U-3330 (3)

U 301 BYPASS IMPROVEMENTS
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA
NA H COUNTY
413010C1.
Late
Bate.
TIC' PROJECT NO. U-3330
W HS 36596.1.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. STP-301 (17)
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
Submitted Pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
42 U.S.G. 4332 (2)(c)
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
cam---,
Tohn F.. Sullivan, Ill, FEE
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
a(2`
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 301 BYPASS IMPROVEMENTS
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA
NASH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3330
WBS NO. 36596.1.1.1
FEDERAL AID NO. STP-301 (17)
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
APRIL 2009
Documentation Prepared By:
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
For The:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Ok
Dat
?-//;W/0191
Date
1.21Z21
Date
11
AWrea Dvorak-Grantz, MS, AI
Project Manager
J
Brian F. Yamamoto
Project Engineer
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Thomas E. Devens, PE
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
US 301 BYPASS IMPROVEMENTS
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3330
WBS PROJECT NO. 36596.1.1
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
To reduce the potential for stormwater pollution to Section 303(d) listed water bodies and the
City of Rocky Mount's water supply watershed and intake critical area, the NCDOT will 1)
include stormwater treatment devices in the proposed roadway's final design; and 2) utilize the
most protective sediment and erosion control best management practices (BMPs) during
construction as detailed in 15A NCAC 4B .0124 (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds).
Final design of the proposed project will maintain adherence to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer
Rules.
The hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the
delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to
determine status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of
Agreement with FMP (dated 615!08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
The southern portion of the project, which encompasses the UT to the Tar River, is within a
water supply watershed (WS-IV) for the City of Rocky Mount and within the water supply "critical
area" which is defined as the land within a 0.5-mile upstream radius of a water intake.
Measures will be taken to maintain construction limits north of the drainage divide to avoid
impacts to the critical area. However, if construction limits cannot be maintained north of the
drainage divide, then NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will investigate the need for hazardous spill
containment measures during the final design stage.
NCDOT Division 4
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The USACE Jurisdictional Determination for Wetland W by the FONSI.
Project Commitments Page 1 of 1
Environmental Assessment
March 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015 Draft Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to widen US 301 Bypass in Rocky Mount, North Carolina
from just south of SR 1836 (May Drive) to the interchange of NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) and
US 301 bypass. The project study corridor is approximately 2.1 miles long. Exhibit 1.1 shows
the project location and project study area.
The proposed project is referred to as US 301 bypass improvements (TIP Project No. U-3330),
with right-of-way acquisition scheduled in 2012 and construction is currently unfunded. The
purposes of the proposed project are to improve traffic capacity, improve travel and safety
conditions for all modes of transportation along the facility, and to fulfill the vision of the
Strategic Highway Corridors initiative.
S.2 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
A USACE Nationwide Permit and associated NCDWQ Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be
required for this project. Other federal, state, or local permits, approvals, or authorizations may
also be required.
S.3 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Travel Demand Management (TDM) - This alternative includes transportation options such as
ride-sharing, park & ride, and vanpooling. This alternative has the potential to reduce traffic
associated with commuting to employment centers outside the Rocky Mount area. However,
the nature of local travel, particularly the diversity of trip origins and retail/restaurant destinations
in the immediate area, make this alternative an unlikely solution for the congestion and safety
issues associated with travel on the US 301 Bypass.
Mass Transit - Although the project study area is served by mass transit, expansion of existing
transit services will not substantially alleviate increased traffic volumes within the project study
area. The adjacent mall and retail/restaurant types of businesses within the project study area
present countywide destinations that also draw patrons from rural areas not served by transit.
S-1
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) - Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
improvements increase the available capacity of the facility within the existing right-of-way with
minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing the existing facility. Strategies include
the addition of turn lanes, striping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments. TSM
operational improvement examples also consist of traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions,
access control, and signal timing changes.
NCDOT considered the above improvements, and some elements such as turn lane additions,
signal coordination, and access control are incorporated into the build alternatives. TSM
improvements alone, however, do not provide adequate measures to prevent failing traffic
conditions in the future years. The TSM Alternative alone fails to meet the purpose and need
for this project; therefore selective measures were chosen to augment study alternatives.
Improve Existing Facility - The detailed study alternatives involve widening the existing
facility; discussion of these alternatives can be found in subsequent paragraphs:
New Location Alternatives - Due to the highly-urban characteristics of the project study area
and the surrounding region, new location alternatives were not pursued for the study. The US
301 Bypass corridor is bound by commercial properties and is connected to the regional
transportation network at interchanges with US 64 Bypass, US 64 Business, and NC 43/48.
The SR 1836 (May Drive) termini is also a likely component of any new location alternatives.
No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative foregoes any improvement to the US 301
Bypass within the project study area. No roadway or intersection improvements would occur.
The No-Build Alternative is not compatible with the transportation goals of North Carolina, which
are to provide and support a safe and integrated transportation system that enhances the state;
nor is it consistent with the Rocky Mount's goal to provide a safe, economical and
environmentally sensitive means of moving people, services, and goods through an accessible
transportation network that serves the City of Rocky Mount.
The No-Build Alternative avoids any adverse natural environmental impacts or residential
relocations; however adverse social and economic impacts do occur. Future traffic volumes result
in an increased number of collisions and longer delays that degrade the safety of the
transportation system and create an even higher potential for collisions. An inefficient
S-2
transportation system also causes patrons of businesses within the project study area to
consider shopping in other areas of reduced congestion, resulting in long-term economic
impacts to local businesses
The No-Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the transportation goals of
the State of North Carolina, or the transportation needs of the region. Also, by failing to provide
solutions to high traffic volumes in the area, improved connectivity to other traffic corridors, and
improved safety, this alternative does not satisfy purpose and need for this project. The No-
Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparing the benefits and adverse
impacts of the Build Alternatives.
S.4 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
The US 301 Bypass is part of the NC Strategic Highway Corridors Program. The purpose of the
NC Strategic Highway Corridors Program is to provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable
highways throughout North Carolina and targets roadways identified as being critical to North
Carolina's transportation system. The US 301 bypass is designated as an expressway under
the program. Exhibit 2.4 graphically presents a typical expressway facility.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) presents two build alternatives for consideration. The
selection of a Preferred Alternative will occur after a public hearing is conducted and adequate
opportunity for public and agency comments is realized. A final recommendation will be made
with the final environmental document, scheduled for a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
Alternative A - As shown in Exhibits 3.1a - 3.1c, Alternative A widens existing US 301 Bypass
from a four-lane, median-divided facility to a six-lane median-divided facility, while providing
conventional improvements to existing intersections by modifying turn-lane configurations and
signal phasing/timing. This alternative replaces the bridges at US 64 Bypass and the bridges
over Stony Creek on US 301 Bypass, and extends an existing culvert at Goose Creek. Exhibit
3.2 presents the typical section for this alternative. Intersection and lane configurations are
shown in Exhibit 3.3.
Alternative B - The expressway designation given to the US 301 Bypass carries the goal of
reducing signalized intersections to the maximum extent possible to improve intrastate mobility
S-3
and connectivity. To facilitate this goal, Alternate B introduces a "superstreet" configuration,
which allows right-in, right-out movements to driveways along the roadway and side streets yet
restricts left-turn movements to major intersections. A superstreet configuration prioritizes
through-traffic movement along the primary roadway by preventing side street crossings, thus
reducing potential conflict points at intersections. To provide a left turn from driveways and
sidestreets, traffic is directed to a designated U-turn location, where travelers can make a U-turn
then right-turn onto the main road. As shown in Exhibits 3.4a - 3.4c, Alternative B converts
numerous intersections along US 301 Bypass to "superstreet" intersections replaces US 301
Bypass bridges at US 64 Bypass and the bridges over Stony Creek, and also extends existing
culverts at Goose Branch. The typical section for this alternative is shown in Exhibit 3.2. The
proposed superstreet intersections and lane configurations for Alternative B are shown in
Exhibit 3.5.
S.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Relocations - No business or residential relocations are associated with either build
alternative; however, the right-of-way cost for Alternative B is approximately $4 million higher
than Alternative A due to reduced access to a limited number of businesses. During continuing
design activities, however, the right-of-way cost estimate for Alternative B is anticipated to
decrease based on design modifications to improve access for the limited number of affected
businesses.
Land Use - The project study area is primarily urban in nature with commercial development
along a large portion of the roadway corridor. The City of Rocky Mount has zoned the project
study area for business use and has characterized US 301 Bypass as a major retail corridor
(City of Rocky Mount, 2007). Future development within the project study area will most likely
follow current land use patterns. Construction of the project is not likely to alter the rate of
development within the project study area.
Community Facilities - No community facility impacts are associated with the proposed
project.
Environmental Justice - The project does not cause any residential or business relocations of a
known minority and/or low income community. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not
create any disproportionate and adverse effects to low-income or minority populations.
S-4
Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources - No impacts to cultural resources are
anticipated from the proposed project.
Section 4(0 and Section 6(0 Resources - No Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) properties are located
in the project study area.
Mineral Resources - No mineral production operations or mineral resources are impacted.
Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities - Mesic/Mixed Hardwood Forest and
Bottomland Hardwood wetland communities will experience minor impacts associated with
widening the roadway in either build alternative. Anticipated impacts to upland and wetland
natural communities are summarized in Table S.1.
Waters of the United States - Both build alternatives modify three existing crossings under the
US 301 Bypass, with the addition of fill material for the widening of the roadway. Anticipated
impacts to streams and wetlands are summarized in Table S.1.
Rare and Protected Species - The proposed project will not affect any federal or state
protected species.
Water Quality - Either proposed project alternative increases the amount of impervious surface
within the project study area, which creates a slight increase in stormwater runoff. This effect is
minimal.
Farmlands - The project study area is classified as an urbanized area on US Census Bureau
mapping for the Rocky Mount area and does not require the submittal of a Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form. It is concluded that no impacts to prime, unique, or important farmlands
are associated with the proposed project.
Air Quality - Nash County is in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
proposed project is located in an attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not
applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
S-5
Noise - Construction of Alternative A would impact 17 receivers; Alternative B would impact 22
noise receivers. The No-Build Alternative would impact 16 receivers, indicating that noise
impacts would occur with or without the proposed project due to the increased numbers of
vehicles using the roadway.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs) - New ICEs from either build alternative are very
limited, as the amount of new impervious surface created by the roadway improvements is
minimal. Potential effects include ecosystem-related ICEs such as water quality effects, habitat
fragmentation, and noise; however, these are long-term effects associated with the US 301
Bypass that were created at the roadways' initial construction, anticipated to continue through
the project's 2030 design year. Improved mobility through the project study area has the
potential to provide beneficial ICEs such as improved air quality and safety.
Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks - Due to the presence of ten
underground storage tanks (USTs), low to moderate impacts would be associated with
construction of the proposed project. However, no adverse environmental effects would be
created by the alteration of these sites.
Utilities - The proposed project may require the relocation of existing underground and
overhead utilities with the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construction;
however, overall impacts to public utilities are anticipated to be low.
S-6
TABLE S.1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
EVALUATION FACTOR ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B
CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
Mainline Length miles 2.50 2.70
Preliminary ROW encroachments # parcels impacted) 23 26
Additional ROW-acres (s q. feet 1.19 51,953 1.51 65,990
Temporary Construction Easement - acres (s q. feet 3.98 173,295 4.78 199,468
Permanent Drainage Easement - acres (sq. feet) 0.27 (11,771) 0.27 (11,771)
Railroad Crossings 0 0
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Residential Relocations 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0
Schools/Parks Impacted 0 0
Churches Displaced/Cemeteries Affected 0 0
Receptors Impacted by Noise' 17 22
Noise Wall Considerations 2 Yes Yes
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Transmission Lines Yes Yes
Natural Gas Lines No No
Water/Sewer Lines Yes Yes
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Potential/Recorded Archaeological Sites 0 0
Historic Properties Affected 0 0
NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Protected Species Impacted 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 3 Yes (WS-IV, CA) Yes (WS-IV, CA)
Upland Natural Systems - acres (sq. feet)4 0.1 (4,356) 0.7 (30,492)
Wetland/Aquatic Systems - acres (s q. feet 4 0.6 26,136 0.6 26,136
Stream Impacts - linear feet 250 370
Riparian Buffer Impacts- acres (s q. feet 5 0.1 41356 0.2 8,712
PHYSICAL FACTORS
Flood Iains 6 Yes Yes
Farmland - acres 0 0
Hazardous Materials Sites 10 10
Exceedances of CO NAAQS 0 0
Notes: 1 The No-Build Alternative would have 16 noise receptors impacted by noise.
2 A noise wall may be considered for both build alternatives near the Rosedale Avenue subdivision.
3 The southern portion of the project study area is within the water supply watershed critical area for the City of Rocky
Mount's drinking water intake location.
4 Impacts to Upland Natural Systems and Wetlands/Streams are based on the build alternatives construction limits plus
an extended 25 feet.
5 Riparian buffer impacts are based on the construction limits of the proposed project. This quantity is based on a 50-foot
offset of project study area streams and includes wetlands as well as upland maintained/disturbed areas.
6 As shown in Exhibit 5.5, a considerable portion of the project study area is within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, PE
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
S-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION......
A. General Description .............................
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
C. Cost Estimates .....................................
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ...............................
A. Summary of Project Need .........................................
B. Summary of Project Purpose ....................................
C. System Linkage .........................................................
1. Description of Existing Conditions .................
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ..............
3. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Need..
4. Economic Development/Land Use Changes
5. Strategic Highway Corridors ..........................
D. Benefits of Proposed Project ....................................
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ........................
1. Alternative Modes of Transportation ...
2. Transportation Systems Management
3. Improve Existing Facility ......................
4. New Location Alternatives ...................
5. No-Build Alternative .............................
B. Detailed Study Alternatives .............................
1. Alternative A .........................................
2. Alternative B .........................................
S-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
.2-1
.2-1
.2-4
.2-4
.2-4
2-14
2-14
2-18
2-20
2-20
3-1
3-1
.3-1
.3-1
.3-2
.3-2
.3-2
.3-3
.3-3
3-26
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 4-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION....
A. Natural Resources ......................................................
1. Biotic Resources .............................................
2. Waters of the United States ............................
3. Rare and Protected Species ...........................
B. Cultural Resources .....................................................
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources ........................................
D. Farmland .....................................................................
E. Social Effects ..............................................................
1. Neighborhoods/Communities .........................
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses....
3. Environmental Justice .....................................
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................
5. Recreational Facilities .....................................
6. Other Public Facilities and Services ...............
F. Economic Effects ........................................................
G. Land Use .....................................................................
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ........................
2. Future Land Use .............................................
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans............
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................
1. Hydraulic Impacts and Flood Hazard Evaluation.....
J. Traffic Noise Analysis .................................................
1. Ambient Noise Levels .....................................
2. Analysis Results ..............................................
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives ........................
4. Construction Noise ..........................................
5. Summary .........................................................
K. Air Quality Analysis .....................................................
L. Hazardous Material ....................................................
M. Summary of Environmental Effects ...........................
.5-1
.5-1
.5-1
.5-8
5-16
5-21
5-21
5-21
5-22
5-22
5-22
5-25
5-25
5-26
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-34
5-35
5-36
5-41
5-44
5-47
5-47
5-48
5-49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION......
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
6-1
6-1
B. Public Hearing ............................................................................................................... 6-1
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process .......................................................................................... 6-1
D. Other Agency Coordination ......................................................................................... 6-2
APPENDICES
A. Responses to the Start of Study Letter
B. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis
1. 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) this Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared for the proposed project. The project is located in
the City of Rocky Mount in Nash County and involves modifications to an approximate 1.8 - 2.1
mile segment of existing US 301 Bypass. The project study area, shown in Exhibit 1.1, is
located on the northwest side of Rocky Mount and is generally bound by Existing NCDOT right-
of-way. Rocky Mount is in Nash County, approximately 53 miles from Raleigh and 133 miles
from Wilmington.
The proposed action widens existing US 301 Bypass from just south of SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). NCDOT proposes widening from a four-lane, median-divided
facility to a six-lane median-divided facility with three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction.
Dedicated right-turn or through-right turn lanes are added at specific intersections throughout
the corridor. The additional travel lanes are placed on the outer sides of existing travel lanes;
therefore the existing 30-foot median is maintained. The two build alternatives presented
include the widening and/or replacement of several roadway overpasses and hydraulic
structures to accommodate widening of US 301 Bypass. Replacement of the SR 1604 (Hunter
Hill Road) bridge will occur under a separate project (TIP Project No. U-3621).
Alternate A represents a conventional roadway widening that adds two additional through-lanes
and modifies existing intersection configurations and signal phasing/timing.
Alternative B represents a "superstreet" design that also adds two through-lanes, yet
incorporates modern access management strategies to prioritize through-movement on the
main roadway.
The proposed widening is listed in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is referred to as US 301 Bypass
Improvements (TIP Project Number U-3330).
1-1
B. HISTORICAL RESUME AND PROJECT STATUS
This project was originally funded as part of Senate Bill (SB) 1005 which authorized NCDOT to
use a portion of the Highway Trust Fund to address highway facility needs. SB 1005 provided
funding for traffic management system improvements and pavement preservation projects to
improve the state's US and NC routes. This project became part of the state Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) program in 2004. In the 2009-2015 TIP, Right-of-Way (ROW) is
currently funded for fiscal year 2012 and construction is unfunded.
The purpose of the project is to improve traffic capacity and travel conditions along this heavily
traveled, commercial corridor. This project is part of the North Carolina Strategic Highway
Corridor System and has been classified as an "expressway" which constitutes a highly mobile,
median-divided, partially-controlled facility without traffic signals. Exhibit 2.4 graphically
presents a typical expressway facility.
C. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1.1 shows the preliminary cost estimates for the build alternatives. Detailed descriptions
of the proposed build alternatives are found in Section 3.13.
As shown in Table 1.1, the right-of-way cost for Alternative B is considerably higher than that for
Alternative A. This difference is primarily due to damages associated with limiting access to
several businesses along the corridor. During continuing design activities, however, the right-of-
way cost estimate for Alternative B is anticipated to decrease based on design modifications
that will reduce damage to affected businesses.
TABLE 1.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
I I ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B
Roadway Construction Costs $14,432,877.00 $16,984,988.00
Structure Construction Costs' $9,209,640.00 $9,658,220.00
Utility Construction Costs (i.e., water/sewer lines) $1,857,483.00 $1,856,792.00
Right-of-Way Costs 2 $4,908,000.00 $5,475,000.00
TOTAL COSTS $30,408,000.00 $33,975,000.00
NU I tS: 1 Structure construction costs include the replacement of the US 154 Bypass bridge and the bridges at Stony Creek, in
addition to the cost associated with the replacement or widening of hydraulic structures. Structure costs also include
bridge removal costs.
2 Although no relocations would be created by either build alternative, the right-of-way cost for Alternative B reflects
costs associated with reduced accessibility and proximity damages to existing businesses.
1-2

