are involved. Inspections
f
1%
" 1c
(n
s
witth h organic sod
Y Q CouM Special fCS Grin ound coastal N.C. g
•eres o
than
should be requested At leas, ton days before actt:Sl burn is Dlannea.
90.1;
- Z.
It
WA
0 Oil Refining Facilities
.
' 11 permit required. a0pik:.ion 60 days before ;,&g:l: construction.
s JO
.
Applicant must rare N.C. qualiliea engineer to: prepare plan
to EHNR aoorov.
inspect cuas:ruction, cartel construction is =:or:inq
ito control program And 16C
Dam Safety Pettnil
' ee plans, ttay also requue ;ermd under mosqu
Corps-a' Engineers. An tnsoecuon of site is neces-
a a0e permit from
:3ry to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum lee of 5200.00 must ac-
fee based on a
company the appiic3tinr.. An additional processing
ereenta ! Or Ih! total DldllCl a031 wdl tx re0uued uoon comoietion
D
Continued on reverse

>r
Jii-
1
•
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
.1 Vr,
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS /n ?r e - a'L_
P.O. BOX 1890 lam"
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 DEC 2 7 1994
IN RMYREFER TO December 20, 1994
2J,L pIVIS'1C^1 OF
Planning. Division `HIGI,V4AYS .
NVIRO?,
r
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, 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. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of October 24, 1994,
requesting our comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for
NC 43 Bypass, From NC 43 to US 64 Alternate, Rocky Mount, Edgecombe
County, State Project 8.2290401, F. A. Project M-8746(1), T.I.P.
No. U-2218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199500517).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
projects, flood plains, and other jurisdictional resources,
primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed roadway does not cross
any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project. Enclosed
are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure

f
December 20, 1994
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 43 Bypass, From NC 43 to US 64
Alternate, Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County, State Project 8.2290401, F. A.
Project M-8746(1), T.I.P. No. U-2218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199500517)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
This project area is located within the jurisdiction of the city of Rocky
Mount, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. However,
from a review of the January 1982 Flood Insurance Study Rate Map, the proposed'
roadway would not be in an identified flood hazard area. This is confirmed by
a review of the pertinent United States Geological-Survey topographic map of
the area.
2. WATERS ANn WF.Tr.:.4Nnt - POr - Eric Fi l ?l Office,_
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]; Extension 23
a. Review of the project indicates that the proposed work would involve
the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands. The
project site is in the drainage areas of Cokey Swamp, Cowlick Branch, and Buck
Swamp, all above headwaters.
b. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, regulates the
discharge of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States.
The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities on the
aquatic environment prior to issuing Department of the Army permits.
Authorization of aquatic fill activities requires that the project be water
dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
review emphasis for North Carolina Department of Transportation projects will
focus on the impacts tc watcrs an%-Vor wetlands. However, if degradation to
other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species)
is considered to be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater
aquatic losses may be chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance
with the Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Corps, the sequenciriy pruces$ of-avoi4ance,.-ir„ mizatien, and
compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied prior
to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be
issued until a final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved.
c. From the perspective of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, based on
the information in the environmental assessment, the Center Alternative would
be the preferred corridor because it would have the lowest wetland impacts.
The West Alternative would be the second preferred alternative based on
wetland impacts. The East Alternative, and any alternatives including the
Southern Alternative, would be the least preferred.
;
i
•
40
December 20, 1994
F agu L 0.f L
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 43 Bypass, From NC 43 to US 64
Alternate, Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County, State Project 8.2290401, F. A.
Project M-8746(1), T.I.P. No. U-2218" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D.
No. 199500517).
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (continued)
d. The assessment did not discuss•any design alternatives using existing
roadways to the east of the.-,tl!dy corricor, such as S^'s 1.227, •1232, and 1233,
which would be expected to substantially decrease wetland impacts. Any
application for this proposed work should discuss specific design alternatives
that would minimize wetland impacts, including minor relocations .of the
proposed roadway to minimize the footprint within wetlands and use of steeper
fill slopes.
t?. J'h?, IY Fnr.n2t_in'^ 7r? thP' aCf.pi?(R°n : C ',,. i.f?ii....,r,} +? ?r??:l %.•?
qualitative aspects of wetland impacts. The preferred'a-iternaLive with
respect to wetlands may be reconsidered when specific, qualitative information
is presented.
f. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of
any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory
Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-
specific determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. If the
impacts from the proposed project are minor, it is possible that the work
could be authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
Any questions related to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.
It
State of North Cardin
Department of Enviro ment,
ATW1"J
Health and NaturafR ources 4 • A op
Division of Environmen al Management
•
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E H N F 1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 12, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornq?
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galambf
Subject: EA for Rocky Mount, NC 43 Bypass
Edgecombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.2290401, TIP #U-2218
EHNR # 94-0309, DEM WQ # 10787
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact 5 acres of wetlands.
All bodies of water in the state are classified for their best use. Intermittent or
unnamed tributaries (UT) always carry the same classification as the named stream
they flow into. It appears that an UT to Cowlick Branch will be impacted. Cowlick
Branch is classified C NSW.
DEM appreciates DOT's commitment to restore disturbed wetlands with native
vegetation in an effort to mitigate losses from project construction (page 29). DOT
proposes to restore wetlands at a 1:1 ratio.
Why has DOT not proposed a minimum of partial control of access? This segment
will serve as a part of a circumferential loop (bypass) for the City of Rocky Mount.
DEM believes that if access is controlled, a bypass of a bypass may not need to be
constructed resulting in further wetland loss.
Endorsement of the EA by DEM does 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.
nc43bp.ea

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
Dep met t of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
1 j Office of Policy Development
Project Review Form
Date.
roject Number: County:
DoT ?k
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regio I office/Phone
Regional Office Area
Asheglle ? All RIO Areas

?1
u Fayetteville A,i r
t
ater
? Mooresville roundwater
Raleigh L. Quality Engineer
? Recreational Consultant
Washington
? Coastal Management Consultant
? Wilmington ?Others
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
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)
substantive
? Recommended for further development if specific
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
lZ/2- _ 9
gj . --30.0
In-House Review
oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries

? Coastal Management
Nlwater Planning
,
Environmental Health
? Water Resources [I Solid Waste Management
N'Aldlife ? Radiation Protection
? Forest Resources
and Resources
L El David Foster
IN-Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
environmental Management RECEIM
DEC 0 7 1994
fNVIRpNMElVtA
L SD??
In-House ReviewerlAg,ncY
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Policy Development
+l
Rocky Mount, NC 43 Bypass
From NC 43
to US 64 Alternate
Edgecombe County
State Project 8.2290401
F. A. Project M-8746(1)
T.I.P. U-2218
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
APPROVED:
a fe* Yn1kl in Vic , P. E., Manager
" Planning and Environmental Branch
z. r7f ?
Date 1c s Graf, . E.
?4ederal Highway Administration

Rocky Mount, NC 43 Bypass
From NC 43
to US 64 Alternate
Edgecombe County
State Project 8.2290401
F. A. Project M-8746(1)
T.I.P. U-2218
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
January, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Project Planning Unit Head
CAR01""
ftl NO
VI a V G??
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

w

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Purpose of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Thoroughfare Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
E. Speed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G. Intersections and Type of Control . . . . . . . . . . 3
H. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT . . . 4
A. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Design Speed Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Railway Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
G. Bridge Work Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
H. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
J. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
K. Landscape Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
L. Speed Zones . . . .
'
?
* 5
M. Control
Type of
Intersection Treatment and 6
N. Estimate of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Southern Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Center Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. East Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. West Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. No Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
VI. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Relation of Project and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
i VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF
THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Economic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
E. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . 14
F. Highway Traffic Noise/ConstructionNoise Analysis . . 17
1. Characteristics of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Ambient Noise Levels
? 18
4. Procedure for Predicting Future
Noise Levels 19
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Do Nothing Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Construction Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
H. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
J. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
K.
i Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
i VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A. Public Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
4
1. Descri tion of Action - The North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation NCDOT , Division of Highways, proposes to construct a
NC 43 Bypass of Rocky Mount from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate in
Edgecombe County (See Appendix Figures 1, and 3). The recommended
improvement will be to construct a two lane facility, on new
location, from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. The project will include
two bridges over US 64 Bypass and a bridge over the CSX
Transportation Railway. Due to the wide median along US 64 Bypass,
separate bridges are proposed over the eastbound and westbound lanes
rather than a single long bridge. The total project length is
approximately 2.2 miles. The recommended cross section is a two
lane, 24-foot, roadway with four-foot paved shoulders. The
recommended cross section for the bridges is a 32-foot clear
structure width. The total cost of the project is estimated to be
$4,324,750. The estimated cost in the 1994-2000 TIP is $3,550,000.
2. Summar of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the City of Rocky Mount by aiding in the
completion of a circumferential loop for traffic traveling around the
City. The project will enhance the area's economic growth by
increasing accessibility to the region. One family will be relocated
due to the proposed improvements. No recreation facilities or
historic sites eligible for the National Register will be involved.
There may be some erosion and siltation during construction but
strict adherence to erosion control measures will minimize the
damage. The project will require the conversion of approximately 5.0
acres of wetland to highway use. Also due to the nature of this
project, construction primarily in undeveloped forest and
agricultural areas, the proposed project will impact approximately
17.1 acres of woodlands and approximately 11.8 acres of farmland.
Future noise levels are expected to increase from a range of +3 DBA
to +23 DBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the
construction o a new facility, three corridor alignments were
considered; however, no alternatives to the two lane, 24-foot,
roadway shoulder section were considered. This two lane cross
section was recommended because it provides adequate capacity to
accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes and provides
sufficient width for motorist utilizing this section of NC 43. The
three corridor alternatives considered for the proposed project
includes a Center, East, and West alignment. Additionally, a
Southern Alternative commencing at NC 43, approximately 1000 feet
west of Brake Road (SR 1230), then traversing north on new location
and tying into the project just south of the CSX Transportation
Railway was considered. The Southern Alternative was not recommended
because it increases project cost and wetland impacts.
The Center Alternative commences at NC 43, and follows the existing
alignment of Brake Road (SR 1230) for approximately 1100 feet. This
alignment then traverses north on new location and connects to the
southern terminus of Fosteri Drive (SR 1329). This alignment then
uses Fosteri Drive and connects the northern terminus of Fosteri
Drive (SR 1329) to the southern terminus of Springfield Road
(SR 1250) then follows Springfield Road to the intersection of
Springfield Road and US 64 Alternate.
Beginning at NC 43, the East Alignment follows the existing alignment
of Brake Road (SR 1230) for approximately 1100 feet and runs
generally parallel to the Center Alternative at approximately a
300-foot offset until it intersects Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232) where
it shifts further eastward and crosses US 64 Bypass approximately 600
feet east of the center Alternative. This alignment then traverses
for a distance of 800 feet where it begins to transition toward
existing Springfield Road (SR 1250), connecting near the intersection
of Springfield Road and US 64 Alternate.
The West Alignment (Recommended) also begins at NC 43 and follows the
existing alignment of Brake Road (SR 1230), for approximately 1100
feet and runs at a variable offset west of the proposed center
alignment. This alignment crosses US 64 Bypass approximately 750 feet
west of the center alignment. This alignment also connects to
Springfield Road near the intersection of US 64 Alternate. The West
Alternative is Recommended because it reduces impacts on established
neighborhoods, reduces noise impacts, it is slightly shorter in
length, and has a more desirable alignment from an engineering
standpoint.
The project will provide a grade separated crossing of the CSX
Transportation Railway. An at grade crossing of this railway was
considered, but rejected, due to the high exposure index.
A public transportation alternative was eliminated since the City of
Rocky Mount does not have a public transportation service and public
transportation will not serve the purpose of the project. The "do
nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected since the
construction of the NC 43 Bypass will provide a more efficient and
safer cross-town route for the City of Rocky Mount.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received and considered during the
preparation of this assessment:
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History
ii
N. C. State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
City of Rocky Mount
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
t
5. Actions Required b Other Agencies - North Carolina Department of
Transportation is cognizant that both wetlands and surface water
impacts are anticipated from construction of the proposed project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will consult with
appropriate agencies in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401). Also, due to the amount of wetland
acreage to be impacted by this project, NCDOT, will apply to the Army
Corps of Engineers for a Section 404 Permit. The NCDOT will submit
applications to the Corps of Engineers for these permits after the
final design for the project is completed. In order to mitigate the
wetland loss caused by this highway improvement, best Management
Practices such as sedimentation control measures will be utilized
during construction to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Also,
eliminating the use of curb and gutter sections and restoring native
vegetation to areas adjacent to disturbed wetlands will reduce the
impact of the project. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to construction.
6. Additional Information
Additonal information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
iii
NC 43 Bypass
From NC 43 to US 64 Alternate
Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County
U-2218
State Project #8.2290401
Federal Aid Project #M-8746(1)
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to construct the NC 43 Bypass in Rocky Mount from NC 43
to US 64 Alternate (See Appendix, Figures 1 and 3). The proposed project
is to construct a two lane facility with two overpass bridges spanning
US 64 Bypass on new location, from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. The total
project length is approximately 2.2 miles. The recommended cross section
is a two lane, 24-foot, roadway with four-foot paved shoulders. The
recommended cross section for the two overpass bridges is a 32-foot clear
structure width. Additionally, this project will require the construction
of a bridge over the CSX Transportation Railway. A 32-foot structure
width is recommended with a 23-foot minimum vertical clearance. The total
bridge length is 160 feet. This project is included in the 1994-2000
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1994 and construction
scheduled to begin in FFY 1995. The estimated project cost in the
1994-2000 TIP is $3,550,000. The project is currently estimated to cost
$4,171,750.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
Rocky Mount currently has many radial streets routing traffic through
the central business district, but does not have a complete loop system.
The purpose of this project will be to complete a portion of the
circumferential loop around the City of Rocky Mount, therefore, allowing
traffic to bypass Rocky Mount while maintaining access to the business
district. The construction of this project is extremely important as it
will aid in the completion of a vital link for traffic traveling around
the City of Rocky Mount, as well as, provide a direct North/South route on
the east side of Rocky Mount.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
The existing facilities of NC 43 and Springfield Road (SR 1250) are
designated as major thoroughfares on the mutually adopted 1985 Rocky Mount
Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed NC 43 Bypass is included as a future
major thoroughfare (See Appendix, Figure 5).
The Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan emphasizes the need for a
circumferential loop around the City of Rocky Mount. These proposed
improvements are in conformance with this plan. The construction of this
facility will be a step toward the implementation of this Thoroughfare
Plan.
C. Economic Development
Minimal development is anticipated adjacent to the proposed project.
However, the proposed improvement will aid in the economic development of
the area by improving the accessibility to the central business district.
This will reduce transportation costs by decreasing travel times to areas
in Rocky Mount.
D. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Projected 1994 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) along this project
vary from a low of 5700 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 6400 vpd. In
the year 2014, these volumes are expected to vary from 9900 vpd to 11200
vpd over the length of the project (See Appendix, Figure 4A). Upon
completion of construction, it is anticipated that intersections along the
proposed project will operate at a level of service (LOS) C or better.
Level of Service C describes operation as approaching capacity and is
characterized as stable flow with tolerable delays at critical sections
during peak periods. In the year 2014, the level of service at these
intersections is expected to remain at LOS C except at the US 64
Alternate/NC 43 intersection where it will exceed LOS F. In order for
this intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service in the
design year, additional through lanes will be required on US 64 Alternate.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Streets
The recommended project alignment will involve the following existing
streets:
1) Springfield Road (SR 1250)
2) NC 43
3) Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232)
4) Brake Road (SR 1230)
5) Raleigh Road (US 64 Alternate)
6) US 64 Bypass
B. Existing Cross Section
Existing streets along the project alignment have the following cross
sections:
1) Springfield Road (SR 1250) - 24-foot shoulder section with
8-foot unpaved shoulders and no existing lane markings.
2) NC 43 - two lane, 24-foot shoulder section with 4-foot paved
shoulders.
3) Meadowbrook Road - two lane, 24-foot shoulder section with
variable shoulder widths.
4) Brake Road (SR 1230) - two lane, 20-foot shoulder section with
variable unpaved shoulders.
5) Raleigh Road (US 64 Alternate) - two lane, 24-foot shoulder
section with variable unpaved shoulder widths.
6) US 64 Bypass - four lane divided shoulder section with unpaved
shoulders.

3
C. Right-of-Way
Existing right of way width along streets involved with the project
is as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Springfield Road (SR 1250) - 60 to 80 feet
NC 43 - 100 feet
Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232) - 60 feet
Brake Road (SR 1230) - 60 feet
Raleigh Road (US 64 Alternate) - 100 feet
US 64 - 320 feet
D. Bridges
There are no existing bridges along the proposed project alignment.
E. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along Springfield Road (SR 1250),
Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232), and NC 43 is 45 mph.
F. Access Control
The existing intersecting streets along the project alignment have no
control of access. However, control of access does exist along US 64.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
All roads intersecting the project are at grade and are stop sign
controlled.
H. Utilities
The following utilities are located within the project corridor:
water, sewer, and natural gas (City of Rocky Mount), electricity (Carolina
Power and Light), phone (Carolina Telephone and Telegraph), and cable TV
(Tar River Cable-Multimedia).
I. Project Terminals
The southern project terminus is at the intersection of NC 43 and
Brake Road (SR 1230). Both NC 43 and Brake Road are two lane facilities.
NC 43 is a 24-foot shoulder section with 4-foot paved shoulders and Brake
Road is a 20-foot roadway with variable unpaved shoulder widths.
At the northern project terminus, Springfield Road (SR 1250)
intersects US 64 Alternate. At this intersection, US 64 is a three lane,
30-foot, roadway with 2-foot paved shoulders. Springfield Road is a
24-foot roadway with no designated lane markings.
4
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Length of Project
The total proposed project length is approximately 2.2 miles long.
B. Design Speed Proposed
The proposed design speed is a
correlation of the physical features
operation and reflects the degree of
highway. Design speed is not to be
posted speed.
minimum of 50 mph. Design speed is a
of a highway which influence vehicle
safety and mobility desired along a
interpreted as the recommended or
C. Cross Section
The recommended cross section is a two lane, 24-foot, roadway with
four-foot paved shoulders. The recommended cross section for the two
overpass bridges spanning US 64 and the bridge over the CSX railroad is a
32-foot clear structure width which includes a 24' roadway with 4' paved
shoulders. The minimum shoulder width required is 3 feet for a collector
route. However, an additional foot has been added to match the proposed
roadway.
D. Right-of-Way
It is recommended that the proposed improvement be constructed on
80 feet of right-of-way which will accommodate a future 5-lane curb and
gutter facility if needed. However, in the vicinity of the proposed
bridges over US 64, 60 feet of additional right-of-way will be required
for a total of 140 feet in order to contain the amount of fill required.
In the vicinity of the railroad overpass, 100 feet of additional
right-of-way will be needed to contain the fill for a total width of 180
feet.
E. Access Control
No control of access is proposed along the project. However, the
existing control of access on US 64 Bypass will be maintained in the
vicinity of the two proposed Bridges.
F. Railway Work Required
The project will provide a grade separated crossing of the CSX
Transportation Railway north of existing NC 43. An evaluation of the
railroad crossing was conducted during the project study. The criteria
used in evaluating whether a railroad crossing warrants a grade separation
is based on several considerations. The first is the exposure index,
calculated by multiplying the number of trains per day by the number of
vehicles per day using the associated highway. The guideline established
for consideration of a grade separation is an exposure index of 15,000 for
rural and 30,000 for urban conditions. However, other considerations such
as existing topography, right-of-way cost, or other features of the
5
physical situation which make separation impossible or impractical must
also be evaluated prior to making a recommendation.
Using the criteria set forth above, the railroad crossing of NC 43
and the CSX Transportation Railway was evaluated. The exposure index of
44,800 was high enough to warrant the construction of a grade separation.
Information provided on train movements for this rail line is as
follows: 4 train movements per day occur 6 days per week, 2 train
movements per day occur 1 day per week, and the train speed is 20 mph.
The topography of the area will require a grade-separated crossing to have
a long structure and will involve extensive approach embankment. The
additional construction cost of providing a grade-separated crossing is
estimated at $750,000. The cost of this improvement is included in the
construction cost. This grade-separated crossing is recommended due to
the high exposure index, which indicates that a grade separation will
enhance safety at this crossing.
G. Bridge Work Required
The project will require the construction of two bridges crossing the
eastbound and westbound lanes of US 64. A 32-foot clear structure width
section is recommended for these bridges which include a 24' roadway with
4-foot paved shoulders. The total bridge length is 130 feet. The
estimated cost of both bridges is included in the construction costs of
the project. Additionally, this project will require the construction of
a bridge over the CSX Transportation Railway. A 32-foot structure width
is recommended with a 23-foot minimum vertical clearance. The total
bridge length is 160 feet.
H. Parking
Parking will neither be provided for nor permitted along the project.
I. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
J. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
K. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Landscape Planting Policy, $27,000 has been included in the
construction cost estimate for the proposed project.
L. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along NC 43 is 45 mph. The speed limit is
expected to remain 45 mph on the new facility after completion of the
project.
6
M. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the project will be at grade and stop sign
controlled except at the US 64 Alternate/Springfield Road intersection. A
traffic signal is proposed for this intersection. The cost of this
improvement is included in the construction cost.
N. Estimate of Costs
Construction $3,720,000*
Right-of-Way 604 750**
Total Cost $4,324,750
* Includes engineering and contingencies.
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternatives
Three corridor alternatives which included a center, east, and west
alignment were evaluated for the proposed project (See Appendix, Figure
3). Additionally, for each of these alternatives a Southern Alternative
was considered for the alignment at the beginning of the project. A
summary of all the alternatives is as follows:
1. Southern Alternative:
This alternative proposes to construct a 24-foot two lane
shoulder section with four-foot paved shoulders on new location
commencing at NC 43, approximately 1000 feet west of Brake Road
(SR 1230) to just south of the CSX Transportation Railroad. The
proposed cross section provides for two 12-foot travel lanes and
four-foot paved shoulders on each side.
This alternative is compatible with the proposed cross section
just north of the CSX Transportation railroad and would not require
the relocation of any families or businesses. However, this
alternative impacts 2.3 acres more of plant communities and 0.6 acres
more of wetlands than the beginning section of the proposed East,
West, and Center alignments. Including right-of-way and construction
costs, this alternative cost $117,500 more than the recommended
alternative. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected.
2. Center Alternative
Commencing at NC 43, this alternative utilizes the existing
roadbed of Brake Road (SR 1230) for approximately 1100 feet. This
alignment then traverses north on new location where it crosses the
CSX Transportation Railway. A grade separated crossing of the
railroad is proposed. This alignment continues to traverse north on
new location and ties into the southern terminus of Fosteri Drive
b
7
(SR 1329). The proposed project continues along Fosteri Drive with
two overpass bridges spanning US 64 until it connects to the southern
terminus of Springfield Road (SR 1250). The project terminates at
the intersection of Springfield Road and US 64 Alternate. This
alternative proposes a two lane, 24-foot shoulder section with
four-foot paved shoulders, except for the two bridges spanning US 64
and the bridge over the CSX railroad. A 32-foot clear structure
width section is proposed for these overpass bridges.
This alternative will not require the relocation of any residences or
businesses, and total impacts to plant communities (13.1 acres) and
wetland areas (3.8 acres) are less than the recommended alternative.
However, this alternative will produce more noise impacts than the
a west alignment. Additionally, the overpass bridges for this
alignment would require an excessive amount of fill in areas along
Fosteri Drive impacting several residential properties and making
driveway connections difficult. This alternative will also route
more traffic over an existing low volume subdivision street impacting
the established neighborhood on Fosteri Drive. Therefore, this
alternative is rejected. The estimated cost of this project is as
follows:
Construction $3,520,000
Right-of-Way $ 689,950
Total $4,209,950
3. East Alternative
The East Alternative begins east at NC 43 and follows the
existing alignment of Brake Road (SR 1230) for approximately 1100
feet. This alternative then traverses north on new location where it
crosses the CSX Transportation Railway. A grade separated crossing
of the railroad is proposed. This alignment continues to traverse
generally parallel to the Center Alternative at an approximate
300-foot offset until it intersects Meadowbrook Road (SR 1232). This
alignment then shifts further eastward crossing US 64 Bypass
approximately 600 feet east of the center alternative. It then
traverses for a distance of 800 feet where it begins transitioning
toward existing Springfield Road (SR 1250) near the US 64
Alternate/Springfield Road intersection.
This alternative proposes a two lane 24-foot, shoulder section
with four-foot paved shoulders, except for two bridges spanning US 64
and the bridge over the CSX railroad. A 32-foot clear structure
width is proposed for these overpass bridges. This alternative is
rejected because it would require the relocation of six residences
and impact more plant communities (19.3 acres) and wetlands (7.6
acres) than any of the other alternatives considered. The estimated
cost of this alternative is as follows:
Construction $3,820,000
Right-of-Way 551,200
Total $4,371,200
8
4. West Alternative (Recommended)
The West Alternative provides a two lane, 24-foot, shoulder
section with four-foot paved shoulders, except for two bridges
spanning US 64 and the bridge over the CSX railroad. A 32-foot clear
structure width cross section is proposed for these overpass bridges.
This route begins at NC 43 and follows the existing alignment of
Brake Road (SR 1230) for approximately 1100 feet. This Alternative
then traverses north on new location where it crosses the CSX
Transportation Railway. A grade separated crossing of the railroad
is proposed. This alignment continues to run north at a variable
offset west of the proposed center alignment. This alignment crosses
US 64 Bypass approximately 750 feet west of the proposed center
alignment. This alignment terminates at the intersection of US 64
Alternate and Springfield Road. The West Alternative impacts 1.2
more acres of wetlands than the center alignment and 2.6 acres less
than the East Alternative. Additionally, this alignment impacts 5.4
acres more plant communities than the Center Alternative, but 0.8
acres less than the East Alternative. The West Alternative is
recommended because it reduces noise impacts, avoids routing traffic
over existing low volume subdivision streets, is slightly shorter in
length than the Center and East alignments, and has a more desirable
alignment from an engineering standpoint. This alternative will
require the relocation of 1 residence. The estimated cost of this
improvement is as follows:
Construction $3,7209000
Right-of-Way 604,750
Total $4,324,750
B. Public Transportation
The City of Rocky Mount does not have a public transportation system
at the present time. The privately owned automobile is the major form of
transportation for the residents. The development of a public
transportation system is not considered to be a prudent alternative to the
construction of a facility that will provide a direct North/south route to
the east side of Rocky Mount and that will help complete a circumferential
loop around the city.
C. No Build Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered, but rejected since the
project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this area.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Planning
R
The proposed improvement lies within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the City of Rocky Mount. The City's current Land Use Plan
was adopted in 1974, and is therefore effectively out of date. The City
9
however, is in the process of updating its Land Use Plan. The City also
has zoning authority in the area of the proposed roadway project.
The proposed roadway is included in the 1985 Rocky Mount Thoroughfare
Plan as a major thoroughfare. The Plan was adopted by the City in 1987.
B. Existing Land Use
The area of the proposed new roadway is generally rural in character.
On SR 1250, from US 64 Alternate to the US 64 Bypass, the land use is a
mix of older single-family residences on large lots, and wooded,
undeveloped land.
A single family residential development, Meadowbrook Estates, is
located south of the US 64 Bypass. South of Meadowbrook Road, the
proposed alignment crosses a farm field and a wooded, undeveloped area.
Land use south of the CSX Transportation railroad crossing is mainly
agricultural with some linear single-family developments. Linear
residential development exists along NC 43.
Meadowbrook Meat Company, located on Meadowbrook Road east of the
proposed alignment, is planning a site expansion to the southwest of its
existing buildings. The expansion will be near the proposed roadway, but
is not likely to be directly impacted.
C. Existing Zoning
Most of the land crossed by the proposed roadway is zoned A-1,
Agricultural District. This is a low density designation geared toward
accommodating farming, residential and other structures associated with
agricultural uses. Some low intensity commercial uses which service
farming communities are permitted.
A B-5, Business District, is located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of SR 1250 and US 64 Alternate. This district permits
relatively intense commercial development, as well as limited industrial
uses such as warehousing and distribution centers. Residential
development is not permitted in this district.
A small B-2, Business District, is located in the southeast quadrant
of US 64 and SR 1250. This small district accommodates an existing
commercial business. The remainder of the quadrant to US 64, is zoned
A-1.
The Meadowbrook Estates development is zoned R-10, Residential
District, which permits single family dwellings on lots no less than
10,000 square feet in size.
The currently undeveloped land immediately south of Meadowbrook Road
is zoned R-6, Residential District. Dwelling units are permitted on lots
no less than 6,000 square feet in size.
10
The area approximately one-quarter mile north of the railroad to the
project limit at NC 43 is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.
D. Proposed Land Use
According to the 1974 Land Use Plan, the area of the proposed roadway
is designated for residential development of variable density.
Significant growth is not expected in the area of the proposed project,
although growth is occurring in other portions of the City. This slow
growth projection is due to the existence of a number of constraints,
including poor soils for septic tank installation and a general lack of
commercial services.
E. Relation of Project and Plans
City officials anticipate that slow or no growth will remain the
prevalent development pattern, even if the proposed roadway is constructed
in the area. This is due to the constraints previously discussed, as well
as other factors generally not conducive to residential, or other types of
development.
It is expected that the road will be beneficial in relieving traffic
congestion and simplifying trips for commuters from Tarboro and other
eastern points east, as no other direct north/south route is available on
the east side of Rocky Mount.
F. Farmland
The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act requires that all federal
agencies or their representatives consider the impact of construction
projects on Prime, Unique, and Important farmland soils, as defined by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Such soils are defined by the US Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and are generally described as those soils
which produce the highest crop yield with a minimal input of energy and
economic resources. If soils occur within a project area which meet the
criteria for Prime, Unique, or Important farmland, then consideration must
be given to alternatives which may lessen the project's impact.
The West Alternate will impact approximately 11.8 acres of farmland.
Prime and unique farmland will account for 11.3 acres of the farmland.
The Center and East Alternates will impact 19.5 and 17.0 acres of
farmland, respectively.
4
The SCS was asked to determine the impact of the proposed project on
prime farmland soils. Each alternative was evaluated and Form AD 1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, was completed. Virtually all of the
land required for construction of any of the three alternatives studied
will impact prime farmland soils. The soils in the project area have high
relative values, as rated on a 100 point scale; with land impacted by the
West Alternative assigned a value of 90.4, the Center Alternative assigned
a value of 86.2, and the East Alternative assigned a value of 93.7.
11
The relative value is combined with another rating based on several
site assessment criteria. If the total assessment points for any or all
alternatives is above the threshold of 160 points, then consideration to
changes in the alternatives is recommended. None of the three
alternatives achieved a total point score above the 160 point threshold.
It is not anticipated that the conversion of this land will significantly
impact adjacent farming activities or agricultural operations throughout
the county. Therefore, no consideration to mitigating farmland impacts is
required.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
PROBABLE IMPACT F THE PROJECT
A. Neighborhood Characteristics
Edgecombe County is located in the eastern section of the state and
is bounded by Martin, Pitt, Wilson, Nash, and Halifax Counties. According
to the 1980 Census, the population of Edgecombe County is 55,988.
However, based on North Carolina Population Projections: 1988-2010,
Edgecombe has a projected 1990 population o 60,317. Rocky Mount is the
largest urbanized area in the county. Rocky Mount, N. C. has a population
of 49,200, according to a publication entitled Incorporated Municipalities
of North Carolina published September 1988.
There will be one or more families relocated in the East and West
alternates. The Center Alternate will not require any relocatees. The
East Alternate will require relocating six families along Meadowbrook Road
(SR 1232) and Springfield Road (SR 1250). The West Alternate will require
relocating one family along Meadowbrook Road.
B. Economic Assessment
According to the North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force
Estimates Preliminary Data for May 1990, Edgecombe County had a Labor
Force of 30,360 for the month of May. Out of that number, 28,710 persons
were employed. This left an unemployment total of 1,650 or 5.4 percent.
Edgecombe County does have a county development program. It also has two
(2) Industrial Park Properties. They are Tarboro Industrial Park and
Fountain Industrial Park.
The proposed project may open up future commercial activities in the
area that could help to enhance economic growth. Presently however, there
are no commercial institutions along the proposed project sites.
C. Social Impacts
The proposed project will not disrupt social cohesion or interfere
with public facilities and utilities. Based on the right-of-way report
prepared by the N. C. Department of Transportation, it is estimated that
the proposed project will impact (1) family. No businesses will be
relocated.
12
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At
least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, 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
13
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
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 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.
D. Cultural Resources
This project is subject
National Historic Preservation
Advisory Council on Historic
with Section 106, codified at
compliance with Section 4(f)
1966, as amended.
to compliance with Section 106 of the
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
36 CFR Part 800. It is also subject to
of the Department of Transportation Act of
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted, and he reported he was aware of "no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the
planning area." (See letter in Appendix).
14
This finding concurred with the N. C. Department of Transportation
Architectural Historian who surveyed the area and found no structures of
Historic significance.
An archaeological survey conducted by the NCDOT Archaeologist
concluded that there were six archaeological sites, designated
31ED299-31ED304, located within the proposed project area. The results of
archaeological studies indicate that none of these sites are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. (See
Correspondence in the Appendix). Since there are no properties either
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places in the area of potential effect of this undertaking, no further
compliance with either Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 or with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966 is required.
E. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions
from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting from the construc-
tion of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway can range
from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analyses presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
15
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.
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. New 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.
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.
"CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting Air Pollutant
Levels Near Highways And Arterial Streets" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and meteorological
parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily
traffic projections. The modeling analysis was performed for a "worst
case" condition using winds blowing parallel to the roadway. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2004 and
2014 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
16
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated
to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most
suburban areas.
The intersection of US 64 Alternate and the New Route was used to
analyze the air quality for this project. The "worst case" air quality
receptor was determined to be Receptor #3 (A-1), located in the Northwest
quadrant. Also, R-46 (Southeast quadrant), R-47 (Northeast quadrant) and
A-2 (Southwest quadrant) were also analyzed for "worst case" air quality
conditions. The "build" one hour CO concentrations for years 2004 and
2014 for these receptors are as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Receptor 2004 2014
R-46 3.5 3.5
R-47 3.4 3.4
A-1 3.6 3.6
A-2 3.6 3.5
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour average - 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these
standards. Since the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is
less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not
exceed the standard. (See Tables Al and A2 for input data.)
"The project is located within the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Edgecombe County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
"It is noted the impact on air quality will be insignificant. If
vegetaiton is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. 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.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and Nepa.
17
F. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of tht droposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure N1). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1 (See Appendix).
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:
i) the amount and nature of the intruding noise,
ii) the relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise, and
iii) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
18
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individuals judgement of whether or not a
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during
sleeping hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable
than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with .?
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
2. 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 (See
Appendix). 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.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the project
alternatives at representative locations using a GenRad 1988
Precision Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The noise
levels were recorded for a 20-minute period during anticipated peak
traffic noise periods. Traffic counts were taken at each measurement
site during the sampling periods and differences in the measured
noise levels are attributed to variations in site conditions and
traffic volumes. In areas where traffic noise did not prevail in the
19