I,yyd T
/e
i
Meg
K„ u-4

"OVA J

'
? ..
RQCI7i 1 ?`

US 301 Bypass Project Location
TIP No. U-3330 and Study Area Map
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1.1
Project Loci `Y -
I
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
a. Traffic Capacity:
A primary need for this project is to improve capacity along the facility. The project area
serves as the main commercial and retail area in Rocky Mount, and the area is expected
to experience continued growth and over 50% increased traffic as shown below in Table
2.1. Exhibit 2.1 shows the specific location of existing and future traffic volumes in the
2030 design year.
TABLE 2.1
EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)
SEGMENT OF US 301 BYPASS BASE YEAR 2004 NO-BUILD 2030
Tiffany Boulevard to NC 43/48 23,800 35,000
NC 43/48 to Independence Drive 25,800 40,800
Independence Drive to Sutter's Creek Road 32,000 50,000
Sutter's Creek Road to US 64 Bypass 37,000 57,600
US 64 Bypass to Stone Rose Avenue 37,400 58,400
Stone Rose Avenue to US 64 Business 29,600 47,600
If no improvements are made, capacity analysis of 2004 traffic on the existing highway
indicates that the intersections on this facility currently operate at Level of Service C
or better. Level of service (LOS) is the standard measure of effectiveness used to
determine the quality of service provided by transportation facilities, and uses the
letters A through F, with A being best, and F being worst to convey the results of these
analyses. In North Carolina, a LOS of D is considered acceptable. For the design year
(2030), conditions are anticipated to deteriorate as traffic volumes increase. Six
intersections maintain adequate Peak Hour LOS and the remaining four intersections
perform at LOS E or F in 2030. Existing and projected intersection levels of service
and vehicle delays are shown in Table 2.2. Levels of service and density for ramp
junctions within the project area are shown in Table 2.3
2-1
TABLE 2.2
NO-BUILD LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND DELAY
EXISTI NG (2004) NO-BU ILD (2030)
INTERSECTION LOS
AM/PM Delay
sec LOS
AM/PM Delay
sec
US 301 Bypass at Tiffany Boulevard (signalized) C/C 26.3/26.3 D/E 43.6/61.1
US 301 Bypass NB at Smokey Road (unsignalized) B/B 11.7/10.6 B/B 14.4/12.4
US 301 Bypass at Independence Drive (signalized) C/C 20.4/25.3 D/D 49/47.1
US 301 Bypass at Sutter's Creek Road (signalized) C/C 28.6/28.1 D/F 45.9/101.2
US 301 Bypass at Home Depot Driveway (signalized) B/A 12.2/7.5 B/D 16.7/42.7
US 301 Bypass at Rowe Drive/ US 64 Bypass Ramps C/C 28.3/21 E/E 60/71.2
US 301 Bypass at US 64 Ramps (signalized) B/A 15.4/9.2 E/D 75.9/47
US 301 Bypass at Lowes Driveway (signalized) B/B 13.5/11.8 C/C 26.6/33.1
US 301 Bypass at Stone Rose Avenue (signalized) C/B 22.3/19.5 D/D 50.6/39.8
US 301 Bypass at May Drive (signalized) C/B 21.9/19.9 D/C 45.9/34
TABLE 2.3
RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DENSITY FOR NO BUILD
EXISTI NG (2004) NO-BU ILD (2030)
INTERSECTION LOS
AM/PM Density
c/mi.ln LOS
AM/PM Density
c/mi.ln
US 301 Bypass NB at Smokey Road A/A 6.3/4.0 B/A 10.9/7.5
US 301 Bypass SB to NC 43/48 WB A/A 3.6/5.9 A/B 6.9/10.3
US 301 Bypass SB from NC 43/48 WB A/A 6.6/9.1 B/B 10.1/13.5
US 301 Bypass SB from NC 43 EB B/B 12.0/10.0 B/B 17.1/15.9
US 301 Bypass NB from NC 43 EB B/A 11.5/7.9 B/B 17.3/11.4
US 301 Bypass NB to NC 43 B/A 12.3/8.2 B/B 17.9/11.4
US 301 Bypass SB to US 64 Bus. A/A 0.2/2.8 A/A 4.8/8.8
US 301 Bypass NB from US 64 Bus. WB B/B 15.2/12.7 C/C 26.1/21.2
US 301 Bypass NB from US 64 Bus. EB B/B 16.3/13.6 C/C 26.8/21.7
US 301 Bypass SB from US 64 Bus. B/B 12.7/14.6 B/C 15.1/21.3
b. Strategic Highway Corridors:
This project is part of the North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor System
(SHC) and has been classified as an "expressway", which constitutes a highly
mobile, median-divided, partially-controlled facility without traffic signals. As
2-2
such, another primary purpose of the proposed project is to increase traffic
capacity, replace functionally-deficient structures, and improve travel conditions
for all modes of transportation along the facility, in order to fulfill the SHC vision.
Exhibit 2.4 graphically presents an expressway facility, which is characterized by
high mobility, no traffic signals and partial control of access.
The SHC Initiative was adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation
(BOT) on September 2, 2004 as a part of the Statewide Transportation Plan.
The purpose of the SHC initiative is to provide a network of high-speed, safe and
reliable highways throughout North Carolina for the efficient movement of people
and goods. These corridors are critical to statewide mobility and connectivity and
promote a vision of modern transportation, supportive of economic opportunities,
and environmental excellence. The initiative offers NCDOT and its stakeholders
an opportunity to consider a long-term vision when making land use decisions
and design and operational decisions on the highway system. The creation of a
long-term vision identifies the ultimate desired facility type (freeway, expressway,
boulevard, or thoroughfare) for each corridor.
The Strategic Highway Corridors were designated using a data-driven approach,
supplemented by historical information and input from other agencies and the
public. One or more of the following primary criteria characterizes the
designation of the corridors:
• Mobility. This criterion focuses on whether a corridor currently
serves or has the potential to expeditiously move large volumes of traffic.
• Connectivity. This criterion focuses on whether a corridor provides
a vital connection between Activity Centers (e.g. destinations,
encompassing statewide, regional, and places just outside of North
Carolina's borders that serve the state's citizens).
• Interstate Connectivity. This criterion focuses on whether a
corridor provides an important connection between existing and/or
planned interstates.
2-3
• Interstate Reliever. This criterion focuses on whether a corridor
currently serves or has the potential to serve as a reliever route to an
existing interstate facility.
US 301 Bypass serves as the major north-south thoroughfare in the Rocky
Mount area and is a relevant link in the intrastate highway system, through its
connection with US 64 and NC 43/48. Rocky Mount is identified as a SHC
activity center and is defined as the area within the Rocky Mount Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The US 301 Bypass corridor is
ultimately envisioned as expressway (interchange connections provided for major
cross streets and at-grade intersections for minor cross streets), according to the
SHC Vision Plan. The functional purpose of expressways is to provide high
mobility and low to moderate access. The current facility is compromised in
meeting the SHC vision due to the inability of the existing facility to meet future
traffic demands and lack of access management throughout the corridor.
Improvements to the highway are therefore necessary to meet the SHC vision.
C. Replace Functionally-Deficient Structures:
In the project corridor, one bridge is listed as structurally deficient, and three
bridges are listed as functionally obsolete. In addition, continued development
has created additional runoff such that the culvert at Goose Branch is
undersized. The above conditions are described in detail in the "Existing
Conditions" section of this chapter and necessitate improvements.
B. SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE
The primary purposes of the proposed project are to improve traffic capacity, fulfill the vision of
the Strategic Highway Corridors initiative, and replace functionally deficient structures.
C. OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANS
1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
US 301 Bypass is classified as an urban principal arterial, which includes interstate
highways, freeways, and expressways. US 301 Bypass provides connection to other
arterials such as NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass and US 64 Business and is the major
2-4
north-south thoroughfare for the area. Principal arterials typically serve major urban
areas in corridors with high traffic volumes and long trip lengths. They carry most
trips to and from urban areas and provide connectivity for rural arterials that connect
to urban areas.
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
1) Roadway Cross-Section - Existing US 301 Bypass is a four-lane, median-
divided facility with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, separated by a
30-foot depressed grass median, and 4-foot paved inside and outside
shoulders.
2) Horizontal and Vertical Alignment - This section of existing US 301 is
generally flat with no major grade changes or curves.
3) Right-of-Way and Access Control - The existing right-of-way is generally 200
feet wide for most of the project length, narrowing to approximately 170 feet
from the US 64 Bypass interchange to Ring Road. Currently, this section of
highway has no control of access for existing parcels, meaning that more
than one driveway per parcel is allowed (subject to NCDOT driveway policy).
As a result of the existing median, driveways along the corridor are subject to
right-in, right-out access to the highway.
4) Speed Limit - The posted speed limit along the US 301 Bypass within the
project study area is 45 miles per hour (mph).
5) Intersections/Interchanges - Within the project study area, the US 301
Bypass has interchanges with the US 64 Bypass, US 64 Business, and NC
43/48. There are ten at-grade intersections along this segment of the US 301
Bypass.
6) Railroad Crossings - One railroad grade separation is located near the
southern terminus of the project.
2-5
7) Structures - Six roadway bridges are located on this segment of US 301
Bypass. These include a grade separation with SR 1604 (Hunter Hill Road),
two interchange bridges with US 64 Business and US 64 Bypass, a bridge
over Stony Creek, one interchange bridge with NC 43/48 and a culvert for
Goose Branch. These structures are described in further detail below, along
with their respective sufficiency ratings. The sufficiency rating formula is a
method of evaluating factors which indicate a bridge's sufficiency to remain in
service. The result of the formula is a percentage in which 100 percent
represents an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent represents an
entirely insufficient or deficient bridge.
Stony Creek
The existing dual bridges (Number 173 (northbound) and Number 175
(southbound)), which carry US 301 Bypass over Stony Creek, were built in
1954 and 1963, respectively. The northbound bridge is 188 feet long with
two, twelve-foot lanes and 2-foot inside and outside shoulders. The
sufficiency rating for the northbound bridge is 48.9. This bridge is listed as
structurally deficient. The southbound bridge is 188 feet long with two,
twelve-foot lanes and 1-foot inside and outside shoulders. The sufficiency
rating for the southbound bridge is 78.5.
US 64 Business
Bridge Numbers 196 (eastbound) and 198 (westbound) which carry US 64
business over US 301 Bypass, were built in 1954 and 1960, respectively.
The eastbound bridge is 195 feet long with two, twelve-foot lanes and 2-foot
inside and outside shoulders. The sufficiency rating for the eastbound bridge
is 57.5. This bridge is listed as functionally obsolete. The westbound bridge
is 196 feet long with two, twelve-foot lanes and 2-foot inside and outside
shoulders. The sufficiency rating for the westbound bridge is 72.9. The
westbound bridge is also listed as functionally obsolete.
US 64 Bypass
Bridge Numbers 214 (eastbound) and 215 (westbound) which carry US 64
business over US 301 Bypass, were both built in 1980. The eastbound
2-6
bridge is 226 feet long with two, twelve-foot lanes with 4-foot inside shoulders
and 12-foot outside shoulders. The sufficiency rating for the eastbound
bridge is 99. The westbound bridge is 221 feet long with three, twelve-foot
lanes and 4-foot inside shoulders and 12-foot outside shoulders. The
sufficiency rating for the westbound bridge is 98.
SR 1544 (Hunter Hill Road)
Structure Number 181 is a grade separation that carries SR 1544 (Hunter Hill
Road) over US 301 Bypass. This bridge was built in 1955 and is 195-feet
long with two, 12-foot lanes and 1-foot inside and outside shoulders. The
sufficiency rating for the bridge is 48.6. This bridge is listed as functionally
obsolete.
NC 43/48
Bridge Number 101 which carries NC 43/48 over US 301 Bypass and was
built in 1988. The bridge is 206 feet long with five, twelve-foot lanes and 2-
foot inside and outside shoulders. There are sidewalks on both sides of the
bridge with pedestrian rail. The sufficiency rating for this bridge is 80.6.
Goose Branch
Goose Branch is carried underneath US 301 Bypass by a double 6-foot by 7-
foot reinforced concrete box culvert. The existing culvert appears to be in
good condition however, hydraulic analysis indicates that the existing
structure may not convey the 50 year flood, therefore resizing of the culvert
will be evaluated during final design.
8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways - There are currently no bicycle
lanes, sidewalks, or greenways within the project study area. Planned
bicycle and pedestrian facilities are discussed in Section 5.E.
9) Utilities - Due to the urban setting of the project study area, a number of
utilities are present within the area. Water lines, and sewer lines are present
along US 301 for the entire length of project. Overhead power lines with
2-7
cable TV as well as underground telephone lines are also present along US
301.
c. School Bus Usage
Five school buses travel along this section of the US 301 Bypass, two to four times
daily. Nash - Rocky Mount Schools anticipate an increase in the number of buses
by 2010 or 2012.
d. Crash Data
Crash data for the period of March 1, 2003 through February 28, 2006 was collected
to analyze crash potential along US 301 from SR 1836 (May Drive) to SR 1599
(Tiffany Boulevard) in Nash County. During the study period, a total of 394 collisions
occurred with in the project limits. There were no fatal collisions within the study
limits. Of the total collisions, 36% involved injuries and the remaining 64% involved
only property damage. Over 60% were rear-end collisions. This type of crash pattern
is typically due to traffic congestion
Examination of the crash data shows that the majority of crashes and injuries are
evenly distributed, beginning near the Stone Rose Drive intersection and reducing
after the intersection with Independence Drive and Ring Road. Over 46% of the total
crashes occurred between the hours of 12:00 Noon and 5:00pm. A comparison of
the project study area and statewide 2003-2005 three-year crash rates is shown in
Table 2.4. These rates are calculated using the average annual daily traffic (AADT),
corridor length, and total vehicle exposure. The crash rates are in units of 100
million vehicle miles traveled.
When compared to other urban U.S. routes (4-lane divided, partial control) the crash
rate on US 301 Bypass within the project study area, is nearly double the critical
crash rate, and over triple the non-fatal injury collisions of all US Routes in North
Carolina.
2-8
L 2300
400 14000 23 200
I 400
1000 J 4---- 2900
1000 -? I { r- ---+ 2900
(Old) Tarrytown Driveway 400 I Stone Rose Ave.
200 400 14000 400
400
3000 11800
.J l
3060 1000
L
15041200 9700 1000
US 64 Bus. J L r 800 -10300 US 64 Bus.

?-
11 Soo
•- 11ao9
11500 -? ------ * 9300
Sunset Ave. 9500 9300 Sunset Ave.
2066 ? 1400
2600
US 301 Bypass
1,400 1 i
,2466
L
2000 12200 200 206

1
L 600
3600 840 1400
3600
?
~ 3400
Old Mill Rd.
2000 J r May Dr.
600 - 1000 10200 2600
1000
13800 1 I 13800
L 506
Suttee's Creek Rd. 1100 14400 500 - 1666 Sutter's Creek Rd.
J 1 L r goo
5800 ?- 4- 2400
5800 ®?
1100 }
J -? 2400
1000 3500 14400 900
3500
400 17400
Home Depot Driveway
1500 ~
1500
J
400 1100 17400
1100 -I
L 160
J r 200
t ?- 400 Rowe Dr.
•? l r -+ 400
360d2800-1 100
1500 17000 200
520O100
US 64 Bypass
18000 *- 1
6300
18000 -+ 16300
5100 3400
38
00
0

1 r
1
15900 2800
18700 1 18700
3600 16100 US 301 Bypass
-1 1
6200 ?
Loves Driveway 5200 -+ J -1
3804
1604 -1 1600 15100
Stoney Crick- - - - - - - -
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
(XXX) AADT Volume
1 Rd. 3000
3000
r
1200
Rd.
?= 6990 NC 43148 (Benvenue Rd.)
*- - 7500
11 7090 8004 800 ? r 7500
2000 200
1200
2200
1 0700 2200
L 200
600 12200 200 500
J 1 L r 1300 Independence Dr.
? 2000
US 301 Bypass Base Year (2004)
TIP No. U-3330 AADT Volumes
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 2.1
11900 11900
US 301 Bypass
1400 10000 500 L 500

1 -- 1200
3200 1300
3209 Tiffany Blvd.
?
-1 1 F-
1400
1200 600 10000 100
600
L <100
1190
1 r
10700 1200
1200 10700
J 1
1200 A 111900
Soo 800
L
NC 43148 (Benvenue Rd.) ..t
5300 ?-
9300 7300 -'
2000
2000
Mail Entrance
Ring Rd.
3100
3100
0vu J
596
2100
..1 1 r 2000
2100 12200 1300
L 3400
1500 21500 3400 - 600
906
3600 4000
3600 -? J !P -i i r» 4800
(Gild) Tarrytown Driveway 1500 I Stone Rose Ave.
600 1500 21500 900
1500
5000 18800
1
5000 / I \ 1700
16200 L 1700
US 64 Bus. 800 17000 US 64 Bus.
Sunset Ave. 15900 -` 15600 Sunset Ave.
3300 2300
4100
Sutter's Creek Rd.
9200 ' -
9200
Home Depot Driveway
3300
3300 r
L 1000
2200 218001000 -- 1200
J 1 L r 1400
2200 J I r
1200 5900 21800 1400
5000
US 301 Bypass
900 264DO
J
900 J 2400 26400
2400
Sutters Creek Rd.
?- 3600
3600
9500
32500
32500 -r
L 200
6500 22100 200 200
I L r 300
y M10 Reimit Dr.
200 J
200
5200
JS 64E3ypass
29600
29609
16000 19400
US 301 Bypass
2400 14800 900 L 804
2000
*-- 5400 t 2000
-? 5400 Tiffany Blvd. 2400 J 1 r
2000 - 10114900 2
1DD0
`1 r
16000 1800
2000 15208
J 1
1
17800