existing acoustical environment, a background noise measurement was
taken. The background noise level for this project is 45 dBA. The
ambient measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Figure N2 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.1 to
2.9 dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for
which noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels
can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and
actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicle speed.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated pro-
cedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. 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 consists of constructing a two lane facility on new location
from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers 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.
This computerized model was utilized to enable the determination
of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in
the design year 2014, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach
was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800,
and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to
both sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the change in projected traffic volumes along the
20
proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Tables N4A, N4B, and N4C. Information in these tables
consists of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the
project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated
noise level increase for each.
The number of impacted receptors in each activity category are
given in Table N5. Where applicable, each roadway section was
subdivided into the proposed design alternatives with their
appropriate number of impacted receptors.
Other information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of
the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local
jurisdiction and to prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each design alternative. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +3 to +23 dBA.
Substantial increases are common on a new location projects due
to the new road traversing areas that currently have little or no
highway traffic noise in their acoustic environment. When real-life
noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect level changes of
2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change
is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
a. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earthen berms or
artificial abatement walls. However, these mitigating measures
may not be feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for
receptors with frontage along primary or secondary roads which
21
cross the proposed project. Reduction of traffic noise from the
proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the noise levels at
these receptors to within the recommended noise abatement
criteria and/or below a substantial noise level increase.
The project will maintain uncontrolled access with driveway
connections permitted for each abutting property. All
intersecting roadways will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the
barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
* a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight
(8) 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).
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, isolated receptors
generally require noise barriers which are too costly because of
the length and height required for a reasonable noise level
reduction. For this reason, no isolated receptors were analyzed
in detail for this report.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures
are feasible and none are recommended for this project.
However, in areas of impacted receptors where abatement measures
have been considered, a vegetative barrier may be considered for
aesthetic screening even though an acoustical barrier is not
justified.
b. Highway Alignment
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed
alignment is normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas
of relocation. Alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
22
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. In regards
to traffic noise, the west alignment will produce the least
amount of impacted receptors.
C. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle
type, speed, volume and time of operations are often effective
noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
6. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" alternative were
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads
in the project area should double within the next twenty years,
future traffic noise levels would only increase approximately 2-3
dBA. This small increase to the present noise level would be barely
noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
7. 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, for the most part,
the project traverses through low-density areas. In the section
between SR 1232 and US 64 Business, construction noise impacts would
be expected to be more substantial due to the project's close
proximity to existing housing. However, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
reports are required for this project.
23
G. Ecological Analysis
1. Biotic Resources
Five plant communities are located in the study area.
Three are classified as upland plant communities:
Agricultural/Oldfield, Mesic Pine Flatwood and Residential. Two
communities are classified as wetland plant communities: Wet
Pine Flatwood and Disturbed Wet Pine Flatwood. Community
descriptions are stated below.
a. Plant Communities
Impacted wetland communities along the project alignments
are classified as Wet Pine Flatwoods. This community occurs in
flat areas and is seasonally flooded. Trees are found growing on
slight elevations throughout a relatively flat landscape.
Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) dominates this community. Other
canopy dominants icluude Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Water Oak
( uercus ni ra) and, on slightly drier is-ands, White Oak
( uercus a a . Understory dominants include Red Maple,
Sweetgum (Li uidambar st raciflua), White Bay (Magnolia
vier iniana) an Red Bay Persia orbonia). Ground cover species
include Sweetpepper Bush C ethra- aln folia var. aln_ folia),
Cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Horsesugar (S mmplo?c?os tinctoria),
invasions of Privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Netted Chain Fern
(Woodwardia areolata). Cane and Sweetpepper Bush were dominant
groun cover species in certain areas. Cane appeared to grow
intensely in disturbed wetlands, especially along the southern
alternate. Canopy dominance varied along the project corridor
depending on the amount of disturbance in wetland communities.
Some sites have a canopy dominated by Loblolly Pine, while other
areas are dominated by a mixture of Loblolly Pine, Red Maple,
and Water Oak. Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.) occurs in slight
depressions. These depressions were dry at this time of year
but are presumably wet at other times. In more disturbed areas,
catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia and Smilax walteri) were dense and
tangled.
Mesic Pine Flatwood upland communities are located in
slight rises adjacent to the Wet Pine Flatwood communities and
are dominated by a canopy of mixed hardwoods and pine. Canopy
dominants include Loblolly Pine, Southern Red Oak ( uercus
falcata), Water Oak and Post Oak ( uercuuss stellata). Dominance
of loblolly pine varied. Understory dominants include Dogwood
Cornus florida), Sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum) and Mockernut
H- Ticknry (Cara tomentosa). Ground cover species include
Dangleberry ?G y uss aces frondosa), Sweetpepper Bush, Blueberry
(Vaccinum sp.) and Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus
uin uefolia). Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron ra icans was not very
common along the project corridor but was--Tound in scattered
locations throughout the uplands.
24
Agricultural fields that are currently farmed or abandoned
will be impacted. Various crops such as cotton, soybeans,
tobacco and peanuts were noted in the project vicinity. These
fields reach large acreages and sometimes contain more than one
crop.
Construction will impact five plant communities. Plant
community impacts are presented in Table 1. These estimates may
change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community East West Center Southern
Agricultural-Oldfield 6.4 9.5 4.9 4.0
Mesic Pine Flatwood 2.9 3.4 3.9 0.6
Residential 2.4 0.6 0.5 0.6
Wet Pine Flatwood 5.9 2.2 3.0 0
Dist* Wet Pine Flatwood 1.7 2.8 0.8 2.2
TOTALS 19.3 18.5 13.1 7.4
Note Dist* = Disturbed estimated impacts are based on a proposed
right-of-way 80' for road construction and 140' for bridge
construction. Values shown are in acres.
The Center Alternate will impact the right-of-way of US 64
and established residential areas associated with SR 1250.
Portions of the US 64 median have been cleared previously and
are now maintained in low growing condition. Due to the
disturbed nature of the area, minor vegetational impacts are
anticipated. The East and West Alternates will disturb large
acreages of forest and farm land.
Construction recommendations include: minimizing vegetation
removal (especially in wetland areas) and strict enforcement of
Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines.
Placement of fill should be minimized in wetland communities.
b. Wildlife Communities
Terrestrial animal communities will be impacted by this
project, since only minor drainage ditches are crossed by the
alignment. Mammals characteristic of Mesophytic Forests such as
Opossum, Short-Tailed Shrew, Eastern Mole, Eastern Cottontail,
Eastern Chipmunk, Gray Squirrel, Southern Flying Squirrel,
White-Footed Mouse, Raccoon, Striped Skunk and White-Tailed Deer
are most likely to be found along the project corridor.
r
25
Occasionally one may encounter mammals such as Hairy-Tailed
Mole, New England Cottontail, Woodchuck, Deer Mouse, Golden
Mouse, Wood Rat, Jumping Mice, Spotted Skunk, Long-Tailed Weasel
and Gray Fox.
Open agricultural fields support mammals such as
Southeastern Shrew, Eastern Mole, Eastern Cottontail, Woodchuck,
Old Field Mouse, Cotton Mouse, Cotton Rat, Pine Vole, Eastern
Harvest Mouse, Red Fox and White-Tailed Deer. Other species
that may inhabit this community are: Opossum, Least Shrew,
Short-Tailed Shrew, White-Foot Mouse, House Mouse, Meadow
Jumping Mouse, Raccoon, Least Weasel and Striped Skunk.
Reptiles common to moist forests and open fields include
Eastern Box Turtle, Woodturtle, Eastern Fence Lizard, Black
Racer, Rat Snake, Brown Snake and Copperhead. Amphibians that
inhabit moist forests and ditches include the American Toad and
Gray Tree Frog. Squirrel Tree Frogs are common to open woods,
but might be found around buildings. Spiders were unusually
plentiful in the Loblolly Pine dominated communities along the
project, south of the CSX Transportation Railway.
Avian species one might expect in the project area include
Red-Shouldered Hawk, Bobwhite, Mourning Dove in open fields,
Blue Jays, Tufted Titmouse, and Robins in residential areas.
The project is proposed primarily on new location.
Potential impacts include fragmentation and the loss of wildlife
habitat. The East and West Alignments are adjacent to large
forested tracts and construction will fragment existing wildlife
habitat. Construction will cause an increase in traffic and
noise. Proposed construction may form a barrier to certain
organisms and may prevent normal migration of some species.
These impacts may reduce the numbers of sensitive species and
result in a change in species composition.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
The following soil series are located within the
project corridor: Marlboro sandy loam, Rains fine sandy
loam, Norfolk loamy sand, Norfolk loamy sand, Exum very
fine sandy loam, Granthum very fine sandy loam and
Goldsboro fine sandy loam.
Rains fine sandy loam and Granthum very fine sandy
loam soils are classified as hydric according to the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Rains and Granthum are poorly
drained soils with slopes of 0 to 2 percent that formed in
Coastal Plain Sediments. Rains and Granthum soils are
found in the Wet Pine Flatwoods.
26
Marlboro sandy loam soils are well drained and located
on broad, smooth or rounded upland areas. Most of the
acreage of this soil is cultivated, with the remainder in
woodland. Slopes range from 0 to 6 percent. Norfolk loamy
sands are also well drained soils found on uplands with
similar slopes. Goldsboro fine sandy loam are moderately
well drained soils found on smooth, low ridges and flats,
and in shallow depressions in uplands. Exum very fine
sandy loam are moderately drained soils located with slopes
of 0 to 2 percent.
b. Water Resources
There are no special surface waters of concern within
the project boundaries. The project crosses one
intermittent stream on existing SR 1250 that is
unclassified by the DEM-DEHNR. Ditches cross the project
in numerous places that are located in disturbed areas such
as edges of fields, adjacent to US 64 and adjacent to the
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. The ditches are 1' to 6'
wide, slow flowing, choked with high algal concentrations
or other vegetation and the substrate is composed of sand
and silt. Both ditches are also unclassified by the
Division of Environmental Management and do not flow into
nearby streams or rivers. Portions of these ditches may
need to be rechannelized. If so, consultation with
appropriate agencies in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC
et seq) may be necessary. A small pond 'is adjacent to the
Southern Alternate . It is not anticipated that road
construction will impact this area.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate 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.
No impacts to Outstanding Resource Waters, High
Quality Waters or waters classified as WS-I or WS-II will
occur from proposed construction. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges are not
located in the study area.
Project construction may have a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
27
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.
3. Special Topics
1. Jurisdictional Issues
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.
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). Surface waters and wetlands are two subsets
of "Waters of the US".
a. Summary of Impacts
Both wetlands and surface water impacts are
anticipated from proposed construction of both the East and
West Alignments. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The
vegetation is classified as hydrophytic based on
composition. Soil color is hydric based on low chroma
values. Wetland hydrological characteristics include
standing water and high water levels. Identified wetlands
are located in all forested areas and logged sites
throughout the entire corridor for both alignments. Table
2 summarizes wetland impacts by location. These estimates
may change with project design.
28
Table 2 Summary of Anticipated Wetland Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY EAST WEST CENTER SOUTHERN
Wet Pine Flatwood 5.9 2.2 3.0 0
Dist* Wet Pine Flatwood 1.7 2.8 0.8 2.2
TOTALS 7.6 5.0 3.8 2.2
Note: Dist* = Disturbed. Estimate Impacts are based on propose
right-of-way width of 80' for road construction and 140' for bridge
construction. Values shown are in acres.
b. Permits
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5
(a) (26) are likely to be applicable for proposed
construction. Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) is
likely to be applicable at all ditch crossings. 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.
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) is likely to
be applicable in jurisdictional wetlands such as the wet
pine flatwoods and disturbed wet pine flatwoods and is
authorized under the following conditions: 1) The discharge
does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of
the US. For the purpose of this Nationwide Permit, the
acreage of loss of waters of the US includes the filled
area plus water of the US that are adversely affected by
flooding, excavation, or drainage as a result of the
project 2) A 30- day notification to the District Engineer
is required if the discharge would cause the loss of waters
of the US that are greater than one acre. For discharges
in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the
notification must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites including wetlands, 3) The discharge,
including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
29
Final permit decision rests 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).
C. Mitigation
V
4.
The project is likely to be authorized under several
Nationwide Permits. 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.
However, use of Best Management Practices such as
sedimentation control measures will be required during
construction to reduce erosion. Minimize the use of curb and
gutter section, where possible, which tends to trap pollutants
and channels them directly into nearby surface waters.
Areas adjacent to disturbed wetlands, especially along the
Southern Alternate, will be restored with native vegetation in
efforts to mitigate losses from project construction. Efforts
will be made to identify and restore wetlands on a 1:1 average
basis with the wetlands impacted by the project.
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.
1. Federally Protected Species
One federally protected species is
Edgecombe County as of March 4, 1993: the
(Ellli dio steinstansana). A discussion
l M to the su ject project follows.
re a
listed by the USFWS in
Tar River Spiny Mussel
of this species as it
a. 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
30
is relatively fast flowing and silt free, well oxygenated with a
circumneutral pH. An uncompacted, gravel and course sand
substrate is also preferred. The study area does not support
suitable habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel. Nonetheless,
the project vicinity was surveyed by the Wildlife Resource
Commission for occurance of the Tar River Spiny Mussel.
According to the surveys no impact to the Tar River Spiny Mussel
will occur.
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Edgecombe County (Table 3). 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 3 Federal Candidate species listed in
Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2 Yes
Yellow lance E i?T ptio anceoTata C2 No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia maso - C2 No
Yellow lampmussel Lamp his cariosa 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.
2. State Protected Species
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal candidate
species that are state protected and may occur in the study area
are presented in Table 4.
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. Though all or some of these species may be present in the
study area, no surveys were conducted.
31
Table 4 State protected species listed in
Edgecombe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat
Yellow lance Elli tio lanceolata T No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia maso - T No
Yellow lampmussel Lampsi is cariosa T No
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.
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.
All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways' Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
contractor sha be require to observe and to comply wit a aws,
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 will 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 and construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures,
32
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to 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 will 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 the provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures
which is entitled "Contro of Erosion, Siltation an 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 Specifi-
cations for Roads and Structures.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care should be
taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor will obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source
will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places. A copy of this certification will be furnished to the
Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances, along with regulations of North Carolina Plan for Implementing
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning will be done only on the
right-of-way, under constant surveillance, with good atmospheric
conditions, as remote from the dwellings as possible.
I. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated the subject project will impact two (2) geodetic
markers (see Appendix). The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior
to project construction.
J. Hazardous Waste
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if
any hazards such as underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites,
dumps, landfills, or other similar sites which may impact construction of
33
the project, cause delays, or create liabilities. As a result of this
study, this project was considered to have a low risk for hazardous
materials involvement.
K. Special Permits Required
No special permits will be required of the Division of Highways.
Stream crossings will be covered by the Above Headwaters and Roadcrossing
Nationwide Section 404 Permits.
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was
requested from appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in preparing
this Environmental Assessment. Listed below are the agencies which were
contacted.
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History
N. C. Department Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Regional Council of Governments, Rocky Mount
*City of Rocky Mount
Edgecombe County Commissioner
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
A. Public Meeting
A public meeting was held on June 20, 1990 at the Rocky Mount
Municipal Administration Building to obtain comments and/or suggestions
about the project from the public. Approximately 17 people attended to
express their interest in the proposed project. One of the primary
concerns was the increased truck traffic along SR 1329 which would
decrease safety for children in the neighborhood. Some suggestions for
the proposed improvement included a weight limit for vehicles, a 25 m.p.h.
speed limit on SR 1329, and possibly shifting the project west to avoid
the neighborhood along SR 1329 and SR 1330. Other questions were asked
about the amount of additional right-of-way necessary to construct the
project, the additional amount of through traffic on SR 1329, and if the
value of property along the project would be depreciated.
34
B. U. S. Armv Corps of Enaineers
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers stated that 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 water of the United States or
any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction methods, etc. Also, Impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. The Corps of Engineers
would like the opportunity to review final plans (see letter in appendix).
Response:
NCDOT will coordinate plan reviews with the Corps of Engineers for
project specific determination of permits required by the Department of
the Army.
TH/plr
APPENDIX
,.Whitaker I) Rosin
BattleD(ro u
Lawrence \
Rocky Mount s - - 5
- - I Leggett 6
y Speed\
A B E
Csx IS \ 4 N 3
1N 64 e
°Se
rkoro Princenlle
258 t d e
e - Coneto
7 41 5
I
cileslield Crisp
"ov
6
64 FA .32 1337 ?):1
33 FAU .09 I .07
.26
c.) 64
---- A
1232
,
64
BUS. '.s 1251111,
END
' 2' PROJECT
43 `
F l
64
•Q 1330
:x) o
1129
.51 ....,. ?.:; ?: 1 9 .15
1324
a
.. 1 0
1 1328 09 •OS
,:. .07
I
1331
43 a
1
1234
° 1 1 RAUROAD
`B T 1
C I 1
1164 >
1
1231
a .73 FAuj Im BEGIN
'o
PROJECT 1 16 1230
' ?:?:? ? I Fzr\ \ 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
I TRANSPORTATION
i 114 1 43 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 43 BYPASS
FROM NC 43 TO US 64 ALTERNATE
ROCKY MOUNT
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2218
FIG. 1
e
rq .32 1332
.33 FAU .U9
?1\\ 1.232 _
ss 1250
+
? J
.. '
1330
:::::::::r::' ,
1232
.I
:I
j 1
I
I
1234 1
I
D
N
?m
I?
BEGIN \ 16
PROJECT 1230
\
• ?i
43