22
900 US 301 Bypass
119800
L
300019600 300 300

J 1 Soo
5300 ~ 1200 ~ 2300
5300
? J r
3000
Old Mill Rd. May D
.
900 -- 1506 16500 4300
1500
9300 8400
6540
2800 1
29200 I
1 1 29200
5200 24
000 US 301 Bypass
J 1
7600 4-
Lowes Driveway 7600 J '1 1
$200
2400 -1 240D 24400
StoneygrsoJL--_--- ~_~"-~-~
2000
100+01NC 43148 IBenvenue Rd.) J 16800-
1819200
3900 -? X600
US 301 Bypass
Mall Entrance L 300
Ring Rd. 904 19300 300 Soo
I I L r 2200 5100 J l 3300 Independence Dr.
5100 -' 600 1 3300
900 3500 19300 2200
3500
8 Signalized Intersection
0 Unsignalized Intersection
(XXX) AADT Volume
Airport Rd.' 5000
r 77? 4800
1800
Smokey Rd.
13200 INC 4314nvenue Rd.)
law 14200
1 400 14200
~1 r
3500 1000
1406
4840
US 341 Bypass Future Year (2030)
TIP No. U-3330 AADT Volumes
SR 1838 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, !North Carolina Exhibit 2.2
TABLE 2.4
COMPARATIVE CRASH DATA
CRITICAL TOTAL FATAL NON-FATAL NIGHT WET
FACILITY CRASH CRASH CRASH CRASH CRASH CRASH
RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE
US 301 Bypass
from May Drive to 253.41 503.53 0.00 178.92 126.52 95.85
Tiffany Boulevard
All US routes in
NC
four-lane
, 159
06 0
94 53
62 39
30 32
06
divided, partial . . . . .
access control
All urban US
routes in NC, four-
lane divided, 250.45 0.84 78.15 53.97 47.52
partial access
control
e. Airports
The Rocky Mount-Wilson Airport provides regional air service to Nash, Edgecombe,
and Wilson Counties. The airport is located on NC 97 south of Rocky Mount near
the Wilson County border.
f. Other Highway Projects in the Area
In addition to several bridge replacements and other roadway improvements within
the Rocky Mount area, there are several other TIP projects planned for in the
immediate vicinity of the project. These projects are summarized in Table 2.4 and
shown in Exhibit 2.3.
TABLE 2.4
2009-2015 TIP PROJECTS IN PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROJECTED
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
NO. SCHEDULE
R-2823 Rocky Mount Northern Connector- SR 1604 (Hunter Hill Road) to US 301. Part Const
2009
on new location, widen to multi-lanes. 4.3 miles. .
NC 43 - SR 1616 (Country Club Road) to 1-95. Widen to multi-lanes with curb and ROW Unfunded
U-2561 gutter. Construction completed from SR 1616 to SR 1613 (Woodruff Avenue). 3.9 Const
Unfunded
miles. .
U-3331 SR 1616 (Country Club Road) - US 64 Business to SR 1541 (Jeffreys Road). Const
2009
Widen to multi-lanes. 1.4 miles. .
2-13
TABLE 2.4 Con't
2009-2015 TIP PROJECTS IN PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTED
NO. SCHEDULE
SR 1604 (Hunter Hill Road) - SR 1613 (North Winstead Avenue) to NC 43-48
U-3621 (Benvenue Road). Widen to multi-lanes, including replacement of bridge over US Const. 2010
301 Bypass 2.4 miles.
SR 1613 (North Wnstead Avenue) - SR 1770 (Sunset Avenue) to SR 1604
U-4019 (Hunter Hill Road). Widen to multi-lanes (To be coordinated with R-2823). 1.7 Const. 2010
miles.
Notes: "ROW" denotes right-of-way acquisition. "Const." denotes project construction.
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The NCDOT 2009-2015 TIP lists the US 301 Bypass Improvements as Project No.
U-3330 with right-of-way acquisition in 2012. Construction is currently unfunded.
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans
The proposed improvements are identified in the Rocky Mount Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (Rocky Mount MPO's) Transportation Plan
2030 based on the Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by the
Rocky Mount MPO and NCDOT in 2003. These plans identify the US 301 Bypass as
a major thoroughfare and include the widening of the US 301 Bypass.
c. Land Use Plans
The proposed improvements are identified in the transportation section of the City of
Rocky Mount's comprehensive plan, Together Tomorrow (City of Rocky Mount,
2003) with the goal of reducing traffic congestion along US 301 Bypass.
3. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Need
a. Existing Road Network
The City of Rocky Mount currently has a roadway network comprised of major and
minor arterials, collectors, and local roads. US 301 is the primary north-south facility
connecting to US 64 in Rocky Mount. It is one of the few north-south thoroughfares
in the area.
2-14
f It
OPA6
%NMOOV& , U-2561

COURS1
0
Ct© ?ILL 0

a Nosh 64
?
Community I?Oil?1
,
Hospital
In Urnrao1t_0 y? E
(,u • 210
r Weslan a
! + college
R-2823 D. ; 0)
,T
o?
+}? G Rg?d?
• RD.-
FOUNTAIN
1? Lr s Sc 14. Jt
.
©1
U-3330 Q !
,p 97,
-
W.
Oc
_ U-4019 G
? ?? ?? CC r '??7 w
M4S'? 4/w QIIo
e U-3621 C 1eJ4 ''
Maple Arnhak
Z, Ed cc-cmibr In
U-3331 , C M. Coll OD a0
A UTRY - - ?/ R 431 F csx 43
c
Rp. o? ao
ay
ell v ,, ? r 'e'
'1cE
way, WOU_!i'r -! a7014 441SUTTON ?
!Q 1 AVAr• IlD.
Ira ' °
3 0 1,
US 301 Bypass Tra P oje t?san
TIP No. U-3330 Project Vicinity
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 2.3
Local traffic comprises a substantial amount of the overall traffic on the facility. US
301 and US 64 are regional facilities through the area that connect with Wilson to the
south, Tarboro to the east, and Raleigh to the west. NC 43 travels east-west through
Rocky Mount, connecting to Greenville and New Bern to the east and Dortches and
Red Oak to the west. The 1-95 corridor generally parallels the US 301 corridor just
west of the City of Rocky Mount and crosses the 1-40 corridor in southern Johnston
County.
b. Commuting Pattern
As an urban principal arterial, the US 301 Bypass serves as a primary facility for
local commuters as well as those commuting in and out of the Rocky Mount area.
c. Modal Interrelationship
The project study area is located on the northwestern edge of Rocky Mount's urban
area with access to several integrated modes of transportation. These modes are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
1) Public Transportation - Tar River Transit provides regular, fixed-route bus
service for the City of Rocky Mount and services US 301 with multiple routes
throughout the day. Greyhound/Trailways bus services provide regional and
national service to and from Rocky Mount.
2) Rail Service - Amtrak provides passenger rail service from the downtown
Rocky Mount train depot, with daily service to Charlotte, Raleigh, and
Greensboro. Amtrak also provides service to points north and south along the
eastern seaboard. Rocky Mount serves as a major terminal hub for CSX
Transportation, which operates daily freight trains to Richmond, Virginia and
Miami, Florida. The north-south rail line travels through downtown Rocky Mount.
3) Motor Freight Service - There are several freight service businesses located
in the Rocky Mount area, including Southeastern Freight Lines, ABF Freight
System Inc., and Yellow Freight System Inc.
2-17
4) Air Service - The Rocky Mount-Wilson Airport provides regional air service to
Nash, Edgecombe, and Wilson Counties. The airport is located on NC 97 south
of Rocky Mount near the Wilson County border.
4. Economic Development/Land Use Changes
a. Demographics
Population data for Rocky Mount and Nash County is shown in Table 2.5. The
county has exhibited steady growth in past years but is projected to experience a
consistently decreasing growth rate over the next several decades.
TABLE 2.5
POPULATION TRENDS
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Rocky Mount 41,526' 49,438' 55,977' 62,6002 72,0002 78,000
Nash County 67,153' 76,677' 87,385' 95,306' 103,123' 110,392'
North Carolina 5,880,095' 6,632,448' 8,046,813' 9,502,904' 10,966,956' 12,465,481'
GROWTH
1980-1990 GROWTH
1990-2000 GROWTH
2000-2010 GROWTH
2010-2020 GROWTH
2020-2030
Rocky Mount 19%' 13%' 12%2 15%2 8%2
Nash County 14%' 14%' 9%' 8%' 7%'
North Carolina 13%' 21% 1 18%' 15%' 14%'
SOURCE: 1) 2000 US Census (USBOC, 2000)
2) Transportation Plan 2030 (Rocky Mount MPO, 2004)
As shown in Table 2.6, African-Americans comprise a higher percent of residents in
Rocky Mount and Nash County than the statewide average. Hispanics comprise a
slightly smaller percent of the population than the statewide average.
2-18
TABLE 2.6
RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION
RACIAL GROUP ROCKY
MOUNT NASH
COUNTY NORTH
CAROLINA
White alone 41% 62% 72%
African American alone 56% 34% 22%
Native American or Alaska Native alone 0% 0% 1 %
Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander alone 1% 1% 1 %
Other 1% 2% 2%
Multi-racial (not Hispanic) 1 % 1% 1%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2% 3% 5%
SUUKCE: ZUUU US Census (UbBUC, ZUUU).
Rocky Mount and Nash County exhibit higher unemployment and poverty rates than
statewide averages. The per capita median incomes for Rocky Mount and Nash
County are lower than statewide averages. This data is shown in Table 2.7.
TABLE 2.7
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME DATA
ROCKY NASH NORTH
MOUNT COUNTY CAROLINA
Unemployment Rate (August 2008) 9.6% 9.0% 6.8%
Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Per Capita Income (2000) $17,804 $18,863 $20,307
Source: US Bureau of the Census.
Percent of Persons Living in Poverty (2000) 20.1% 13.4% 12.3%
Source: US Bureau of the Census.
b. Economic Data
Consistent with statewide trends, service-based occupations are the primary sources
of employment in Nash County. Retail trade, wholesale trade, healthcare, social
assistance, accommodation and food services, administrative and waste services,
and professional and technical services collectively comprise over 50% of
occupations in Nash County. Rocky Mount's economy is also transitioning from
manufacturing-based to service-based (City of Rocky Mount, 2003) largely due to the
closing of textile companies.
2-19
5. Strategic Highway Corridors
The US 301 Bypass Improvements are part of the NC Strategic Highway Corridors
Program. In September 2004, the NCDOT, NC Department of Commerce, and NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) adopted the Strategic
Highway Corridor planning program, which placed a renewed focus on upgrading and
preserving North Carolina's existing transportation system. The program's goals are to
protect the mobility and connectivity of critical highway facilities while utilizing existing
facilities to the maximum extent possible, and fostering economic prosperity by moving
goods quickly and efficiently throughout the state.
The section of the US 301 Bypass studied for this project is designated as an
expressway in the Strategic Highway Corridor Plan. Exhibit 2.4 graphically presents an
expressway facility, which is characterized by high mobility, no traffic signals and partial
control of access.
D. Benefits of Proposed Project
a. Primary Benefit