26
END
PROJECT
12 1275
- 7
1641
1329
co
1324
1328 O f
9 C
133,

R/UL ROAD
1231
11
1230
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 43 BYPASS
FROM NC 43 TO US 64 ALTERNATE
ROCKY MOUNT
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2218
FIGURE 2
w kf ?. ,,? ,`?,'?.,,r_y'? .IG ?!? ?: ? ??' s_ ??rY C.,??•' - •? Jit f '-`?`•,?,
I?Zl
K , `"? iY ' Gam, • j` a '?:
\ G l ? ? i 'Y
cr 1 ?.
Vf « S~,,Ai{ ?F \u' - s 5 ) •` F x IZ +•S,Z ' • <C I TrA..", A(t
?W 411?"' '_ ° f ? _ ?i,?su'''YYji ,.? i. -• ..?,, I i ?'?il???? ?t
4?it? ?:: ?` \ ? r ??l t'• \.a HL .. y Hsi!) -
„"TT \ t?, a i{•?:? ,,.. ..F ? ` Old .( ? I:N;.
\ ?•_ 1
5" o, rn
70
'Ski
\ \ n m • i'
It,
\ r
r
\ ?I
? ; i?.ls ? .. a •. ? ,?f '? ? • r 4...'? ?'4??
M
¦

v
oil
V
1 '+ 1
7ww
¦

•0
Iax,
i
b ?? J ;q? m,
IFGA.m
s ?.
w '. 1
d i r °vr
`h
tn'
r
If - I , 7 ?? +• ?r?? r?
i. rt r 'r• y } w

kr, 1
???y (aF
Ga r' ,:`
. to
???\ •' .,', Ewa; ???-?+?a?? `' 71
r
?k
• Il`d r,i ? bJ s3,IrXrr 1?
1 r k IN { 1 L,f 4Nflw M 11?
2
V 'Tit
?k'` +?'a ? 1. ,?{ / r •?r r `Y ?. ? ? ''
?{ 'w ?? ,r., , `use e*'"
e-F
Ali
t .4X
7VT
?? 2L? r r c
? ®r
WAN
J;li
}? ?'. ,i?{ ? ???. \?? '•y ?11 X11 t'? _t ?,ct °.
t. ? ?• 9117 A VM IIVN NUI 1 V1.8OdSNVII I% ) • "a "
YI!A
'V T- -40
. • 2r` ??ijif' iiK
?' 944
}: t r f
Ir.. S >f .,q?akSi?'r`M r? f?. 'y y ¢ Y... f?%t '' .??{. '!' ? ? ? ,k ?`•..
,i yy "? y' r
4. A*
44.
-P I -b
~ ?Y+ ., icy +j???' ? \ tr .?{ .? a> a {. '?4 » '? .?{, -
d ?1 '?. ? t i'? `5??? r t A 'f. S• fM .. +,C,? Gr'f'. ) k .f t :+ ?\
!.s` t.1 ' Z _ « f e {4w 4 E -:.D'!'" ? J P S k •;} y sk '+ j Y'i,_. ; M d, ®r?!_
^t! ?.c'.; X43• rl :.•.i ` '?`'^. ' r,.>.'7 >r'' ;.r,;: '/\?' :45. }•r
• ? - i . ?r • ?. ??. • ? +. ? Y ?. c r? fj t ^\. _n ?\.' flk.Y'g r + x y? .,. s'f, -,
t ?"•t? .• J /rlk. • 9r - y,:9s,
?' ?? , } .•s?le ? Isi?? r 'Fk `•%r.. ,C t i Y3 2' a i
AS.
OIL
'? • • w
1k I
r, J

t
f.y
'k ?, :. ? 113 L
14 .11,
f f ?- J' 1 H r ??
1,

EST. 1994/2014 ADT IN HUNDREDS
ROCKY MOUNT BYPASS - US-64 BUS. TO NC-43
US-64 BYP
SR-.1250
(IS-64 BOO. \ :-2_L IL / 9 >=o-9
\ 216 29 / 16 1-85

99

57 _ \ 1:33
\ a_ / 99 \ 23:1
\ 8

19 \ 11 \

[IS---E>4 PYP
62 / 6 \
108 / 9 \
.4.`>.
73

/ 5 14 \
-- -- - -- \ SR-1.232
G/L
11.2 / 9 S 13- J.230

144 76 / 36 1.04
:-___- --------_= =- __ - ---= NC--43
FIGURE 4A
BUILD SCENARIO 4a SR-7.250
\ 86
\ ]- 4 :i 44 I 1
\ 253 79 7 185
BUS.
\ 2 / 1
3
Sit-1250
SR-1329 \ 81 233
2 \
4 \
\ 1 \ OS-04 BYP
\ 79
SR-1232
/ SR-12:30
14 /
ALL
100 12 / 2 90
NC - 4:3
FIGURE 4B
U-221-8/1.1-2423 NASH CO.
PROPOSED CONN. - FROM US-64 PUS TO NC-43
ROUTE 1994 2014
ADT IN 100'S
TTST
DUAL
DI1V
DIR
US-64 BYP. 133 23 6 5 10 60
SPRINGF IELD
RD.-SR1250
51
88
2
3
10
60
J OS-64 ALT. 119 201 3 4 10 60
SR-12.31 49 81 1 2 10 60
.;R-- 1230 8 1.4 1 2 1 0 60
NG-4 3 84 144 2 3 1.0 60
T'I30POSI!;I)
BYPASS
64
1.1.2
2
4 -
1.0 -----
60
FIGURE 4C
N - ?- \ ? O to
t? ?O
Y y
,,QJ
IIELD p0' 1
1250 ' ?., __- ? ??? P00 22 `? 1 ? I ? ?? ?
I• P 5 s .?.
eA g 1 x
Jg , SI
? D E Y ff ??
? 4%
a
1w t I '- ----------- LENOlE DR. v ¦ ? ? ? \
N SR 1234 j, ¦ 'lo F_ O
i
gP R ` 1 s LD N SH R.
U I j i :'? - '• 4, SR 1141
NC 43 F IEW a
¦¦OO0 ¦
L-M
- - q! = ¦ J
is ?p o? ?r+iEwiw g g r . ¦ m
er ar' e S
??? ?? 1 ?? r r - ^ Qa ao
!? a i, N6
---
ft.
? o
A'
eye,- Y ?? r. r i? ^aa
44ano
1 y J r
3
- --
7? 4F
rl I' ??' ; Its
41
Jc, , ) b ; SSVdAu IO£ sn ,R
3..¢A > ?? ;.,( rI ?Da a ¦ ¦ 1
O
i
' t p? a '? ;' >G ''? '?• ? Q? c
_ ? V •. Y O
1 '
I i
iI r
------------
1 0
, . .... s a p ? 0* ? W
Z Q Q z
`'Q ? W O
1 c?
O
Q W
bbsl as z j m= N Q
' iS J , ? .0y %tld1?tlH ¦ ,; C110 O Z Q =
i O
w m a Z a
O =
?
LL
/ k
4
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE ^ISPEP,SION MODEL - MARCH, 199u VERSION
JOB: U-2218 / NEW ROUTE & US 64 BUSINESS RUN: NEW ROUTE & US 64 BUSINESS i2004 BUILD
DATE: 04/27/1992 TINE: 13:12:43.17
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--
VS -------------------
: .0 CK/S -----
VD = -----
.0
CK/S ZO
: 10.
CK
_ U : 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E) ATIK = 60. MINUTES KITH : 400. K AKB = 1 .9 PPM
LI
-- NK VARIABLES
-----------

- -
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
LINE COORDINATES (K)
'
LENGTH
BRG
TYPE
VPH
EP
H
W
V/C
QUEUE
' 11 Y1 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (NI (VEH)
--- --------------------- *......... ............................... ' ................ ..... ...... ............. .... ..............
1. NEW ROUTE NB APPR ' 32.3 -66.1 55.8 53.0 t 121. 11. AG 495. 7.9 .0 9.8
2. NEW ROUTE NB QUEUE t 56.7 43.9 48.3 5.8 * 39. 192. AG 173. 100.0 .0 3.7 .65 6.5
3. NEW ROUTE NBLT QUEUE' 53.0 43.9 19.8 -159.2 ' 206. 189. AG 238. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.61 34.3
4. NEW ROUTE NB DEP ' 55.8 53.0 54.9 357.8 ' 305, 360. AG 440. 10.2 .0 9.8
5. SR 1250 SB APPR * 51.2 357.8 50.3 53.0 * 305. 180. AG 440. 10.2 .0 9.8
6. SR 1250 SB QUEUE ' 51.2 62.2 51.2 341.5 ' 279. 360. AG 197. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.17 46.5
7. $R 1250 SB DEP ' 50.3 53.0 25.0 -66.1 * 122, 192. AG 495. 7.9 .0 9.8
8. US 64 BUS BB APPR * -251.8 49.4 53.0 49.4 ' 305. 90, AG 1080, 8.9 .0 9.8
9. US 64 BUS EB QUEUE * 43.9 49.4 -35.6 49.4 * 79. 270. AG 103. 100.0 .0 3.7 .93 13.2
10. US 64 BUS EBLT QUEUE' 43.9 53.0 -159.4 53.0 ' 203. 270. AG 240. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.73 33.9
11. US 64 BUS DIP t 53.0 4914 357.8 49.4 t 305. 90. AG 925. 8.9 .0 9.8
12. US 64 BUS WB APPR t 357.8 56.7 53.0 56.7 ' 305. 270. AG 925. 8.9 .0 9.8
13. US 64 BUS WB QUEUE t 60.4 56.7 129.3 56.7 69. 90. AG 111. 100.0 .0 3.7 .88 11.5
14. US 64 BUS WBLT QUEUE' 60.4 53.0 192.5 53.0 t 232. 90. AG 249. 100.0 .0 3.7 5.33 38.7
15. US 64 BUS DIP a 53.0 56.7 -251.8 56.7 t 305. 270. AG 1080. 8.9 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
' COORDINATES (K) '
RECEPTOR, * % Y Z
........................ . : ........................... ..........
'
1. REC 46 (SE CORNER) t 94.2 23.2 1.8 '
1. REC 47 (NE CORNER) * 80.5 101.2 1.8 '
3. REC Al (NW CORNER) t 17.1 78.6 1.8 '
4. REC A2 (SW CORNER) * 18.3 18.3 1.8
?ABLE A:
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2218 / NEW ROUTE & US 64 BUSINESS RUN: NEW ROUTE & 'JS 64 BUSINESS (2C14 BUILD)
DATE: 04/27,'1992 ?!ME: 14:09:38.93
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS : .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIYH = 900. M AMB : 1.9 PPM
LINE VARIABLES
--------------
LINE DESCRIPTION t LINE COORDINATES (N) t LENGTH BRG TYPE VPB IF H W V/C QUEUE
* 11 Y1 12 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
........................ t-----......-----------------------......t..........................................................
1. NEW ROUTE NB APPR * 32.3 -66.1 55.8 53.0 t 121. 11. AG 495. 7.8 .0 9.8
1. NEW ROUTE NB QUEUE * 56.7 43.9 48.3 5.8 t 39. 192. AG 167. 100.0 .0 3.7 .65 6.5
3. NEW ROUTE KILT QUIUEt 53.0 43.9 19.8 -159.2 t 206. 189. AG 231. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.61 34.3
4. NEW ROUTE NB DIP t 55.8 53.0 54.9 357.8 t 305. 360. AG 440. 10.0 .0 9.8
5. SR 1250 SB APPR t 51.2 357.8 50.3 53.0 * 305. 180. AG 440. 10.0 .0 9.8
6. SR 1250 SB QUEUE * 51.2 62.2 51.1 341.5 t 279. 360. AG 191. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.11 46.5
1. SR 1250 SB DIP t 50.3 533 253 -66.1 t 122. 192. AG 495. 7.8 .0 9.8
8. US 64 BUS EB APPR t -251.8 49.4 53.0 49.4 * 305. 90. AG 1080. 8.8 .0 9.8
9. US 64 BUS EB QUEUE * 43.9 49.4 -35.5 49.4 ' 79. 110. AG 100. 100.0 .0 3.1 .93 13.2
10. US 64 BUS IBLT QUEUI* 43.9 53.0 -159.4 53.0 * 203. 270. AG 233. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.73 33.9
11, US 64 BUS DIP * 53.0 49.4 357.8 49.4 * 305. 90. AG 925. 8.8 .0 9.8
12. US 64 BUS WB APPR t 357.8 56.7 53.0 56.7 ' 305, 270. AG 925. 8.8 .0 9.8
13. US 64 BUS WB QUEUE t 60.4 56.7 129.3 56.7 t 69. 90. AG 108. 100.0 .0 3.7 .88 11.5
14. US 64 BUS WELT QUEUE* 60.4 53.0 292.5 53.0 * 232. 90. AG 242. 100.0 .0 3.7 5.33 38.7
15. US 64 BUS DIP t 53.0 56.7 -251.8 56.7 t 305. 270. AG 1080. 8.8 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
t COORDINATES (M) t
RECEPTOR, t % Y Z t
------------ ------------ - t --------------------------- ---------. t
1. REC 46 (SE CORNER) * 94.2 23.2 1.8 t
2. RIC 47 (NI CORNER) * 80.5 101.2 1.8
3. REC Al (NW CORNER) t 17.1 78.6 1.8 t
4. RIC A2 (SW CORNER) t 18.3 18.3 1.8
FIGURE Nl - PROJECT LOCATION
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the
Extension of SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business,
Edgecombe County, State Project # 8.2290401,
TIP # U-2218A and U-2218B, FA # M-8746(1)
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 loam
100 Subway train, elevated train, fart tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

D
E
C
I 90

80
Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
Average factory, vacuum cleaner
Passenger car 50 sph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 10
E
L
S
60 Quiet typewriter
Singing birds, window air-conditioner
Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator VERY QUIET
Quiet office

40
Average hose
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.)

FA .32
33 AD
?.•?
.
"k...' v:<9Y:: .. .fie M

't 12U
e] :

;?.
lur.
tY :
O

?
f f: rs' ? ? • • ~7
r • ow • C

u I • V: :

1]2! 4MROAD

I • ? O

1 L!1 N •? '?
I
I
O e
---•AHBIENT MEASORElIENT SI4$S

UM

FIGURE N2 - AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the
Extension of SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business,
Edgecombe County, State Project # 8.2290401,
TIP # U-2218A and U-2218B, FA # M-8746(1)
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, schocls, 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 (CRP) 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: R= Carolina pgMtment 91 T=P2 tom EUR Abatement Guidelines
'
TABLE K
AKBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
R ocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1231, and the Extension of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Busine ss, Edgecombe County, State
Project f 8.2290401, TIP I U-2218A and U-22188, FA I K-8146(1)
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (.dBA)
1 NC 43, 0.05 mile V of SR 1130 Grassy Area 65
2 SR 1230, 0.16 mile N of NC 43 Grassy Area 50
3 SR 1232, 1 intersection of Grassy Area 61
SR 1329
4 US 64 Bypass Computer Modeled 10
5 US 64 Business, I intersection Grassy Area 66
of SR 1215
DS.L
The ambient noise level at sites 1, 2, 3 & 5 was measured at 50 feet
from the center of the nearest lane of traffic. Site 4 is a computer-
modeled ambient noise level at 50 feet from the center of the nearest
lane of traffic.
TABLE N4A
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EIPOSURES
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the Extens ion of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecombe Co unty, State
Project 1 8.2290401, TIP I U-2218A and U-2218B, FA 1 M-874 6(1)
Center Alternative
• AMBIENT DIST TO PRE DICTED MAI PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOIS E LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
NC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 11
1 Residence B NC 43 185' L 56 170' L 60.0 59.2 62 + 6
2 Residence B 105' L 61 285' R 54.8 63.6 64 + 2
MC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 2)
3 Residence B SR 1230 105' L 46 245' R 56.5 57.6 60 +14
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to SR 1232
4 Residence B SR 1232 95' R 51 200' R 58.6 62.6 64 + 7
SR 1232 to US 64 Bypass
5 Residence B SP. 1232 100' L 57 60' R 67.3 62.2 " 68 " +11
6 Residence B 120' L 55 95' L 64.2 60.8 65 t +10
7 Residence B 120' L 55 150' L 60.4 60.8 63 + 8
8 Residence B 95' L 57 240' L 56.1 62.6 63 + 6
9 Residence B " 95' L 57 315' L 53.2 62.6 63 + 6
10 Residence B SR 1329 60' R 50 60' R 67.3 54.0 t 67 * +17
11 Residence B 65' P, 48 65' R 66.7 53.1 " 66 " +18
12 Residence B " 55' R 49 55' R 67.8 53.2 * 67 " +18
13 Residence B " 70' R 51 70' R 66.2 54.7 ' 66 ° +14
_ 14 Residence B " 75' R 54 75' R 65.7 56.8 " 66 " +12
15 Residence B " 70' R 57 10' R 66.2 59.5 " 67 " +10
16 Residence B " 70' L 53 70' L 66.2 56.3 " 66 * +13
17 Residence B " 180' L 53 180' L 5B.9 55.6 60 + 1
18 Residence B 240' L 53 240' L 56.1 56.0 59 + 6
19 Residence B " 280' L 55 280' L 54.4 57.6 59 + 4
20 Residence B 310' L 54 370' L 51.4 56.9 57 + 3
21 Residence B 570' L 51 510' L 46.0 55.7 56 + 4
22 Residence B 595' L 51 595' L 45.5 54.3 54 + 3
23 Residence B 525' L 49 525' L 47.1 53.8 54 + 5
24 Residence B 450' L 49 450' L 49.1 53.5 54 + 5
NOTES: Distances are from c enter of exi sting or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-we ighted noise levels. -L- _> Proposed roadway's no ise level contribution.
Category E noise lev els shown as exterior/interior (58/481. 1 _> Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 772),
TABLE N4A
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EZPOSURES
L/2
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the Extension of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecom be County, S tate
Project f 8.2290401, TIP i U-2218A and U-2218B, FA t M-8746 (1)
tenter Alternative
- AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAI FRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEARES T ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
SR 1232 to US 64 Bypass ( continued)
25 Residence B SR 1329 395' L 49 395' L 50.7 53.1 55 + 6
26 Residence B 330' L 48 330' L 52.7 53.1 55 + 7
21 Residence B 270' L 48 270' L 54.8 52.4 56 + 8
28 Residence B " 185' L 48 185' L 56.6 52.2 59 +11
29 Residence B " 75' L 49 75' R 65.7 53.2 65 " +16
30 Residence B 100' L 49 100' L 63.8 52.8 64 " +15
US 64 By pass to US 64 B usiness
31 Residence B US 64 Byp 330' L 55 250' R 55.6 58.2 60 + 5
32 Residence B 420' L 53 420' R 50.0 55.7 56 + 3
33 Residence B " 545' L 50 80' R 65.3 52.5 65 • +15
34 Residence B 690' L 47 85' R 64.9 4915 65 * +18
35 Residence B " 745' L 46 160' R 59.9 48.6 60 +14
36 Residence B SR 1250 95' R 45 95' R - - 64 * +19
31 Residence B " 160' R 45 160' R - - 59 +14
38 Residence B " 325' R 45 325' R - - 52 + 7
39 Residence B 355' R 45 355' R - - 51 + 6
40 Residence B " 95' R 45 95' R - - 64 " +19
41 Residence B US 64 Bus 425' R 46 90' R 64.5 49.0 64 " +18
42 Residence B " 455' R 45 225' R 56.8 48.1 57 +12
43 Residence B " 440' R 45 335' R 52.5 48.5 53 + 8
44 Residence B 365' R 50 95' R 64.2 53.7 64 +14
45 Residence B " 265' R 54 85' R 64.9 57.1 65 " +11
46 Business C " 135' R 60 80' L 65.3 63.8 67 + 7
47 Residence B " 100' R 62 195' R 58.2 65.9 66 + 4
48 Residence B " 40' R 68 290' R 54.0 71.3 " 71 + 3
NQTES; Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- :> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- :> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). 1 :> Traffic noise impact (23 CPR Part 772).
RECEPTOR
1
3
4
50
51
52
4
54
5
53
31
32
55
33
56
34
35
TABLE N4B
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the Extension of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecombe County, State
Project f 8.2290401, TIP I U-2118A and U-2218B, FA 1 M-8746(1)
dAag Alternative
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED
RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y-
NC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 1)
Residence B NC 43 185' L 56 170' L 60.0 59.2
Residence B 105' L 61 285' P, 54.8 63.6
NC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 2)
Residence B SR 1230 105' L 46 245' R 56.5 5716
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to SR 1232
MAI PRED NOISE
NOISE LEVEL
LEVEL INCREASE
62 + 6
64 + 3
60 +14
Residence B SR 1232 95' R 57 180' L 59.5 62.6 64 + 7
Residence B SR 1232 250' R 49 65' R 67.4 54.1 * 67 a +18
Residence B 115' R 56 0 -----------------R/W ------------
Residence B " 120' R 55 75' L 66.4 60.8 67 t +12
Residence B 95' R 57 180' L 59.5 6216 64 + 7
SR 1 232 to US 64 Bypass
Business C SR 1232 60' L 60 70' R 66.3 65.7 69 + 9
Residence B 105' L 56 240' L 56.1 61.9 62 + 6
Residence B " 175' L 52 25' L ----- -------- ----P,/W ------------
US 64 Bypass to US 64 Business
Residence B US 64 Byp 475' L 55 200' L 58.0 54.2 59 + 4
Residence B " 560' L 53 50' L ----- -------- ----R/W ------------
Residence B 1000' L 44 280' R 54.5 45.6 55 +11
Residence B 685' L 50 340' L 52.4 49.7 54 + 4
Residence B 860' L 46 155' L 60.2 47.1 60 +14
Residence B 825' L 47 240' L 56.1 47.5 56 + 9
Residence B " 880' L 46 135' L 61.4 46.8 61 " +15
NOTBS: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- _> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). 1 => Traffic noise impact (23 CPR Part 772).
TABLE N4E 2'2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rocky Mount, New Route from HC 43 to SR 1232 and the Extension of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecombe County, State
Project t 8.2290401, TIP I U-2218A and U-22188, FA 1 M-8146(1)
Liq Alternative
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR. NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
US 64 Bypass to US 64 Business (continued)
57 Residence B US 64 Byp 1090' L 43 0 -----------------R/W ------------
38 Residence B SP. 1150 325' R 45 75' P, - - 65 * +20
36 Residence B It 90' R 45 100' L - - 63 " +18
31 Residence B " 160' R 45 20' L ----- ------- -----R/W ------------
39 Residence B " 350' R 45 290' R - - 54 + 9
58 Residence B 1351 R !S 70' R - - " 66 " +21
40 Residence B " 85' R 45 50' R - - " 68 * +23
43 Residence B US 64 Bus 440' L 48 3151 P, 53.2 51.5 55 + 7
42 Residence B 460' L 48 1901 R 58.5 50.9 59 +11
41 Residence B " 430' L 48 70' R 66.3 51.8 " 66 * +18
44 Residence B " 370' L 50 75' R 65.8 53.6 " 66 t +16
45 Residence B " 275' L 53 75' R 65.8 56.8 * 66 " +13
46 Business C 140' L 60 85' L 64.9 63.6 67 + 7
47 Residence B 90' L 63 180' R 58.9 66.7 " 67 + 4
48 Residence B 40' L 68 285' R 54.3 71.4 a 71 + 3
NOTES; Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * :> Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 772).
r
TABLE HC 1!1
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SP, 1232 and the Extensi on of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecombe County, S tate
Project 1 8.2190401, TIP 1 U-2218A and U-22188, FA 1 M-8746 (1)
1 Alternative
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX FRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE
NC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 1)
1 Residence B NC 43 185' L 56 170' L 60.0 59.2 62 + 6
2 Residence B " 105' L 61 285' P, 54.8 63.6 64 + 3
NC 43 to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (Alternate 1 2)
3 Residence B SR 1230 105' L 46 245' 1 56.5 57.6 60 +14
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad to SR 1232
60 Residence B SR 1232 110' L 56 250' P, 56.3 61.6 62 + 6
61 Residence B it 150' L 53 85' R 65.5 58.9 * 66 * +13
SR 1232 tp US 64 Bypass
62 Residence B SR 1232 60' R 60 185' R 58.7 65.7 * 66 + 6
63 Residence B 105' R 56 110' R 63.2 61.9 65 + 9
64 Business C " 25' R 64 110' L 63.2 69.9 70 + 6
65 Residence B " 40' R 62 155' L 60.2 67.7 * 68 + 6
66 Residence B " 165' R 53 295' L 53.9 58.1 59 + 6
67 Residence B " 100' L 57 475' L 48.4 62.3 61, + 5
68 Residence B 40' L 62 510' L 47.5 67.7 67 + 5
NOTES; Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (23 CPR Part 772).
TABLE N`
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the Extension of
SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, Edgecosbe County, State
Project 1 8,2290401, TIP ¢ U-2218A and U-2218B, FA 1 M-8146(1)