Primary benefits of the proposed project include supporting the Strategic Highway
Corridors vision for US 301 Bypass, improving traffic capacity and structures along the
facility. By facilitating the flow of through-traffic, the proposed improvements would
enhance intrastate mobility and connectivity, supporting the goals of the SHC Initiative.
b. Secondary Benefit
Secondary benefits include a transportation infrastructure capable of accommodating
future commercial development, while increasing mobility, improving travel conditions
and providing a safer facility that will meet the future traffic needs. As stated previously,
the project study area currently experiences twice the crash rate of all urban US Routes
in North Carolina, and over triple the non-fatal injury collisions of all the US Routes in
North Carolina.
2-20
= US 301 Bypass Example Expressway
TIP No. W-3330 Facility
1 SR 1836 [May Drive] to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolinas Exhibit 2.4
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
A. PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the alternatives developed in the early stages of the study process.
These alternatives were eliminated from further study for reasons cited in the paragraphs below.
1. Alternative Modes of Transportation
a. Travel Demand Management (TDM)
This alternative includes transportation options such as ride-sharing, park & ride, and
vanpooling. While this alternative has the potential to reduce traffic associated with
commutes to employment centers outside the Rocky Mount area, the nature of local
travel, particularly the diversity of trip origins and destinations in the immediate area,
make this alternative an unlikely solution for the congestion and safety issues
associated with travel on the US 301 Bypass.
b. Mass Transit
Although the project study area is served by mass transit, expansion of existing transit
services would not alleviate increased traffic volumes within the project study area.
The types of businesses within the project study area are countywide destinations
that also draw patrons from rural areas not served by transit.
2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the
available capacity of the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital
expenditures and without reconstructing the existing facility. Items such as the addition
of turn lanes, striping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of
TSM physical improvements. Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access
control, and signal timing changes are examples of TSM operational improvements.
These types of improvements were considered and some elements such as turn lane
additions, signal coordination, and access control were incorporated into the build
alternatives. TSM improvements alone however, would not increase levels-of-service
enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future years. Therefore, the TSM
3-1
Alternative alone would not meet the purpose and need for this project and was
eliminated from further consideration.
3. Improve Existing Facility
The detailed study alternatives involve improving the existing facility; discussion of these
alternatives can be found in Section 3.B.
4. New Location Alternatives
Due to the highly urban characteristics of the project study area and the surrounding
region, new location alternatives were not pursued for the study. US 301 Bypass
corridor is bound by commercial properties and is connected to the regional
transportation network at interchanges with US 64 Bypass, US 64 Business, and NC
43/48. The SR 1836 (May Drive) termini would also likely be a component of any new
location alternatives, which reduces the potential for variation between alternatives.
5. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to US 301 Bypass within the
project study area. No roadway or intersection improvements would be performed. The
No-Build Alternative would not be compatible with the transportation goals of North
Carolina, which are to provide and support a safe and integrated transportation system
that enhances the state; nor is it consistent with the Rocky Mount's goal to provide a
safe, economical and environmentally sensitive means of moving people, services, and
goods through an accessible transportation network that serves the City of Rocky Mount.
The No-Build Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts or residential
relocations; however adverse social and economic impacts could occur. Future traffic
volumes may result in an increased number of collisions and longer delays that would
degrade the safety of the transportation system and create an even higher potential for
collisions. An inefficient transportation system could also cause the patrons of
businesses within the project study area to consider shopping in areas of less
congestion, resulting in economic impacts to local businesses.
The No-Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the transportation
goals of the State of North Carolina or the transportation needs of the region. Also, by
3-2
failing to provide solutions to high traffic volumes in the area, connectivity to other traffic
corridors, and increased safety, this alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need
for this project. The No-Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparing
the benefits and adverse impacts of the Build Alternatives.
B. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
This section presents the two alternatives carried forward for further study and consideration.
The selection of a Preferred Alternative will occur after a public hearing is conducted and
adequate opportunity for public and agency comments is realized. A final recommendation will
be made with the final environmental document, which is a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). It should be noted that proposed designs may change during final design phases/
1. Alternative A
Alternative A represents a "conventional" widening solution whereby additional travel
lanes are added to the existing highway, and existing signalized intersections are
modified by the addition of turning lanes, additional queuing capacity, and changes to
the traffic signal phasing and timing plans. This conventional alternative proposes
widening the existing 4-lane, median-divided highway to a 6-lane median-divided
highway with three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, separated by a 30-foot
depressed grass median. Inside shoulders are 6-feet wide (including 4-foot paved
shoulders), while outside shoulders are 10-feet wide (including 4-foot paved shoulders).
The length of improvements is approximately 1.9 miles from SR 1836 (May Drive) to just
south of the NC 43/48 interchange.
As shown in Exhibits 3.1a - 3.1c, Alternative A involves widening the existing US 301
Bypass from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility. This alternative includes
replacing the US 64 Business bridge, the dual bridges over Stony Creek, and extending
the culvert at Goose Creek. The typical sections for this alternative are shown in Exhibit
3.2. Intersection and lane configurations are shown in Exhibit 3.3.
a. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment
Alternate A proposes to use the current alignment and widen existing US 301 Bypass to
a six-lane, median divided highway as shown in Exhibit 3.2.
3-3
b. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Alternative A is anticipated to be constructed within the existing right of way from SR
1604 (May Drive) to just past the US 64 Bypass interchange, with the exception of the
US 301 Bypass/Stone Rose Avenue intersection where access will be widened at the
entrance to Stone Rose Avenue to accommodate a directional island. Proposed Right-
Of-Way (ROW) extends outside existing ROW limits on the east side of the US 301
Bypass, from the US 64 Bypass interchange to the intersection of Sutter's Creek Road,
and on the west side of the US 301 Bypass from the US 64 Bypass Interchange to the
box culvert at Goose Branch. A proposed construction easement is required from US 64
Bypass interchange to Liberty Lane on the east side and to the end of the project on the
west side. A permanent drainage easement is proposed at the inlet and outlet ends of
the existing box culvert which conveys Goose Branch. There will be partial control of
access throughout, with one driveway access per parcel.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit for this section of US 301 Bypass would be 45 mph.
d. Design Speed
The design speed for this project is 50 mph.
e. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No exceptions to normal highway design practices are currently proposed for this
alternative.
f. Intersection/Interchanges (see Exhibit 3.3)
Intersections:
US 301 Bypass at SR 1598 (Independence Drive): Independence Drive intersects with
US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. Both approaches of US 301 Bypass
have two through lanes, and exclusive left-turn lanes, with the northbound approach
having dual left-turn lanes. Southbound US 301 Bypass has an exclusive right-turn lane,
while the northbound approach has a shared through and right lane.
3-4
rte.
k q_' + Restaurant + r y? lill
Goodyea
ett+A' fl ?.•1 «` 'i . '; i. F _ ' ?• ;,?d?t sot t?iM r r j-`
.
«,?• • `? i-- t s k ,?' .. b Q?'t • C. SEI .a ?6t 11 '
Av? 'A
Blockbuster t© "r Ford Dealership
?r??? tai Bookstore
Shopping Center , t
1.7 '.see
r` ?_! Y'•-•''r,L. '\?# _ ? f '•J!'?` C??vv ?r rgl CarWaas_hl --• ?? •fA4ltaRepalr r ?++1t'tti+?,''?
i y „ * •i? 4' lv ! ti Beauty World +Y.. ' M11r ,+;?f?
E Roll
f !. 1 y I f' r I f Factory I e ?1d11I41'', '
r ?? -"?? ? e??,. !'.. ?y y{r, /,?:''e, :.i r _,r ? • .?' ' ltd ? +3#?4M1 ti ?- ,
Audla @ p s I I' _ r ?p j
! c ?E T Connection
p ?? J t r s n^?h x 9s ?:
4rw
Legend •Auto ,y W, f 't?.• r?: '? ?y,?Nt' ' C ;F
Rapalr Advanr?"*. Funeral
Home
Proposed Widening ?? , V
a « -rCl I- ,
.41 +
$"`4
t. - ,Ilk Construction Limits y "e*?1re aN
joll,
Shopping Centers b ) z
------------------
a Y ?V
0- Signal
if E Aaron'sNArt Buppllea I; Florist °i h ralq w' q' °t
f _ y Furniture y it?r? rt,.. ?tt ?yd"
h .,.
Car Ousst Rhrerelde vet '
'Aft Riverside, Vet
> ° nit t
?"?
V •? ? ?'J''a? ?' =s _ ,([_rr ? µ, .. ?4?.. ?„{f.'" ?} ?, ?y ?y 1 r1 ??^ w `i' ?? ti '•
.. ? 'r Rf .? .?.._.`.. ., _• ': '+n ,V ,^1i' ? ''Fr/ s r '.6..., 41?t
1 t
US 301 Bypass Build Alternative
TIP No. U-3330 Alternative A
SR 1838 (May Drive) to NO 43148 (Benvenue Road) Scale: 1 u = 300E
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.1 a
L4ZE (US S1)
1 I I 1

GRILaI
=Tm mum 02, GROUND
a,
POW POOff
-ARUM! Sr { VAR SM. FAVLVONT 3Y A VAR. VW. PAVEAAENT VARIAW SUM - ` \F-i
l1= kC 111
TYPICAL SECTION NO. I
US 301 Widenin Alternatives A and B

I :' T r z'
r VC ")PS ras
_ _.02 M-4 GRA)UND MADE
oSYdNPAI
SLOPM POINT 7? GROUND
VANAKE U . 1 _a11
VARLAW SWI!
111- 1111\
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2
US 64 Business Brid4e Replacement Alternatives A and B
rk RAAV .1S' WITH OUAIBIAR
rk WOPS
VARAW
GRAIN
r b °7-- - 0?
'-GLADE TO THIS UNE
TYPICAL SECTION NO 3
US 64 Business Alternatlve B
SINGLE LANE RAMP
Ds fVAMMU MOM
?e
?J..
.02
GROUND
0 - +?
OADE
PROPOSED
2 ' VARUARE SLOM
TYPICAL SECTION NO 4
US 64 Business Alternative A
LOOPS
US 301 Bypass T
"GIP No. U-3330 ypical Sections
SR 1836 (May drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.2
it
kT
GROUND
Vatl/tlF dl1NF
VARIAW

Sig y [?
7
1_ qye.
Us 341 Bypass
Q
N
ZP,
Legend
Proposed Widening
3
a)
c?
eo
\- rap
"INO P
,\S,
S
0
m S
0?, -
rz 4
3 ? \ ?1
ti
gW .

?I
t ?
mj5
Do U
4 w
_a
D
X
a
a 0 it E 0 /1
0 0 c I}
00
O / lS?
SUS 301 Bypass
)tr
--
, ?l4
`I
U? ? k

II
f1:
US 301 Bass Intersections and
yp Lane Configurations
TIP No. U-3330
Alternative
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 {Benvenue Road} Not To Scale
e
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.3
The eastbound approach of Independence Drive has one exclusive left, a shared left
and through, and a right-turn lane, while the westbound approach has a left-turn lane,
and a shared through and right lane
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and a shared through and right lane. The northbound approach will be
modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through
and right-turn lane.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 25.3 seconds
per vehicle during the PM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 49.0 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel
lanes, this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS C, with an average delay of
32.0 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements. A
possible safety improvement would be to add a separate northbound right-turn lane,
which could potentially reduce the number of rear-end collisions. As an option to
improve signal cycle lengths, the shared left and through Eastbound lanes on
Independence could be reconfigured to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, an
exclusive through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
US 301 Bypass at Sutter's Creek Road: Sutter's Creek Road intersects with US 301
Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches
of the bypass have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn
lane. The westbound approach of Sutter's Creek has dual left-turns and a shared
through and right, while the eastbound approach has dual left-turns, a through lane, and
a right-turn lane.
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach will
be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared
3-15
through and right-turn lane. No modifications will be made to the eastbound or
westbound approaches of Sutter's Creek Road
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 28.6 seconds
per vehicle during the PM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS F in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 49.0 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel
lanes, this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS D, with an average delay of
48.6 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements. A
possible safety improvement would be to add a separate northbound right-turn lane,
which could potentially reduce the number of rear-end collisions. As an option to
improve signal cycle lengths, the shared left and through eastbound and westbound
lanes on Sutter's Creek could be reconfigured to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, an
exclusive through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
US 301 Bypass at Home Depot Driveway: Home Depot Driveway intersects with US
301 Bypass at a signalized, 3-leg intersection. The northbound approach of the bypass
has dual left-turns into Home Depot and two through lanes, while the southbound
approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Home Depot driveway has dual
left-turn lanes, and a right-turn lane.
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have three through lanes, and a shared
through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be modified to have two
exclusive left-turn lanes, and three through lanes. No modifications will be made to the
eastbound approach of Home Depot Driveway
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 12.2 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 46.7 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel lanes,
this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS B, with an average delay of 10.0
seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements.
3-16
US 301 Bypass at Lowe's Driveway: The Lowe's Hardware Driveway intersects with
US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 3-leg intersection. At this location. the northbound
approach of the bypass has dual left-turns into Lowe's and two through lanes, while the
southbound approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Lowe's driveway
has dual left-turn lanes, and a right-turn lane.
A secondary driveway, south of the main entrance, provides right-in, right-out access to
the property. For the purposes of this report, these two driveways are referred to as
Lowe's Driveway #1, and #2 respectively.
Lowe's Driveway #1 (Main Entrance) Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the
northbound and southbound lanes. The southbound approach will be modified to have
three through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be modified to
have two exclusive left-turn lanes, and three through lanes. Alternate A will make no
modifications to Lowe's Driveway #1.
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 13.5 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS C in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 33.1 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel lanes,
this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS B, with an average delay of 12.4
seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements.
Lowe's Driveway #2 (Secondary Entrance): Alternative A will not modify this driveway, it
will continue to operate as a right-in, right-out intersection
US 301 Bypass at Stone Rose Avenue: Stone Rose Avenue intersects with US 301
Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches
of the bypass have a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
The westbound approach of Stone Rose has dual left-turns and a shared through and
right, while the eastbound approach also has dual left-turns, and a shared through and
right.
3-17
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach will
be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared
through and right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Stone Rose Avenue will be
converted to shared left and through lane, and a right turn lane, the eastbound approach
will not be modified.
Analysis for existing and future condition indicates that queues at the Stone Rose
Avenue/ US 301 Bypass intersection frequently block access to Lawrence circle. In
order to improve those conditions, it is recommended that Lawrence Circle be converted
to a counter clockwise one-way loop. This would allow for traffic to access Lawrence
Circle outside the operating area of the traffic signal at US 301 Bypass.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 22.3 seconds
per vehicle during the PM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 50.6 seconds per
vehicle in the AM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel
lanes, this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS C, with an average delay of
27.7 seconds per vehicle during the AM peak with no additional improvements.
US 301 Bypass at SR 1836 (May Drive/ Old Mill Road): May Drive/ Old Mill road
intersects with US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. Both approaches of
US 301 Bypass have two through lanes, exclusive right-turn lanes, and exclusive left-
turn lanes. The eastbound approach of Old Mill Road has a left-turn lane, a through lane,
and a right-turn lane, while the westbound approach of May Drive has a shared right-turn
and through lane, and a left-turn lane.
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and a shared through and right lane. The northbound approach will be
modified to have one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through
and right-turn lane. Alternate A will make no modifications to May Drive or Old Mill Road.
3-18
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 21.9 seconds
per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 45.9 seconds per
vehicle in the AM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel
lanes, this intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS B, with an average delay of
18.6 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements.
Summary of Intersection Recommendations: While all the intersections described
above function at an acceptable LOS as a result of the proposed improvements, further
modifications may be needed to improve safety along this corridor. An analysis of the
crash data for the corridor showed that almost 60% of crashes were rear-end collisions,
typically caused by congestion and queuing at existing traffic signals, or unexpected
turning movement by drivers. A possible countermeasure to reduce that type of collision
would be to ensure that each signalized intersection has exclusive left and right-turn
lanes from the mainline to side streets. One location where this countermeasure could
be considered is the northbound approach to the intersection with Independence Drive.
TABLE 3.1
2030, AM AND PM INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE A
Signal/ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Unsignalized Delay
(SecNeh) LOS Delay
(SecNeh) LOS
Independence S 22.7 C 32 C
Sutter's Creek S 31.5 C 48.6 D
Home Depot S 10 B 8.1 A
Rowe Drive/US 64 Bypass S 20.8 C 37 D
US 64 Bypass Ramp S 26.1 C 13.7 B
Lowe's Driveway S 11.7 B 12.4 B
Stone Rose S 27.7 C 24.3 C
May Drive S 18.6 B 16.4 B
Interchanges:
US 301 Bypass at US 64 Bypass Westbound (WB) Ramps and Rowe Drive: US 301
Bypass intersects with the US 64 Bypass westbound ramps and Rowe Drive at a
signalized, 4-leg intersection The northbound approach of the bypass has a left-turn
3-19
lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane onto Rowe Drive. The southbound
approach has a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The Off-ramp
from US 64 Bypass has a shared left and through lane, and a right-turn lane, while Rowe
Drive has a left-turn lane, and a shared through and right lane.
Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach will be modified to have three through lanes, and a right-turn
lane. The northbound approach will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and a right-turn lane.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 28.3 seconds
per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS E in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 71.2 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel
lanes, this intersection will operate an acceptable LOS D, with an average delay of 37.0
seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements.
US 301 Bypass at US 64 Bypass Eastbound (EB) Ramps): US 301 Bypass intersects
with the US 64 Bypass eastbound ramps at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
northbound approach of the bypass has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The
southbound approach has a left-turn lane, and two through lanes. The eastbound Off-
ramp from US 64 Bypass has a left-turn lane, a shared left and through lane, and a right-
turn lane. Alternative A will provide three through lanes for the northbound and
southbound lanes. The southbound approach will be modified to have three through
lanes, and a right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be modified to have two
exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane.
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 15.4 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS E in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 75.9 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the widening of US 301 Bypass to six travel lanes,
this intersection will operate an acceptable LOS C, with an average delay of 26.1
seconds per vehicle during the PM peak with no additional improvements.
3-20
US 301 Bypass Southbound Ramps at US 64 Business: US 301 Bypass southbound
ramps intersects with US 64 Business at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
southbound off-ramp has one left-turn lane, and one right-turn lane, the westbound
approach of US 64 Business has left turn lane and two through lanes, while the east
bound approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Alternative A will not
modify the configuration of this intersection; however Alternative A calls for the
replacement of the existing US 64 Business bridges over US 301 Bypass. These new
bridges will result in a change in the grade on the eastbound approach of US 64
Business from 1.5% to 3.4%. Analysis in Synchro shows that the impact due to this
grade change is less than one second of approach delay.
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 15.1 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS C in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 23.5 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the recommended bridge replacement, the
eastbound approach will experience an increase of 1.2 seconds delay, from 24.6
seconds/vehicle to 25.8 seconds per vehicle. Overall, this intersection will operate an
acceptable LOS C, with an average delay of 23.8 seconds per vehicle during the PM
peak with no additional improvements.
US 301 Bypass Northbound Ramps at US 64 Business: US 301 Bypass northbound
ramps intersects with US 64 Business at a un-signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
westbound approach of US 64 Business has two through lanes and a right turn lane,
while the east bound approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Alternative
A will not modify the configuration of this intersection; however Alternative A calls for the
replacement of the existing US 64 Business bridges over US 301 Bypass. These new
bridges will result in a change in the grade on the westbound approach of US 64
Business from 1.7% to 4.7%. Analysis in Synchro shows that the impact due to this
grade change is less than one second of approach delay.
This intersection currently operates at LOS A, with negligible delay during both Peak
hours. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate at LOS A in the
design year of 2030, with negligible delay. As a result of the recommended bridge
3-21
replacement, the westbound approach will experience an increase of 0.3 seconds delay.
Overall, this intersection will operate an acceptable LOS A, with negligible delay.
US 301 Bypass at NC 43/48: While project limits extend to NC 43/48, there are no
anticipated changes to the existing interchange as part of this project.
Ramp Junctions - Ramps throughout the study area were analyzed using the HCS
software, with volumes based on the traffic forecast completed for this project. The
following tables provide the results of the ramp analyses. As noted in Tables 4.3 and
4.4, all ramps function at acceptable levels of service for the entire planning period.
TABLE 3.2
RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DENSITY DURING THE AM & PM PEAK HOUR
BUIL D 2030
RAMP JUNCTION