Description
1. NC 93 to SP. 1232
East Alternative with Alternate 1
East Alternative with Alternate 2
Center Alternative with Alternate 1
Center Alternative with Alternate 2
West Alternative with Alternate 1
West Alternative with Alternate 2
2. SR 1232 to US 61 Business
East Alternative
Center Alternative
West Alternative
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
(dBA)' (Maximum)' Title 23 CYR Part 772
50' 100' 2001 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

68 69 58 (25, 62'
0 2 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
67 63 57 (25' 56'
0 10 0 0 0
0 19 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0
1501, 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane with the
Leq noise levels pertaining to all design alternatives.
272 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway with the
contour distances pertaining to all design alternatives.
TABLE N6

TRAFYIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Rocky Mount, New Route frog NC-43 to SR-1232 and the Extension of
SR-1250 froi SR-1232 to US-64 Business, Edgecoobe County,
TIP I U-2218 A and B, State Project 1 8.2290401
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 21-12 13-24 >: 25 Increases'
NC 43 TO SR 1232
East Alternative with alt 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
East Alternative with alt 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Center Alternative with alt 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Center Alternative with alt 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Alternative with alt 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
West Alternative with alt 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
SR 1232 TO US64 BUSINESS
East Alternative 0 0 4 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 8
Center Alternative 0 0 7 B 7 1 5 5 3 5 1 0 0 0 17
West Alternative 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'As defined in Table N2.

BYO,,. RATE ?
s
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 2, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
« Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
NC 43 Bypass, Federal Aid Project M-8746(1),
State Project 8.2290401, U-2218, R-2423,
Supplemental Archaeological Study, Edgecombe
County, ER 91-7879
Dear Mr. Graf:
Q ?,E?V O
6 199V
14 hy
es OF
DM„,?t? '
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 1991, concerning the above
project. We have reviewed the supplemental survey report by Thomas J.
Padgett and offer our comments.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that archaeological site 31ED299 is not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places due to its small
size and disturbed condition.
In general, the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior. Future reports of archaeological testing
studies, however, should include a map showing the area(s) of investigation
and locations of tests.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
109 East ones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Nicholas G. Graf
May 2, 1991, Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
S cerely,
David Brook, w
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: T. J. Padgett
,,Zi J . Ward
'r

r
ash°
?d ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
Septemher 18, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Archaeological Study, Federal aid M-8746(1),
State No. 8.2290401, U-2218, R-2423, Edgecombe
County, NC 43 Bypass and SR 1250 Extension,
ER 91-7173
Dear Mr. Graf:
r
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1990, and the archaeological
report by Thomas J. Padgett of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
During the course of the survey, Mr. Padgett located one historic period
archaeological site (31Ed299**). Sufficient evaluation of this site to
determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places was not feasible due to-the presence of a mature tobacco
crop. Mr. Padgett has recommended that additional field inspection with
subsurface testing be conducted once the tobacco crop has been removed.
We concur with this recommendation and look forward to reviewing the
supplemental report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
' environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r? A
Davin Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
/ 109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
cc: (?L. J. Ward
T, Padgett
?? [q
Y Wry ina
rr :_
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Rocky Mount, New route from NC 43 to SR 1232
and extension of SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US
64 Business, R-2423 and U-2218, Edgecombe
County, State Project 48.2290401, Federal Aid
M-8746(1), CH 90-E-4220-1001, ER 90-8221
16?4
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
As noted in our memorandum of June 13, 1990, we recommended that the new
location portion of the project be surveyed by an experienced archaeologist
prior to project implementation. Since that time it is our understanding
that your staff archaeologist has conducted a survey of the proposed
project area and has recorded at least one archaeological site. As soon
as his report is available, please forward a copy to us for our review
and comment.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw

•
cc: T. Padgett
B. Church 109 Eastjones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
State Clearinghouse

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM
R
aOurces f S
90
/99
k;1 /?rchive??nd?
B2
?.1 L
tory
erector
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation officer
SUBJECT: Scoping for new route from NC 4 to SR 1232
and extension of SR 1250 from SR 1232 to us 64
Business, R-2423 and U-2218, Rocky Mount,
Edgecombe County, State Project #8.2290401,
F.A. M-8746(1), ER 90-8221
Thank you for your memorandum of May 1, 1990, concerning the above
project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. The portion of the project involving widening existing roadway is
unlikely to affect archaeological sites. However, the portion of the
project on new location crosses a few small elevated areas. Archaeological
investigations in similar environments indicate the presence of prehistoric
sites and we, therefore, recommend that the new location portion of the
project be surveyed by an experienced archaeologist prior to project
implementation.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
• The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
109 East ones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
R E L_ O C A T I ON R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.2290401 COUNTY: Edaecombe Center Alternate
I.D. NO.: V-2218 F.A. PROJECT: M-8746 (1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Two-Lane Roadway from NC 43 to LS 64 Alternate in Rocky Mount
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
E35-50M 50 UP
Individuals M M
Families
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
r 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
i
b
serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
d b
di
l
100 UP
600 LP
100 LP
600 UP
a
ecte
y
acement
sp
L
---
-- 3. Will business services still
b
f
il
bl
j TOTAL
i
e ava
e a
ter pro
ect
a
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
I I placed. If so, indicate size
it type, estimated number of p NO DISPLACEES ON THIS ALTERNATE.
l
i
i
i
t
emp
oyees, m
nor
es; e
c.
t
5. Will relocation cause a
h
h
i
ous
ng s
ortage
6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
)
ng
st
7. Will additional housing
d
b
d
programs
e nee
e
8. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d
e cons
ere
I 9. Are there large, disabled,
? l d
q
l
f
ili s
- - e
er
y, etc.
am
es
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

- T 10. Will public housing be
d f
t
d
j
nee
or pro
ec
e
11. Is public housing avail-
---
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
e
iod
d
i
l
ti
ur
r
ng re
oca
on p
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
14. Are suitable business sites
(list source)
il
bl
ava
a
e
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
71
WRY LOU SUG JULY 12 1993
-RE O t on g t ate Approved ate
'orm 15.4 Revised 5/90 ?? Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
v
k
R F L O C A T T n" R f`_ P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.2290401 COUNTY: F_dgecombe West Alternate
I.D. NO.= V-2218 F.A. PROJECT: M-8746 (1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Two-Lane Roadway from NC 43 to US 64 Alternate in Rocky Mount
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
"Type of Minor- ? q n ^ II
?DisPIacee Owners Tenants Total ities H 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
ndividuals? n n ry
^
,Families 1 0 1 0 H 1
h P P

hQusinesses n H VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
"Farms h Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent

','Non-Profit
0-20M 0-150
n
0-20MM
$ 0-150 I
tl
ANSWER ALL OLESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40MH 7 150-250 d h
,__S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 40-70M 22 250-400 H tl

y X 1 1. Will special relocation
7
i 70-100 400-6001 70-100 1 400-600 1 H
serv
ces be necessary

1 X 2. Will schools or churches be
ff 100 UP 600 UP 100 LIP 1 600 LIP H
a
ected by displacement _ H
I X 1
F
h 3. Will business services still
b
l TOTAL 1 M II 29 H If II
--- e avai
able after Project i
1 I X 4. Will any business be di s- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
I placed. If so, indicate size ALL RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES ARE COUNTED AS FAMILIES.
type, estimated number of 1
! "

I
X employees, minorities, etc. 3. Business services will still be available after
n
N 5. Will relocation cause a project since no businesses are being displaced on
housing shortage this Alternate.
X II 6. Source for available hous-
II i? i
(li
)

, ns
st 6. Multiple Listing Service, realtors and classified
X 7. Will additional housing ads.

± programs be needed
1 8. Should Last Resort Housing 8. As mandated by State Law

b .

a I
N II e considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
ill ld
l
e
er
y) etc. families
- ANSWER TH
,r --p ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
I !, 1 10. Will public housing be
- i d
d f
N
-
1 nee
e
or Project
11. Is public housing avail- i?
li able !
M !? 1 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
`I i equate DDS housing available
during relocation period n
" 11 i 13. Will there be a problem of
I housing within financial
1
means
14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
(li
„ ava
a
e
st source)
1 15. Number months estimated to
11 11
n complete RELOCATION ^I

Merv Lou 1
JULY 12, 1993
Alf
e ocation g t ate Approved ate
Form 15.4 Revised 5/9
/71 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
F FLO(-AT I QN REPORT
Y F.I.S. _ CORRIDOR - nFSIGN
PROJECT: 8.7_7_90401 COUNTY: Fdgecc
I.D. NO.: V-2118 F.A. PROJECT:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
.00 North Carnlina Department 4?;Mspnrtati"1o
RFI_ "ION ASSISTANCE
East Alternate
(1 > p W 16 1993
Alternate in Ro Mo 1?1-0?
?, HIGHWAYS I/
fr
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
ON
INCOME LEVEL
of
1Dlsplacee Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities M
0-15M 15-25M 1 25-35M
35-50M 1
50 UP 1
Individuals
Families 6 0 6 3 3 3 1
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLI S AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants 1 For Sale For Rent n
Non-Profit 0-20M 0-150 0-20M 0-150 !
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 3 150-250 20-40M 7 150-250 q
YES INO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" PARS 40-70M 3 250-400 40-70M 22 250-400 9
1
1
A X 1. Will special relocation X 70-100 400-600 70-100
1 1 400-600 n
i
b H
serv
ces
e necessary : 1
Xh 2. Will schools or churches be 100 LP 600 UP 100 LF 600 UP h
ff
a
ected by displacement
X 1 3. Will business services still TOTAL 6 29 h 1
b
il
bl
f
e ava
a
e a
ter project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
j placed. If so, indicate size ) ALL RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES COUNTED AS FAMILIES.
XI type, estimated number of
r 1 th
bl
ft
ill b
il
i
i
ill
i -- employees, minorities, etc. er
e
e a
st
e ava
a
3. Bus
ness serv
ces w
Xlf 5. Will relocation cause a project since no businesses are being displaced on
housing shortage this Alternate.
X 6. Source for available hous-
I ?I i
(li
) lassified
lt
a
d
lti
l
Li
ti
S
i
6
M
- XQ ns
st
7. Will additional housing erv
ce, rea
ors
n
c
u
p
e
s
ng
.
ads.
Q b
d
d
programs
e nee
e
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing 8. As mandated by State Law.
-?) be considered
7
1 XB 9. Are there large, disabled, ----
-" -? ? e I der I y
etc
families
... ...... .
.. ,
.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
.
.
1 'I .
X 10. Will public housing be
d f
t
d
j
or pro
ec
nee
e 1?C3
X 11. Is public housing avail- l` . a 1
-
- -
r bl
- -
! a
e
h
i
ill b
d-
I
f
l
12
ere w
e a
s
t t
.
t
e ?„
Y
it equate DDS housing ava i I ab I e i : `
'
r-- ?- during relocation period
'a 13. Will there be a problem of ?-
Housing within financial
-? -- means
I! 14. Are suitable business sites
ilable (list source)
ava
„ 15. Number months estimated to
N complete RELOCATION I
MARY LOU SUGG e1,_r*_,_,,tL0(-, JULY 12, 1993
elocation s t ate Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revis 5/90, A,11 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
1
R E L O C A T I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportatio
x E.I.S. - CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANC
PROJECT: 8.2290401 COUNTY: Edqecombe Southern Alternat
I.D. NO.: V-2218 F.A. PROJECT: M-8746 (1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Two-Lane Roadway from NC 43 to LS 64 Alternate in Rocky Mount
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
?Displacee Minor-
Owners Tenants Total ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 LP
Igdividuals
Families
?B sinesses VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants
i For Sale For Rent
RNon-Profit 0-20M s 0-150 0-20M Is 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
YF_S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100. 400-600

d services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 LP
600 LP
100 UP 600 UP
r- ?- - affected by displacement
h 3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
Placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of NO DISPLACEES ON THIS ALTERNATE.
U I employees; minorltiesi etc. I
5. Will relocation cause a
h
h
i
t
ng s
age
ous
or
a 6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
t)
ng
s
7. Will additional housing
ded
b
e nee
programs
8. Should Last Resort Housing
I
id
b
d
ere
e cons
9. Are there large, disabledr
ilies
l
fa
ld
t
er
m
e
y, e
c.
?--- ?--W ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
d 1 be
h
i
1 0
W i l l
bli
ng
ous
.
Pu
c
t
d f
j
d
or pro
nee
ec
e
11. Is public housing avail-
ble
a ?
? 12. Is it felt there will be ad- W
equate DDS housing available
eriod
du
lo
atio
i
ng re
n p
r
c
i 13. Will there be a problem of
L U housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
t source)
bl
(li
il
a
e
s
ava
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
MARY LOU SUGG ULY 12, 1993 7 i
Re ocation eate Approve Date
Form 15.4 Revis 51W Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
?'/ 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RT I fro heCOmalera? try -*-Orml Aga-M-11
Mama at arc$@=
PragasoD ants use
PART 11 fro be Cormp/erad by SCSI

,ants State ?,?,gaca r?r.?- Co •.
wets Racwets 3v SCS 7
IM =0 Average ram
-
Does tilts site contain prime, unique, sntswide or local iniportarit farmland? Yes/^to `.
fff no, rte FPPA does nor aapiy - do nor Carmp/ere additional parrs of dais fwm). Z a Amowtt at pwmww AS ac'
mew C100ft/ a <.an0 In t. JutualeLOn (.
Aaas: -'-' 7 3 % ?a Acres:
V Lam G%loseasess alarm
Monte 0 ants cvawuoei Svtteen Us" I Name t t.ae1 Ste AetttitetR Srswii oats
• '" .?.1? l? ;? Alt Two Site atlne
PART 111 (To be cgrmo/erad by Fedora/ Agent/) VC-8 + Si a Pee C
A. T oal Acres To 34 Converted 0irect1Y
S. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecdv
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV fTo be Cormp/eted by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I r'
S. Toai Acres Statewide And Loaf Imoottant Farmland
Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit Toss Converted
C ! ?" I • =1 ''-
_
O P91asrtmge Of Fertniants in Govt. Agnews lion Mtn Same or Mttliter fielawe Valve I 1 '? ? I i I
PART V (To be co mplored by SCSI Land Etaluanon Crtanon
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sa/eofQro 100 Paints)
PART VI (robecomioletedbyctdwviAg&l7CY)- maximum
I
ftin
Site Aa omment Criteria 177raw artsr?a arr awsrWnee In 7 CPR es8J(b) \ I 3 I \7205
'
1 Area In Nonurban Use I ?C
Z Perimeter In Nonurban Use
I
I at
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
I 1
0 I O I O I O
4 °rotaeaon Provided By State And Local Govemment a I I
5 Ouzuusi From Urnan Builtuo Arm I N t? I
8 0iftSnee To Urban Succom Services
I s
7 Sze Of Prawn Farm Unit Compared To Average i \o I I S
1 I ?
Crest=on Of Nonfar*nable Far land I 1 1
S. Availability Of Farm Suooart Services
1
On-rarm investments
10 O
?
.
N G•
544
ifp?irn PA
!dY STLS
11. Effects Of Conversion On Fern Sucocrt Services I
.? I I i
1Z Compatibility with Exist rI Awicuiturai Use B L\ I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSIMF-NT POINTS tt3a I I y I
_
PART VII MO be comp/ered by FedrW A" MY)
Relative Value Of Farmland 1AMM Part V1
--To-=i Si to Assessment ( rpm art V/ ;wove Ora loop ( t ga I-17 I-1? I Lld
sirs a?irtMr/ L l-j ??' ` '
TOTAL POINTS (Taal of above 2 ffnesJ I 250 I 13- ' I 3 l Sa r?.t.atii
DatsOf Selection
Swro Selee:ted: I I YeQ No a
Reewn For Solomon:
Ate" Agomv Invoivets \?\? 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY -?
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
{ P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 I
July 1 1 , 1990 Q'
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division rile i' 3 1990
r
HIG! ??
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. , Manager AFSEARGY??
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of June 11, 1990, requesting
information on "Rocky Mount, New Route from NC 43 to SR 1232 and the
extension of SR 1250 from SR 1232 to US 64 Business, R-2423 and U-2218,
Edgecombe County, State Project #8.2290401, F. A. #M-8746(1and off.'er
the following comments.
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 waters of the United States
or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction rrith this
project, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit
requirements will depend on the final project design, area of waters
and/or wetlands filled, construction methods, etc. Under our mitigation
policy',' impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We
will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any
work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory
Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Departmet of the Amy permit
Mr. Ken
requirements. Should you have any questions, please
Jolly, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesita a to contact us.
c rely,
--Lawrence ?W../ ders
Chief, Plann g Division
cit
I
9I,0- q p-ql-) I
404 Mendenhall Road
Jamestown, North Carolina
July 18, 1997 .- --? -a /
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Dorney
t d'
This letter is in response to Action ID 199500517 and (T.I.P. #U-2218 and Project
8.2290401 U-2218).
This letter guarantees that I will be able to have access to my land, use my land and make
improvements to my land in the future as needed. This guarantees that what you are doing
to the property will not affect the marketability of my land, and guarantees that you will
maintain the drains on my property so that it doesn't flood so that it doesn't affect the
marketability of this property. This guarantees that I can use my property as before.
Sincerely,
Qatlw-?-
Julia Rayborn
?YA&,
n
/ K2
//VC (IL) A 6;J?f
OT
-el
y,
• '4,-ter

;pr ,

•??• • State of North Carolina
?- Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 28, 1997
AT4 I W
?Ojj ?;A
mom
C) EHNR
To: Ms. Julia Rayborn
404 Mendenhall. Road, Jamestown, NC, 27282-9638
From; Cyndi Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Reference your correspondence of July 18, 1997. Your letter did not include a
phone number, and the local operator does not have your number listed. I am
interested in learning of your concerns, but do not know the project or
impacts to which you are referring. Please note, U-2218 is the Rocky Mount
Bypass in Edgecombe County. The only Jamestown I can find is in Guilford
County, so I am unsure of the connection.
I will be back in the office the week of August 4, 1997. Please contact me at
[phone] or my e-mail address ([e-mail]).
I will be happy to discuss your concerns.
Sincerely,
/za?
Cyndi Bell
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/1 Vo post consumer paper
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199400662
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 23, 19
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
i
641
40V9?sci
?s
R-'walll (IS Cy
E.13ec*--'Ipe Co
This correspondence is in reference to my September 16, 1997, correspondence to you
regarding the Mildred Woods mitigation site associated with the U.S. Highway 64 project in
Edgecombe and Martin Counties, TIP Nos. and also serves to confirm
your discussions with Messrs. Ken Jolly and David Lekson of my staff at the interagency meeting
held in Raleigh on October 16, 1997.
It has been our policy for some time that compensatory mitigation work undertaken on
large sites, that have not been established as mitigation banks, be surveyed to identify the limits
of the mitigation work designated to offset impacts associated with a specific project. Although
my staff has previously requested that your staff provide a survey of the acreage utilized from the
Mildred Woods site for the above referenced project, we have not received the requested
information. By copy of this letter, you are formally requested to identify and survey the 217
acres of non-riverine wet hardwood and swamp forest at the Mildred Woods site utilized to
satisfy Condition (a) of your permit (Action ID 199400662) and to provide a copy of the survey
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh and Washington Regulatory Field Offices, within
30 days of the date of this letter.
Additionally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has utilized the Mildred
Woods site to compensate for impacts associated with the R-2112BA & BB segments of the
U.S. 64 project. Twenty-three (23) acres of non-riverine wetland restoration and fifteen (15)
acres of riverine preservation were used from this site. By copy of this letter, you are formally
requested to identify and survey the 23 acres of non-riverine wetland restoration and 15 acres of
preservation at the Mildred Woods site utilized to satisfy Condition (r) of your permit (Action
ID 199601404) and to provide a copy of the surveys to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Raleigh and Washington Regulatory Field Offices, within 30 days of the date of this letter.
-2-
As referenced in my correspondence of September 16, 1997, the Corps of Engineers will
not consider further use of the Mildred Woods mitigation site until success can be documented
on the site.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Michael Bell, Project Manager/NCDOT Coordinator, at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone], extension 26, or Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Project Manager/NCDOT
Coordinator, at the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 23.
44) -4
Sincerely,
ichael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Chief, Regulatory
Division
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
'NR y? +

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 19, 1997
Mr. Ken Jolly
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, N.C. 27615
Re: Additional Information to facilitate USACE Review of Proposed Wetland
Management Activities at the Mildred Woods Mitigation Site
Martin/Edgecombe Counties, TIP No. R-2111/2112, Action ID 199400662
Dear Mr. Jolly:
This letter serves to provide you with the supplemental information that yourself and
Mr. David Lekson verbally requested with regard to the report: "Effects of Borrow Pit Water
Surface Elevations and Ditch Improvements" at the Mildred Woods Mitigation Site. I hope this
information will facilitate your review of proposed modifications to the Mildred Woods Site, and
will assist you in placing this modification on a 15-day public notice.
For clarity, a summary is attached to this letter which restates our proposed modifications
to the Mildred Woods Site. The supplemental information you requested is also attached,
specifically:
1. Input and output from DRAINMOD runs performed by Dr. Chip Chesheir of NCSU,
on paper and on disc.
2. Detailed plan drawings of the proposed hydraulic outlet structure to be constructed on
the south side of the borrow pit that is adjacent to Shiloh Road.
3. Estimated direct impacts of construction upon mitigation areas.
Please call me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
4?(A? ? V?A??
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Manager, Environmental Services
cc: Mr. David Lekson, USACE
Ms. Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ
9
,M ., 41
Summary of Proposed Modifications to the Mildred Woods Mitigation Plan
Please refer to Figures 1 and 2 of the report: "Effects of Borrow Pit Water Surface Elevations
and Ditch Improvements" at the Mildred Woods Mitigation Site. For convenience, these figures
are attached to this summary.
Proposed Permit Modifications:
1. Install a hydraulic outlet structure to the south side of the "Borrow Pit Lake", to limit
maximum water surface elevation of the "Lake" to 43 feet. See Figure 1. The structure will be
located in the ditch section between the lake and the southern property line of the site. The ditch
was re-excavated in March of 1997. (The original Mitigation Plan does not call for filling this
pre-existing ditch, therefore no modification is necessary for its re-excavation.) Detailed
drawings of the hydraulic structure are attached, as well as a three-dimensional representation.
The lowest possible weir invert elevation will be set at 43 feet. A 30-inch diameter, reinforced
concrete pipe will extend from the rear of the structure for a minimum distance of 50-feet. Rip-
rap will be placed at the outlet end of the concrete pipe.
Impact: Lowering the "Lake" elevation is estimated to reduce wetland restoration acreage
by 15 acres on those areas of the site adjacent to the Lake. See Figure 1.
2. Intercept ditch flow from several homes located to the north side of the site, and divert the
flow to a roadside ditch located along the west side of SR 1523 (Shiloh Road). See Figure 2. A
24-inch diameter pipe will be installed between the existing ditch on site, and the roadside ditch
along Shiloh Road. To force ditch flow into the 24-inch pipe, an impervious ditch plug will be
constructed along the ditch on site, just south of the location where the new pipe intersects the
ditch. Field surveys have verified that the pipe will maintain positive slope toward Shiloh Road.
Impact: This modification is estimated to reduce wetland restoration acreage by 8.5 acres
on the north side of the site. See Figure 2.
3. Maintain the short, recently-excavated (March 1997) ditch section that is located between the
Lake and US 64. This ditch serves to maintain good drainage of the highway and interchange
area.
Impact: None, since the area around the ditch is already considered to be upland due to the
Lake elevation being maintained at 43 feet. This impact was already calculated in Item 1, above.
% 4 1,
Additional Work not requiring a Permit Modification:
1. Backfill the recently-excavated (March 1997) ditch section that is located on the north side of
US 64, between the highway and the woodline. Remove any excess spoil in this area.
Impact: None. Backfilling the ditch restores this area of the mitigation site to its previous
condition, as specified in the Mitigation Plan. Had the ditch remained open, then further losses
bof wetland would have been calculated as part of the "Effects" report.
Estimated Construction Impacts:
1. Installation of Hydraulic Structure.
Disruption to site is minimal and inconsequential, because the structure will be installed in an
upland portion of the site.
2. Installation of pipe to Shiloh Road and the impervious Ditch Plug to block the ditch.
Total length of the pipe is approximately 300 feet, including the length that must pass under
Shiloh Road. Therefore, it is estimated that 240 feet of the pipe will require some degree of
clearing through woods. A 30-foot cleared swath through the woods will be required to install
the pipe. In addition, to install the ditch plug an approximate 30 x 70-foot area must be cleared.
Total estimated clearing for both modifications is 0.21 acres of forested wetland restoration area.
This area will be replanted in the winter of 1998/1999 with the appropriate species (as available)
detailed in the mitigation plan.
3. Maintain the short ditch section that is located between the Lake and US 64.
No work is required, therefore no impacts will occur. The ditch is located in upland area.
4. Backfill the ditch section that is located between US 64 and the woodline just north of the
Shiloh Road interchange. The ditch length is approximately 200 feet in an open area. A 30-foot
construction area will be required, bringing the disturbance area to 0.14 acre (the area was
previously been disturbed to excavate the ditch). This area will be replanted in the winter of
1998/1999 with the appropriate species (as available) detailed in the mitigation plan
L661 1d3S la}°Q oo8 a I ialoDs
920L683 }oaroJd ?AH psM?aN3
1 a.an813 Ag umvia
VN I -lOdV3 HAON ' A1NnO3 38WO339Q3
31IS SQOOM Q3dalIW
(1112-d) NOIIV91IIH b9 Sn
AOO3O21QAH QNVIAM
ou& 'sao Ajol
j;4U uOOITAU 29
U
O
C
1
L
i
JxP'IID-PI!H/9ZOLU
r r r ?r ri ?r ?r rr rr r? r• w M... Not. In
L661 1deS :oiDa '09t - j :e103S
9Z01-683 :10e(oJd HSH X8 p040e43
Z :ejn6U iom :As umoia
DUIIOJDC) IAI ION 'Alunoo gwOOa6P3
a1!S UOI;D611lyj SPOOM P9JPl!y4
SJalawDJDd 46010JPAH
'out 'ceo?etag
I"uemuoateaR

W
qct

C
C
w
7
K
??x
P

a?
v
U
7
r`
N
a?
-v
v
c
v

a) s
a -?
CL o
c
m
?t a
N O
v
06
a s?
0 m AO
a
rn ? a
o
C
J ?
U 0 -4)
v> s v
E
? ° > 'X
s o ? 0
(D CL
o F-° w Q
?I? of
6MP•Iaaailh/caoc683

LQ
(f)
W
Q
V
~

Q ?

y Q
O

J ?

0
W w
I?
Lij
W ?

v
z
0
v
m
3 w
O m
J m
S J O cc
F O Q 2 W
N Z w m
0 U) -j m
¢
w
3 F}-¢

m
U x F- CC M
Z F- Z W m J
d W x >-
M !- m F w F-
CC IL O J O
Ow cc mm
o u O z N
U x 3 x
Q w F- O W
m x J m
z N U Cn U.
N Z w
0o w y xa
I= N W m M F- r 0
wF 3 w HF .-
Hcd?_j - z 3 w 'N IN „b
CC H J Q fn co co
LL Q S 00)
O N U) a CC J
CC U W W w Q J
d W m U) 0 > O Z Q
On. ad O m x
m N J z m U S O rn
x J N W co F-
y a Q Z> m Q x F-
Q x x W O d J cn x
JQCo CL0 w LL d 0
U. 0 O J d N
Z r w U Z W
wQcc CD I-- W O x
F- F'Z Z W WF'
W to O N CC N 3 CC
cc Cn (no F• CD O
U4.Q U) z w W Z N
z 0 a 00 > mH cc
O = U Q W
0Ohe U x MCC F-
-f U x F- O Z
F- CO 0 CC 7 J Z LL
H
U J d W N Z
D Z m co N w 00 x
_ m0? W Z F- 7U O
CnJ F-NY Cc CO
CcQ CO F-0 Jw N
dU Cn ZUN J J Qtn x
W O W CC J G J W Q d
Cl U CA CO d N d cn m a
} O
z
U
O
OD
W .T CO

tt d
)n Q U Ln
m N
io CL
is
= r
m F-
I
U
O
co
0
Cn J
tc Q
d U
H
to
CL
e }
d F-
a
Q
U Z
O 0
H
co F-
U
w
N
co J
Q U
m H
CL
co
F
Cn
cc U
Q
m O
U co
N J
cc d co
m N m
a
} Z
mF O
M
V

cr
d
m
t w
va
G N
CL
tr tC
F- w
x >
W O
w
a
a
2
W
O
cc
d
m
1
1
I
I
I Oj
H
U
O
co
aL
U) J
d U
m N
a
Q N Q--w,
U
V

U O
N
O M-

J
Cl)
cc Q
Q U
m t.,
CL
G >.
U F-
J
U
U
O O
OD
aL _ ab
N J Cn J
x d CC d
Q U Q U
C13 N m N
CL a
- >' G r
d ?- m F•
rr
d
m
G W
Ua
G N
CL
d
CL CL
F- W
W O
U
O
CA
ab
m J
m Q
Q U
m H
a
U F-
U
z