D: Diverge
M: Merge
LOS
(AM/PM)
Density
(pc/mi.ln)
US 301 Bypass NB at Smokey Road D A/A 8.6/5.9
US 301 Bypass SB to NC 43/48 WB D A/A 4.4/6.8
US 301 Bypass SB from NC 43/48 WB M A/A 6.4/8.6
US 301 Bypass SB from NC 43 EB M B/B 13.010.5
US 301 Bypass NB from NC 43 EB M B/B 11.3/11.2
US 301 Bypass NB to NC 43 D B/A 13.2/9.3
US 301 Bypass SB to US 64 Bus. D A/A 2.2/5.1
US 301 Bypass NB from US 64 Bus. WB M B/B 17.3/14.5
US 301 Bypass NB from US 64 Bus. EB M B/B 18.6/15.5
US 301 Bypass SB from US 64 Bus. M B/B 11.7/15.2
g. Service Roads/Sidewalks
No service roads are proposed for this alternative. In addition to driveway access at US
301 Bypass, access to a large number of businesses along the corridor is also currently
provided by large, interconnected parking lots and several small roads outside US 301
Bypass right-of-way. No sidewalks are recommended for this alternative.
h. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings associated with this alternative.
3-22
i. Structures
Alternative A includes the replacement of the bridges over Stony Creek, the replacement
of the US 64 Business bridge, and the extension of the box culvert at Goose Branch.
Final dimensions and configurations will be decided during the final design phase.
Bridge locations and structural specifics for each bridge within the project study limits are
shown in Exhibit 3.6. Specific descriptions of the structures being modified by the
project are presented below.
Stony Creek
Due to age and structural condition, the existing dual bridges (Number 173 (northbound)
and Number 175 (southbound)), which carry US 301 Bypass over Stony Creek, will be
replaced with either dual bridges or a single bridge. A single bridge offers a cost
advantage as well as the option of converting the corridor to a superstreet facility in the
future.
The new bridge(s) will also be lengthened to provide additional hydraulic conveyance
since the existing bridges are affected by backwater from the Tar River in the base flood
event. The selection of dual bridges or a single span bridge will be determined during
final design.
US 64 Business
Bridge Numbers 196 (eastbound) and 198 (westbound) which carry US 64 business
over US 301 Bypass, will be replaced with one new structure. The new bridge will be
approximately 230-feet long and 54-feet wide on the eastbound bridge and 42-feet wide
on the westbound bridge. The current loop ramp in the southeast quadrant of the
interchange will replaced with a loop that has a greater radius. The new bridge
structures will be raised due to vertical clearance issues and the need for extended span
lengths. The bridges will be raised approximately 6-8 feet to meet current design
standards, with a new vertical clearance of approximately 17-feet. Sight distance
calculations were done with the new design to ensure that the new grade would not
create potential safety hazards.
3-23
SR 1544 (Hunter Hill Road)
Structure Number 181 is a grade separation that carries SR 1544 (Hunter Hill Road) of
US 301 Bypass. As part of TIP Project No U-3621, this bridge will be replaced with a
new structure that is approximately 232-feet long and 35.5-feet wide. The new bridge
will carry two twelve-foot travel lanes in each direction with 4-foot inside shoulders and a
curb and gutter with sidewalk section on the outside. The new vertical clearance will be
approximately 17-feet. Pedestrian access will provided via sidewalks.
(,nnec Rrnnrh
Goose Branch is carried underneath US 301 Bypass by a double 6-foot by 7-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert. The existing culvert will be extended approximately 35
feet on the east side of US 301 Bypass and 80 feet on the west side of US 301 Bypass
to accommodate the additional travel lanes on US 301 Bypass. Hydraulic analysis
indicates that the existing structure may not handle the 50 year flood, therefore NCDOT
will determine if culvert size is adequate, or if culvert requires replacement with a larger
size culvert, or if lateral floodplain pipes can be installed to the sides of the existing
culvert. In consideration of this, resizing of the culvert will be evaluated during final
design.
I Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No bicycle and pedestrian facility or greenway is proposed for this alternative. This topic
is discussed further in Section 5.E
k. Utilities
The proposed project would require the relocation of existing underground and overhead
utilities with the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construction;
however overall impacts to public utilities are anticipated to be low with no long-term
impacts.
1. Landscaping
No specialized planting plans are associated with the proposed improvements.
3-24
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are currently included in the design of either build alternative; however
a noise wall was evaluated for the west end of the project to evaluate impacts from both
build alternatives to the Rosedale subdivision. Analysis showed that a noise wall at this
location would protect (provide a minimum of 5 dBA reduction) 12 receivers for
Alternative A.
Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, a wall is potentially justifiable and therefore
will be evaluated in a more detailed noise barrier study as final designs are completed.
Section 5.J contains additional information on noise impacts and abatement.
n. Work Zone Traffic Control and Construction Phasing
Construction of the proposed project will temporarily affect the traveling public. A traffic
control plan will be designed to minimize impacts and maximize safety and mobility. The
plan will conform to all temporary traffic control standards set forth in the latest editions of
the MUTCD, the NCDOT Roadway Standard Drawings, and all applicable guidelines and
methods used by the NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control Unit.
In Alternative A, US 301 Bypass will be widened by closing one lane in each direction at
off-peak times set forth in the traffic control plan. Traffic will be returned to two lanes in
each direction at the end of each workday and for peak traffic periods. In addition, the
contractor will be instructed to maintain access to interchanges, businesses, and
driveways at all times.
In both build alternatives, new bridge structures are proposed along US 64 Bus over US
301 Bypass. Bridges must be raised due to vertical clearance issues and need for
extended span lengths. Bridges will be raised approximately 6-8 feet to meet current
design standards. This design will maximize improvements to the facility in the final
condition; however, replacement of the structures will cause considerable impacts during
construction. The bridges can be stage-constructed, or built while maintaining traffic
along US 64 Business and the interchange ramps. US 64 Business traffic would be
reduced to a two-way, two-lane pattern (one lane in each direction) for an extended
period. Locals who typically use this route as a through route to other destinations may
choose to use US 64 Bypass in order to avoid the construction area, thereby leaving US
64 Business as a viable means to access the businesses and residences in the
3-25
immediate vicinity of the bridges. If it is deemed unacceptable to maintain US 64
Business in a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern for an extended time period, long term
offsite detours would have to be implemented, most likely using US 64 Bypass and US
301 Business.
Replacing the bridges along US 301 Bypass over Stony Creek will also cause
construction impacts. Construction of either the dual span bridges or single span bridge
will have to be stage-constructed, or built in several stages while traffic is shifted to
various temporary patterns on either the existing structures, portions of the new
structure, or a combination thereof. Since US 301 Bypass must be returned to two lanes
in each direction at the end of each work period, it is likely that travel lanes will have to
be narrowed to 10.5-feet to 11-feet during construction with portable concrete barrier on
one side of the travelway.
2. Alternative B
Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B also proposes widening the existing 4-lane,
median-divided highway to a 6-lane median-divided highway with three 12-foot travel
lanes in each direction, separated by a 30-foot depressed grass median (Exhibits 3.4a-
3.4c). Inside shoulders are 6-feet wide (including 4-foot paved shoulders), while outside
shoulders are 10-feet wide (including 4-foot paved shoulders). The primary distinction of
Alternative B is that it incorporates median treatments and islands to restrict left turn
movements from side-streets for the entire length of the study corridor. This design
concept is known as a "superstreet" design, as indicated in Figure 1.
The length of improvements for Alternative B is approximately 2.1 miles from just south
of SR 1836 (May Drive) to just south of the NC 43/48 interchange. Alternative B
replaces the US 64 Business bridge and the dual bridges over Stony Creek, and extends
an existing culvert at Goose Branch and at the unnamed tributary to the Tar River. The
typical section for this alternative is shown in Exhibit 3.2.
Since US 301 Bypass is part of the NC Strategic Highway Corridors Program and
designated as an expressway (Exhibit 2.4), the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of
signalized intersections to the maximum extent possible. This ultimate goal prioritizes
through-movement over side-street left-turns and side-street thorugh-movement. The
superstreet configuration provides right-in/right-out movements and eliminates left turns
3-26
from side streets. As shown in Exhibits 3.4a - 3.4c, Alternative B would eliminate side-
street left turns along the US 301 Bypass.
Because of the constrained intersection spacing resulting from retro-fitting this type of
treatment along the heavily developed corridor, Alternative B is not a true super-street.
Rather, the design for Alternative B incorporates superstreet-type u-turns and controlled
left-turns islands while still allowing several conventional-type intersections as well as
multiple left-turn islands between two u-turn islands. To travel from one side street
across the highway to the same side street, travelers must make a right turn and then a
u-turn at a designated and protected (via the use of islands and signals) u-turn location,
then turn right onto the desired street.
FIGURE 1
EXAMPLE SUPERSTREET CONFIGURATION
Main
Highway
Side Street
A TYPICAL SUPERSTREET CONFIGURATION
[To make a left turn from a side street, traffic is directed to a designated U-turn location, where
travelers must make a U-turn then right-turn to access side streets.]
By removing left-turns and through movements from the side streets, Alternative B
creates a corridor that can be controlled by two-phased signals for the entire length of
the study area. This provides a substantial reduction in the number of signal phases
(versus the typical 8-phase signal where left turns are allowed) and greatly improves the
traffic flow. Efficient traffic flow is due to the ability to coordinate the two-phase signals
3-27
along the corridor so that traffic progression with minimal delays is provided to the
mainline movement. In addition to traffic flow improvements, the elimination of left turns
from the side streets also greatly increase safety by reducing the potential conflict points
at each intersection. At first glance, the thought of traversing a superstreet from a side
street starting location seems lengthy and inconvenient. However, when the traveler
considers that a superstreet causes much-reduced wait-times at signalized intersections,
the design seems less onerous and perhaps even more convenient. The proposed
superstreet intersections and lane configurations for Alternative B are shown in Exhibit
3.5.
a. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment
Alternate B is anticipated to use the current alignment and convert the intersections
along the corridor to Superstreet configurations.
b. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Alternative B will be constructed within the existing right of way from just south of SR
1604 (May Drive) near Postal Drive to just past US 64 Bypass interchange with the
exception of US 301 Bypass/Stone Rose Avenue intersection and Sam's Club Drive
where access will be widened at these entrance to accommodate directional islands
associated with the superstreet design. Proposed Right-Of-Way (ROW) extends outside
existing ROW limits on the east side of US 301 Bypass, from the US 64 Bypass
Interchange to Sutter's Creek Road, and on the west side of US 301 Bypass from US 64
Bypass Interchange to box culvert at Goose Branch. A construction easement is
proposed from US 64 Bypass interchange to Liberty Lane on the east side and to the
end of the project on the west side. A permanent drainage easement is proposed at the
inlet and outlet ends of the existing box culvert which conveys Goose Branch. There will
be partial control of access throughout, with one driveway access per parcel.
C. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit for this section of US 301 Bypass would be 45 mph.
d. Design Speed
The design speed for this project is 50 mph.
3-28
VON I
'err
so, 6 Y'.
-..? rr.:, •.J - .<, /d ta, '1G1 y .? 'r .? f'J t• ,' *i.{' w i'?I,
rA,
or s :SIt.Y? 'III ,, ? "'1?''??
- 'y? , .[_ \ . f fir' f t'? . 4 • (' ?:. r,4,YJ
:10 t . lA ¢ l ?, t * t N J - 1IM td!. $ $`
* of
r `,`, K 1. •;;. / p * ?}..:'Y.• y .?-+t ei? 1 N.t -' 't '" 1 j ?} ' Ak t41
41
e ; { r ;r r ?. Ord sti1' ' a ,,
} ?? i t3' ,?^ i r t
:7 C
r' iy °Y f t w R = ?`R"i RBC Centers !
4? 710 y?y " r Shopping Canter has
a{ x aL? f y Weetvfew Park been Demolished
®l4 .y ''$, f'? •k may} .a i?Y' Y p!.
It _1
'.7 a 1c, 1 j - b 8 s. {; ,?, 1 ?. `a?.•? `4?,r ` - +C? a r '1' r
r Pi r _ `f 4f/? •r` i' ?•+NAIE.^ 'a" 11,.•*. e•'? -'?' :?'?; -,r'lld ¦ Club -
40-
; Vtaae al0 ?, ? /q?
Office
pe , L,QanBtatlon ' 7 7y i!, tS
, z
> 41}
r+
\ + * ?.?}_F ?._`--- -' ---?_?"2•,e ,t1R! '--,a.--i r....- .. fi '• ; p ?4-?.-,_GS>s: a,•a= _ .,. r
d <
r.
1; ? e,?1 -;? l -- ..,.,ter -- ? _T?? -4---?-- '? s ??•? ? j Mr,y -- ? - :3
o .
4
3 D
Restaurant ?. r :¢ n AlriY a I; A
QaodYeartS
It,
J r { r e ' e? Ji*s' y?? 7 I7th
d,h P ?¦ y ??
*' Y 6-' I •- - n aT J . Q rii i's
r ?* A' ! Blockbuster Ford Dealership
WILI
s /j a s,
M10 9 ?i, a . ?? Bookstore
'8hopping Center, s *+M4 ;: n h s. ti ta?bt it 4 Wort O y ? ? Car Wee* Beauty 1 Auto Rapalr k44 V` ' 0A1
l ??i f e t? gg Rou ! ?'?e /? a anti!
'.
+; Factoryl t rrR •ti?? tll,kTlti
. ,? f ? 9F 'f4?af ?Ir
Audio @ .Oltlaes ,b - ! 'a' `
sJ ?? ?, i } t Connection" a a ?J , I??
'"r +niat B ;it ?Auta t ! { r?`?!'• - r ?'?f?.., tl:? '
Legend
f i epalr 'R`" ry',? r?, a Yy 1
R Advance - -Funeral t ar
Hama ?d rTh:r 'a
Proposed Widening i; 0 c r% aaE?;Y ??
;
----------------- ? Shopping center y t ?x
Construction Limits )ALA
Signal F
,. Asran'sA, Supplies f Ftorlat ? ate ? ??? + till
"t
Pavement Removal, Fumhure 9 i 'rrJ? r
Yt 4 ?r Car Quest RlvereldeVat silt 0 r f,
Z-4 ShappFng Center
r -'- way i IJ fi ' ' k • 'r f ?J// t ',.8hoppfr?g Center ,,J r.^•' t. !:
AF, 0
7F""
M y. IfP' •t ?ps+ /K' P ?C `r 3!* t' ) F t y f
?s . 3' !ry
US 301 Bypass Build Alternative
TIP No. U-3330 Alternative B
SR 1838 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Scale: 1 e' = 300'
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.4a
k of ,? '{R?, ?• r +++ .,?1 ? ? ??? ? ? ,, ? + , ??
? i, , r?7?}? 3 • i 1 'Y}4C71 . t r •??? ? ?? ?? '`Ir.?`, ?` ? ? , % n ? ? \ ?Y , ?N 3 ` •' . ?'
A
'?J ?'}t.." •.,• ?,. , y y- ,_. / f ? '? ??? f _ ,t ?"? A? ., 4 1T •n " 4 1?7 • ;? t, ' .. ?1?1?J ,. a
':t . rvt^?? "u i.? `? r + i • .rr 'h., „ .. •J , IN?eil t1l 1'.tA , _t?? Y i r t`i J/ .N'" t . S.'"S„? , F
Ak-
/j 'r II j f Y ,' r aJ , j ' ^ n • Z U. , People's s #!? ',
+ ,??"? I t.' h •. Bank x•
?J ?r 4 nM ? + 7 ?# 1 i 1 f r °t .
> -1 5 . .R t;v n e., e.. e7
Offic.
A 1100-1
?. 1 + i #' '''? M .4 1 h4 ?., .?', -k '.? r N{'?7 J1 w.,; ?^•? ?yf
Shopping Center ?y. .,?., T,: tit - r ,Z ?o: +?,,', . a' • ?? , . R?;?4 . ?
•? ?. * l? ' I_; to „ '3 ANt1 ? ?I , ? .? ?? ?? 1. ? ? ?
Target •? xl., ~ ' 't(:- • ??, 1`fi 1'I?i ` A A RBC Centura t yJ. - -
Eye Care Center
0 463
' T
J i
a a g • 6. t Shopping Center, y w 1 } Golden East Craning Mail .0
V1- %110 11
'f
wn 1'Y fia M ?11t1,11r , f < _
kill• , , 1 ti A 0 - - - , ,, it "y - a V
.00 S y ` ' ''rr ?r r i d Ouailtq Inn
Super K-Mart Or
' + U! K 1 a/' y • \ A:I^fP ' ?'? Mn ?' !n a t h i r
idl' ? ru y/ry 1 t??,, i 1 •, •*, `;y\+, ?, /'tit `a ? • !f v t
'Y y M' T• \ J' w r °aI I M V
It,
?Texas 1:3
Vr , , 44 s n r, r.,
+ tSteakhouse
. A al F„: ,£' '..f ' ` ?,. •.i • L ?s•. ??? f?
• Mazda 4 # J
IDealers'hip y eb I "? t ° rr e
0
.' N
- Re9ta,uant Z Red Lobster •w r ..+:1 '` r ,.? !' ?6
nw±n + N \ e r Vacant :•
;t • \ Mc Donal
d'9 i J w at? • PPk's 9? •" He
.i Suslnessea Sofia Outlet , w r ,
I ;.V
/.!ft l ,N-
1,14101
sari ."' F r --?..., /!... ??'.P lJ!!If? ' y r f `IF1F+ T 911°}???`l= i t __i-..i_.r._a._A,J??t r•-3 L^?!- ~ .. ?J j+? ,T,lt tl.i?
C
I,
Y -y-YrTrn'*?-,'eir'Y`-7!--r--r?-?.. y'a ,., _",y `•`?!1q J? ,,?`?\. o , •y
t3oldenl?.", S ' IQl Bobby Murrayl',•,h,?,s vke,? , .,', a,w?{ FiANNA%
restone ••"?fr-. I I 1 , ! ! r. ..qi_ 4r?'•y } q. iCorral Mltsubishl ,J 9 Meineke 1 t A N4e
Ilk a r{ I AIIteV 114y' CC - 0 .i7dY'9
I? p 1' Western Sizzlin '! L!? ,
Wireless tr Krlspy n ?++ ir
••'?`
i? BobbvyMurray, lq ikWmwdif CIt o
Ir•', r? .+s
? _ .^il••j' 11d . s ?' g Krems
a ti { To ota'•
V IShoPPIn9 Center (' .
f
' wf .? l1 y . ?t,9 A ', ny „*
Skating Rink r•
i ` •\Fr H, ;J tgldf ttt , I PF ?t ', "fir,
t`?' Si' *;•1\?`"pit ti a If + rJ a t y. d, a. +?. M r;?
? tai +`?• •? ?? 5 % ? e y ? r,,y? I `?T;+i '?h? ? +tl ?r?"?t ?' ? f ? `?- +' Rr? {M . .r t?
{ i i •`•r` °?? 7 r A A :/y ]?" 'q 1 7?'i ?t. ?'?•• ?Q? J?, I`t' y d rY.r ,d a
a °
* h*?" *~ i Or'`t post Office:'. - -
L -O
q i?G , 1y ,lr
Legend
r Shopping Center
,? ,,?• , ; Shopping Center Proposed Widening
+ ?1 7"'^ I, 1 '? i ? ? , 4 ? h1+1? n1SZ'. ? \ ! r? + 9t'.- I
------------------
+ Construction Limits
?,. "? CO
Signal
Pavement Removal
7
Ill • rE•
f• L ?
W, Wk. 14
US 301 Bypass Build Alternative
TIP No. U-3330 Alternative B
SR 1838 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Scale: 1't = 300'
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.4c
SR