1-
O w
U Qs ?mx
o
D
} J 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
C,?
Fa-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
QO O O O 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w

3?y 0x
o?
Q

F-1 Q a) ,A in n )O a f7 a1
F
O ro
M rn
a ui
N co
h ,:
O a C) m
N
O F N cli

co io
O

to J N N
LL S
Q
w
w m tD O
N O
N a
N CC
N N
M t0
f7 O
a
cc
U
z G -
V y t0 tp
¢Q U tp t0
LL m
J

W N
H O
2 f0 t0 h CD Of O) N N
N ?
o 0

O 0 co w t`

Z H ar
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
0

O

)

Z
1
N
m

(on
F-
N
LO
co
d
^
?D
C7
O

p
Q
W
N
fV
<V
t?
ii
in T
J N
¢y
m O 0
N f
7
x G
o z
c? =
?o
N -
o,
v
:-
?o
w A N N N f+) M a in in
x 2
w
N
a G
N -
1() -
O _
a
O
W
N -
W
D. .- N Cl) co a It
M
cc
Q
m
M
CJ - - N
m
I
I
I
I
~ I
w O `1
IL ?e
N U
CL O ;I
J ,• I
m
I
I
I
I
O
a a
)
1 J
:Q
' U
I N
CL
?I}- ,.9 + H

Q
J
tp
n
Z
O
N
Q
W
wJ
O
Z
O
M
H'
U
LU
Cn
D
Ct
Q
O
ca
S
N
J
LLZ
Cl
H
F-
a
W
J
W
O
1J
0
I--?
I 9vI is „9

F-
D
w O
CL Y
?- N U
a0
J
co

H
Z
a
U
O
m
J M
V
J S >
0 "00

w(DCL
- =ZCL ar
U
¢
X O
x
M OOfnz J
Ull u. c 3

Q W

cr z
X ui W N
Jz
O W = L 3
L
?-
X (j) w
HS =

aw
x g

?
2

T j
a

z 0 W
3
F-1 U S
W
d Q Q J
(AO Y3 J

S

m
LLJ

m o
e " c a
T
r

O - s e
? Cl)
00
S r w N
D OC X
•
Q
H cc: I
L
T?
ow m N
= z ?Z
3 m N
w
M U 0w
S

H
O JFy- 30
3 W Q oz z W.
O cc H CID H O w
W JO z w0 F--H
J UO. U ~ ~ N z
(n IL
3wC0-
J co O z Q z J V
LL0 Uzcc U) x
wQQxw W M •OU.
co }zC.) cc x DF- j 0
LL ww
.JOJQy -i
U) m LL. V) z
fnZ W d ZZ-'OW zz00
c=i N U w 3 M cn0
y? O03 OD D: W 3 -J i0
Fpp-QyC7O 0zH X
Z W 3 -1 030 J W Q O 0-0
cc 0 -i zm •OODHYOtn_
o4c"?0LL ?->- a-< 0sfO
W ?7Hfn W mccQF- Q
z
0 Cv Ci v in
L

I
N m
*
± CD
M CO ti 00 r
r N N r
S F- 2 !-
~
=
~
7 C
7 C
7 0
C
z H Z f-+ ?-
W W W W S
J? j J 3 H

cc -i I= w
m n.
fn co
J W W J
Q aC Cc Q

0 It LO 0
it 4
C\l
r

r
r
C\l
T
T
T
T
r
N
T
r2
Q
co
W
cc
T
a-
Y
~v
yo V G
~W

MD,
N
Z m
?.

V

?.
?J
? " wwu
Q
-
y~ 0 =
o
o c
5
W J N
0 H
11
m
w
C4
OZ

2 O
If)
ou)
W
W
a
ui
N .
fUI?
Q
m co
mm;
Q
O
Z V W = UJ,

w
<?
y?
° 0: U":

0!
mo
o:
co
z
0
`H`
,r
V
W
N
0
1 J cc
to O U z
Xm QHCn
W CC F- m O
r\WLL QUU
a
z
0
H
F
0
w
N
m
m
w
cc
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
------------ ---
I
I
I ,
' I
Q
„98
QLEr15E GAt-i- ME i F Yom HAVt
BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL Q?EST?ONS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Box 7625 !
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
.Office: [phone] '
FAX: [phone] `Home: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
NORTH
G. M. "Chip" Chescheir, Ph.D., P.E. CAROLINA
Senior Researcher STATE
Agricultural Wider Management UNIVERSITY
R -7050 s, ovr
r
*******************************************************************************
D R A I N M O D
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
VERSION: NORTH CAROLINA MICRO-UNIX 5.0
LAST UPDATE: FEB. 1994
LANGUAGE: MS FORTRAN v 5.0 & UNIX f77
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
*******************************************************************************
***************************
* D R A I N M O D -- 5.0
***************************
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\R7050S.lis
Cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
************
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ROANOKE SOIL AT WILSON N.C.
for FOREST:260m D/SPACING, STMAX=S.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/29days, Ksat=25, D=60, AD=S
CLIMATE INPUTS
******* ******
DESCRIPTION
------------------------------ (VARIABLE)
-------------------------------- VALUE
------- UNIT
---------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ............ ..C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\WILSON.RAI
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\WILSON.TEM
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ....... ...................(RAINID) 319476
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 319476
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ... ...............(START YEAR) 1950 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION .. ..............(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..... .................(END YEAR) 1979 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION .... ................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE .. .................(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX .................... ......................(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.52 3.30 2.49 1.69 1.31 .99 .90 .87 .94 1.20 1.45 2.01
1
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
**********************
*** CONTROLLED DRAINAGE ***
JOB TITLE:
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ROANOKE SOIL AT
for FOREST:260m D/SPACING, STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/29days, K
STMAX = 5.00 CM
SOIL SURFACE

ADEPTH =260. CM DDRAIN =210. CM
0------------- SDRAIN =26000. CM -----------0 -
*
EFFRAD =**** CM
HDRAIN = 50. CM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPERMEABLE LAYER

DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 120.0 1.000
120.0 - 260.0 25.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 210.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 50.0 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 26000.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 5.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 260.0 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 9.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 260.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 5.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 9.13

*** SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS ***
No seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
*** end of seepage inputs ***
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 300.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) = 1.00 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 60.0 CM
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
------------------------------
DATE 1/ 1 2/ 1 3/ 1 4/ 1 5/ 1 6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
DATE 7/ 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
SOIL INPUTS
***********
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM)
.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
(CM)
.0
37.0
54.6
70.4
84.8
98.3
110.7
121.9
130.0
138.0
143.9
149.2
154.5
159.7
164.1
168.5
172.9
177.2
181.6
186.0
190.3
194.7
199.0
202.9
24.0 206.7
25.0 210.5
26.0 214.2
27.0 218.0
28.0 221.7
29.0 225.5
30.0 229.3
35.0 248.1
40.0 266.9
45.0 285.6
50.0 304.5
60.0 342.2
70.0 380.0
80.0 485.5
90.0 692.7
TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
HEAD
(CM)
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
290.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
WATER CONTENT
(CM/CM)
.4676
.4619
.4544
.4466
.4388
.4315
.4241
.4175
.4109
.4050
.3991
.3943
.3895
.3846
.3798
.3749
.3712
.3674
.3637
.3599
.3562
.3535
.3507
.3480
.3453
.3426
.3398
.3371
.3344
.3316
.3289
.3187
.3096
.3031
.2965
.2834
.2757
.2681
.2604
VOID VOLUME
(CM)
.00
.06
.27
.65
1.15
1.72
2.33
2.97
3.65
4.37
5.13
5.94
6.76
8.01
9.26
11.15
13.05
15.34
17.63
19.93
22.22
24.88
27.54
30.19
32.85
35.51
38.17
40.83
43.50
46.16
48.82
62.06
75.31
78.05
80.80
85.57
90.35
93.56
96.78
UPFLUX
(CM/HR)
.2000
.2000
.2000
.0625
.0306
.0142
.0112
.0068
.0035
.0021
.0012
.0006
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000

GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 .000
20.000 .230 1.000
50.000 .580 1.000
80.000 .830 1.000
120.000 1.070 1.000
160.000 4.060 3.250
250.000 8.600 5.680
400.000 12.930 7.300
700.000 17.240 8.460
1000.000 19.520 8.920
TRAFFICABILITY
REQUIREMENTS
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM):
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM):
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE:
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS:
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS:
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY:
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY:
CROP
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .20
FIRST SECOND
PERIOD PERIOD
3.00 3.00
1.20 1.20
2.00 2.00
3/15 12/31
8/30 12/31
8 0
20 0
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 11/16
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 11/16
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------

***** Wetlands Parameter Estimation *****
Start Day = 80 End Day 314
Threshold Water Table Depth (cm) 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 29
Fixed Monthly Pet Values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8
1.00 9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Mrank indicator = 0
***rrr********r********,r*r***r END OF INPUTS **rrr*r*r***r*****r****v*rr**r
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 10/21/1997 0 15:36
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\R7050S.lis
parameters: controlled drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 26000. cm drain depth = 210.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** WARNING - RAINFALL FILE ***
MONTH 9, YEAR 1966 NOT FOUND
RAINFALL IS ZERO, OR MISSING FOR THIS MONTH
FOR 11/1972: 1 HRS ESTIMATED RAINFALL AND 0 HRS MISSING RAINFALL
*** ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE ***
MONTH 12, YEAR 1972 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 2.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 12/1972: 6 HRS ESTIMATED RAINFALL AND 0 HRS MISSING RAINFALL
*** ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE ***
MONTH 1, YEAR 1973 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 3.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 1/1973: 9 HRS ESTIMATED RAINFALL AND 0 HRS MISSING RAINFALL
*** ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE ***
MONTH 2, YEAR 1973 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1973: 7 HRS ESTIMATED RAINFALL AND 0 HRS MISSING RAINFALL
FOR 3/1973: 5 HRS ESTIMATED RAINFALL AND 0 HRS MISSING RAINFALL
*** WARNING - RAINFALL FILE ***
MONTH 12, YEAR 1973 NOT FOUND

R-1D?-OS. YR
RAINFALL IS ZERO, OR MISSING FOR THIS MONTH
*** WARNING - RAINFALL FILE ***
MONTH 4, YEAR 1974 NOT FOUND
RAINFALL IS ZERO, OR MISSING FOR THIS MONTH
*** WARNING - RAINFALL FILE ***
MONTH 8, YEAR 1975 NOT FOUND
RAINFALL IS ZERO, OR MISSING FOR THIS MONTH
*** WARNING - RAINFALL FILE ***
MONTH 5, YEAR 1976 NOT FOUND
RAINFALL IS ZERO, OR MISSING FOR THIS MONTH
*** WARNING *** 5 MONTHS HAD NO RAINFALL
TOTAL NUMBER RECORDS ESTIMATED RAINFALL= 28
TOTAL NUMBER HRS MISSING RAINFALL= 0
TOTAL MONTHS OF MISSING TEMPERATURE= 3
**> Computational Statistics <**
**> Start Computations = 936.473
**> End Computations = 936.538
**> Total simulation time = 3.9 seconds.
R-7 osos,YR
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 5.0
* Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ROANOKE SOIL AT WILSON N.C.
for FOREST:260m D/SPACING, STMAX=S.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/29days, Ksat=25, D=60, AD=S
********************************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 5.0
* Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ROANOKE SOIL AT WILSON N.C.
for FOREST:260m D/SPACING, STMAX=S.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/29days, Ksat=25, D=60, AD=S
********************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 10/21/1997 @ 15:36
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\R7050S.lis
parameters: controlled drainage and yi elds not calculat

------- drain spacing
--------------------- = 26
------- 000. cm
---------- drain d
------- epth =
-------- 210.0 cm
---------
---
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 108.58 1.33 .00 .00 .00 -1.31
1951 82.37 82.37 84.56 -.18 .00 .00 .00 -.67
1952 118.26 113.04 97.18 3.42 3.54 16.98 4.83 -1.46
1953 113.16 110.81 110.17 5.26 4.02 1298.25 10.11 -1.89
1954 88.21 82.59 82.36 3.36 5.62 109.94 8.89 -1.48
1955 103.00 99.83 91.32 2.57 3.17 909.52 4.29 -1.32
1956 116.89 111.56 97.64 12.12 5.28 3104.69 17.22 -1.33
1957 114.17 103.66 97.32 6.35 5.92 221.46 11.90 -1.39
1958 125.81 103.63 92.70 10.93 22.57 2368.16 33.13 -1.06
1959 155.30 115.04 101.46 13.58 40.87 3372.10 53.96 -1.03
1960 124.41 106.60 95.77 10.82 20.36 2236.75 30.84 -1.27
1961 105.44 98.05 95.87 8.47 8.49 1984.55 17.65 -1.31
1962 113.26 109.32 96.62 6.41 3.77 722.24 9.23 -1.55
1963 109.68 98.70 92.29 6.41 7.25 195.34 12.86 -1.43
1964 146.13 102.82 91.98 10.84 42.87 1928.15 53.17 -1.10
1965 95.45 89.55 98.52 6.50 10.25 1412.74 18.04 -2.14
1966 118.54 110.59 93.15 5.86 7.95 1788.23 12.61 -1.32
1967 131.11 104.48 91.23 9.36 21.63 1904.12 29.52 -1.05
1968 109.83 105.50 96.43 9.07 8.06 935.45 16.20 -1.79
1969 104.83 95.41 92.23 6.01 10.68 387.89 17.06 -1.32
1970 88.16 85.20 86.57 4.88 2.97 686.68 8.50 -1.61
1971 117.88 110.64 101.25 5.81 7.24 761.78 11.74 -1.41
1972 121.74 109.44 95.48 8.46 7.31 1186.52 14.97 -1.17
1973 88.14 82.96 100.16 1.54 10.18 .00 13.35 -1.72
1974 103.63 103.63 87.78 .67 .00 .00 .00 -.56
1975 130.81 112.73 104.68 7.05 18.08 1428.93 24.91 -1.70
1976 81.28 76.52 71.27 2.69 4.27 .00 5.43 -1.32
1977 120.65 103.94 96.81 7.13 12.27 419.31 19.09 -1.66
1978 120.65 102.42 94.91 8.02 23.16 1095.95 30.60 -1.29
1979 133.35 111.71 98.18 13.01 18.28 2806.32 30.90 -.81
AVG 112.80 101.48 94.82 6.59 11.20 1109.40 17.37 -1.35
k70505 , wtEr
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 5.0
* Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ROANOKE SOIL AT WILSON N.C.
for FOREST:260m D/SPACING, STMAX=S.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/29days, Ksat=25, D=60, AD=S
********************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 10/21/1997 @ 15:36
input file: C:\DRAINMOD\INPUTS\R7050S.lis
parameters: controlled drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 26000. cm drain depth = 210.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 29 days. Counting starts on day
80 and ends on day 314 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 29 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1950 0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 22.
1953 0. 26.
1954 0. 15.
1955 0. 21.
1956 2. 67.
1957 0. 28.
1958 1. 37.
1959 2. 43.
1960 2. 36.
1961 1. 62.
1962 1. 38.
1963 0. 12.
1964 2. 39.
1965 1. 41.
1966 1. 41.
1967 1. 66.
1968 0. 15.
1969 0. 22.
1970 1. 42.
1971 1. 36.
1972 1. 33.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 39.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 24.
1978 1. 38.
1979 2. 36.
Number of Years with at least one period = 16. out of 30 years.