0
s
, „, ---jl/ -
a
m

y
r
3
m
0
CO
04
4*D
Intersection and
US 301 Bypass Lane Configurations
TIP No. U-3330 Alternative B
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.5
---- 11 - --,A il
Legend
- Proposed Widening
e. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No exceptions to normal highway design practices are currently proposed with either
build alternative; however to reduce the impacts of limited access that is associated with
Alternative B, further design activities may consider exceptions to better accommodate
access needs for specific businesses.
f. Intersections/Interchanges
Alternative B represents a "non-conventional" widening solution whereby additional
travel lanes are added to the existing highway, additional traffic signals are added, but
signal plans are modified to mainly two phases. All intersections along US 301 Bypass
are configured as Superstreet intersections, in which minor street left-turns and through
movements are not allowed onto the major roadway, but are accommodated at
signalized U-turns. This intersection design will facilitate the efficient movement of traffic
along the corridor by eliminating long signal delays associated with conventional
intersections and their complex multi-phased traffic signal operation. Superstreets also
enhance safety by reducing conflict points at intersections - each conflict point
representing a potential point for a crash between vehicles.
Intersections
US 301 Bypass at SR 1598 (independence Drive/Ring Road): Independence Drive /
Ring Road intersects with US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. Both
approaches of US 301 Bypass have two through lanes, and exclusive left-turn lanes,
with the northbound approach having dual left-turn lanes. Southbound US 301 Bypass
has an exclusive right-turn lane, while the northbound approach has a shared through
and right lane. The eastbound approach of Independence Drive has one exclusive left,
a shared left and through, and a right-turn lane, while the westbound approach has a
left-turn lane, and a shared through and right lane.
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound
approaches. The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn
lane, three through lanes, and an exclusive right lane. The northbound approach will be
modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through
and right-turn lane. The eastbound (Ring Road) and westbound (Independence Drive)
3-37
approaches will be modified to have two right-turn only lanes. Eastbound vehicles
wishing to turn left onto northbound US 301 Bypass, or continue on Independence Drive,
will make an initial right-turn, and then travel approximately 2000 feet to the median U-
turn located south of Sutter's Creek Road to continue to their destination. Westbound
vehicles wishing to turn left onto southbound US 301 Bypass, or continue on
Independence Drive, will make an initial right-turn, and then travel approximately 600
feet to the median u-turn located north of Independence Drive to continue to their
destination.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 25.3 seconds
per vehicle during the PM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 49.0 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of Alternate B improvements, the northbound
approach of US 301 Bypass will operate at LOS B with an average delay of 14.2
seconds per vehicle during the PM Peak hour, while the southbound approach will
operate at LOS B with an average delay of 11.8 seconds per vehicle. The median u-turn
located north of US 301 Bypass/ Independence Drive intersection will operate at LOS B,
with an average delay of 15.4 seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass at Sutter's Creek Road: Sutter's Creek Road intersects with US 301
Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches
of the bypass have dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn
lane. The westbound approach of Sutter's Creek has dual left-turns and a shared
through and right, while the eastbound approach has dual left-turns, a through lane, and
a right-turn lane.
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound
approaches. The southbound approach will be modified to have dual left-turn lane, three
through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be
modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and an exclusive
right-turn lane. The eastbound approach of Sutter's Creek Road will be modified to
include three right-turn only lanes, while the westbound approach will be modified to
have two right-turn only lanes. Eastbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto northbound
US 301 Bypass, or continue on Sutter's Creek Road, will make an initial right-turn, and
3-38
then travel approximately 1100 feet to the median U-turn located south of Sutter's Creek
Road to continue to their destination. Westbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto
southbound US 301 Bypass, or continue on Sutter's Creek Road, will make an initial
right-turn, and then travel approximately 1600 feet to the median U-turn located north of
Sutter's Creek Road to continue to their destination.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 28.6 seconds
per vehicle during the PM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS F in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 49.0 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of the Alternate B improvements, the
northbound approach of US 301 Bypass will operate at LOS A with an average delay of
7.5 seconds per vehicle during the PM Peak hour, while the southbound approach will
operate at LOS C with an average delay of 21.7 seconds per vehicle. The median U-turn
located south of US 301 Bypass/ Sutter's Creek Road intersection will operate at LOS B,
with an average delay of 11.2 seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass at Home Depot Driveway: Home Depot Driveway intersects with US
301 Bypass at a signalized, 3-leg intersection. The northbound approach of the bypass
has dual left-turns into Home Depot and two through lanes, while the southbound
approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Home Depot driveway has dual
left-turn lanes, and a right-turn lane.
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound approach and four
through lanes southbound approach. The southbound approach will be modified to have,
three through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound approach
will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes and three through lanes. The
eastbound approach of Home Depot Driveway will be modified to include two right-turn
only lanes. Eastbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto northbound US 301 Bypass will
make an initial right-turn, and then travel approximately 2100 feet to the median U-turn
located south of the US 64 Bypass to continue to their destination.
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 12.2 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 46.7 seconds per vehicle
3-39
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the Alternate B improvements, the southbound
approach will operate at LOS B with an average delay of 19.5 seconds per vehicle. The
median u-turn located north of US 301 Bypass/Home Depot intersection will operate at
LOS B, with an average delay of 11.2 seconds per vehicle. The northbound approach
will operate without signal control, with the left-turn movement under the control of US
301 Bypass southbound intersection with the Home Depot driveway.
US 301 Bypass at Lowe's Driveway: The Lowe's Hardware Driveway intersects with
US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 3-leg intersection. The northbound approach of the
bypass has dual left-turns into Lowe's and two through lanes, while the southbound
approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Lowe's driveway has dual left-
turn lanes, and a right-turn lane. This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an
average delay of 13.5 seconds per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are
made, this intersection will operate at LOS C in the design year of 2030, with an average
delay of 33.1 seconds per vehicle in the PM peak hour.
A secondary driveway, located south of the main entrance, provides right-in, right-out
access to the property. For the purposes of this report, these two driveways are referred
to as Lowe's Driveway #1, and #2 respectively
Lowe's Driveway #1(Main Entrance):
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound lanes.
The southbound approach at Lowe's Driveway #1 will be modified to have three through
lanes, and a right-turn lane, and also provide a dual u-turn movement. The northbound
approach will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, and three through lanes.
The eastbound approach of Lowe's Driveway #1 will be modified to have two right-turn
lanes. Eastbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto northbound US 301 Bypass will make
an initial right-turn, and then travel approximately 2000 feet to the median U-turn located
south of Tarrytown Drive to continue to their destination.
As a result of Alternate B improvements, the southbound approach will operate at LOS
B with an average delay of 15.0 seconds per vehicle.
3-40
Lowe's Driveway #2(Secondary): Alternative B would provide three through lanes for
the northbound and southbound lanes. The southbound approach at Lowe's Driveway
#2 will be modified to have two through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane.
The northbound approach will be modified to have one u-turn/left-turn lane, and three
through lanes. Lowe's Driveway #2 will be modified to allow for only incoming tratffic, no
traffic will be allowed to exit using this driveway. As a result of Alternate B
improvements, the southbound approach will operate at LOS B with an average delay of
11.7 seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass at Tarrytown Drive/ Stone Rose Avenue: Tarrytown Drive/ Stone
Rose Avenue intersects with US 301 Bypass at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
northbound and southbound approaches of the bypass have a left-turn lane, two through
lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Stone Rose has
dual rightt-turns and a shared through and left, while the eastbound approach has dual
left-turn lanes, and a shared through and right.
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound
approaches. The southbound approach will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane. The northbound
approach will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and
an exclusive right-turn lane. The eastbound approach of Tarrytown Drive would be
modified to include two right-turn only lanes, while the westbound approach of Stone
Rose Avenue will be modified to have two right-turn only lanes. Eastbound vehicles
wishing to turn left onto northbound US 301 Bypass will make an initial right-turn, and
then travel approximately1200 feet to the median U-turn located south of Tarrytown
Drive to continue to their destination. Westbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto
southbound US 301 Bypass, will make an initial right-turn, and then travel approximately
600 feet to the median u-turn located at Lowe's Driveway #2 to continue to their
destination. This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 22.3
seconds per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection
will operate at LOS C in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 50.6 seconds
per vehicle in the AM peak hour.
3-41
Analysis for existing and future condition has shown that queues at the Stone Rose
Avenue/ US 301 Bypass intersection frequently block access to Lawrence circle. In order
to improve those conditions, it is recommended that Lawrence Circle be converted to a
counter clockwise one-way loop. This would allow for traffic to access Lawrence Circle
outside the operating area of the traffic signal at US 301 Bypass.
As a result of Alternate B improvements, the northbound approach of US 301 Bypass
will operate at LOS C with an average delay of 20.7 seconds per vehicle during the PM
Peak hour, while the southbound approach will operate at LOS B with an average delay
of16.0 seconds per vehicle. The median U-turn located south of US 301 Bypass/
Tarrytown Drive intersection will operate at LOS B, with an average delay of 14.5
seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass at SR 1836 (May Drive): May Drive intersects with US 301 Bypass at
a signalized, 4-leg intersection. Both approaches of US 301 Bypass have two through
lanes, exclusive right-turn lanes, and exclusive left-turn lanes. The eastbound approach
has a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a right-turn lane, while the westbound approach
of May Drive has a shared right-turn and through lane, and a left-turn lane.
Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound
approaches. The southbound approach will be modified to have an exclusive left-turn
lane, three through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be
modified to have an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through
and right-turn lane. The eastbound approach of Old Mill Road will be modified to include
two right-turn only lanes, while the westbound approach of May Drive will be modified to
have two right-turn only lanes. Eastbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto northbound
US 301 Bypass, or continue on to May Drive, will make an initial right-turn, and then
travel approximately 900 feet to the median U-turn located south of May Drive to
continue to their destination. Westbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto southbound
US 301 Bypass, or continue on Old Mill Rd., will make an initial right-turn, and then
travel approximately 1500 feet to the median U-turn located at south of US 64 Business
to continue to their destination. This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an
average delay of 21.9 seconds per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are
3-42
made, this intersection will operate at LOS D in the design year of 2030, with an average
delay of 45.9 seconds per vehicle in the AM peak hour.
As a result of Alternate B improvements, the northbound approach of US 301 Bypass
will operate at LOS A with an average delay of 7.5 seconds per vehicle during the AM
Peak hour, while the southbound approach will operate at LOS C with an average delay
of 25.6 seconds per vehicle. The median u-turn located south of US 301 Bypass/ May
Drive intersection will operate at LOS B, with an average delay of 27.2 seconds per
vehicle in the AM peak, while the u-turn located north of the US 301/ May Drive
intersection will operate at LOS A, with an average delay of 8.6 seconds per vehicle in
the PM peak.
Table 3.3
2030, AM AND PM INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS
U-turn north of Independence at SB US 301 12.1 B 15.4 B
Ring Dr at SB US 301 Bypass 11.7 B 11.8 B
Independence Dr at NB US 301 Bypass 8.5 A 14.2 B
Sutter's Creek Rd at SB US 301 Bypass 12.8 B 21.7 C
Sutter's Creek Rd at NB US 301 Bypass 10.3 B 7.5 A
U-turn south of Sutter's Creek at NB US 301 12.0 B 11.2 B
U-turn North of Home Depot (U-turn move) 17.7 C 24.9 C
Home Depot at SB US 301 Bypass 10.6 B 19.5 B
Rowe Dr at NB US 301 Bypass WBR 30.7 D 22.1 C
US 64 Bypass WB Off-Ramp at SB US 301
Bypass 11.2 B 21.2 C
US 64 Bypass EB Off-Ramp at SB US 301
Bypass 17.7 B 13.8 B
US 64 Bypass EB On-Ramp at NB US 301
Bypass 23.2 C 10.3 B
U-turn south of US 64 Bypass EB Off-ramp 12.6 B 13.1 B
Lowe's Driveway #1 at SB US 301 Bypass 16.8 B 15.0 B
Lowe's Driveway #2 at SB US 301 Bypass 10.7 B 11.7 B
Tarrytown Dr at SB US 301 Bypass 16.7 B 16.0 B
Stone Rose at US 301 Bypass 15.0 B 20.7 C
U-turn south of Tarrytown Drive 14.1 B 14.5 B
U-turn north of May Drive 7.1 A 8.6 A
Old Mill Rd at SB US 301 Bypass 25.6 C 13.6 B
May Dr at NB US 301 Bypass 7.5 A 9.9 A
U-turn south of May Drive 27.2 C 14.1 B
SB US 301 Ramp termini at US 64 Business 19.2 B 16.4 B
NB US 301 On-Ramp at US 64 Business 9.2 A 9.2 A
3-43
Summary of Intersection Recommendations: All movements; left, through and right,
would be allowed from northbound and southbound US 301 Bypass. Only right-in and
right-out movements would be allowed from the side streets at all study area
intersections except US 64 Bypass eastbound off-ramp at US 301 Bypass and Lowe's
Driveway 2 at US 301 Bypass. Both left and right turn movements would be allowed
from US 64 Bypass eastbound off-ramp while the Lowe's Driveway 2 would serve as
ingress to the shopping plaza (right-in from southbound US 301 Bypass and left in from
northbound US 301 Bypass).
Median crossovers would be provided along the corridor to facilitate turn movements. In
this alternative design, traffic turning left from the side streets onto US 301 Bypass would
first turn right onto US 301 Bypass, travel to the next downstream median crossover and
then make a U-turn at the crossover. Other than the median crossovers, the
intersections of Lowe's Driveway 1 and Lowe's Driveway 2 with US 301 Bypass are the
two other intersections where a U-turn would be allowed. At the intersection of US 64
Bypass eastbound off-ramp at US 301 Bypass left-turn from southbound US 301 Bypass
onto US 64 Bypass eastbound on-ramp would be prohibited which would allow the
implementation of a two phase signal. Under the proposed design, the southbound left-
turn traffic onto US 64 Bypass eastbound on-ramp would travel to the intersection of
Lowe's Driveway 1 at US 301 Bypass, make a u-turn and then turn right onto US 64
Bypass eastbound on-ramp.
A comparison of the capacity analyses for Alternatives A and B indicates that Alternative
B, average intersection delay of 14.7 seconds per vehicle, handles 2030 traffic volumes
better than Alternative A, average intersection delay of 22.6 seconds per vehicle. These
results indicate that Alternative B has more capacity to handle future traffic growth
beyond 2030, as the average intersection delay for acceptable LOS D is less than 35
seconds per vehicle.
Interchanges:
US 301 Bypass at US 64 Bypass Westbound (WB) Ramps and Rowe Drive: US 301
Bypass intersects with the US 64 Bypass westbound ramps and Rowe Drive at a
signalized, 4-leg intersection The northbound approach of the bypass has a left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane onto Rowe Drive. The southbound
approach has a left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The Off-ramp
3-44
from US 64 Bypass has a shared left and through lane, and a right-turn lane, while Rowe
Drive has a left-turn lane, and a shared through and right lane. Alternative B will
provide three through lanes for the northbound and southbound approaches. The
southbound approach will be modified to have three through lanes, and a right-turn lane.
The northbound approach will be modified to have two exclusive left-turn lanes, two
through lanes, and a shared through and right-turn lane.
The eastbound approach of the US 64 Bypass off-ramp will be modified to include two
right-turn only lanes, while the westbound approach of Rowe Drive would be modified to
have one right-turn lane. Eastbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto northbound US
301 Bypass, or continue on to Rowe Drive, will make an initial right-turn, and then travel
approximately 1500 feet to the median U-turn located at Lowe's Driveway #1 to continue
to their destination. Westbound vehicles wishing to turn left onto US 301 Bypass
southbound, or continue through to access US 64 Bypass westbound will make an initial
right-turn and then travel approximately 1200 feet to the median u-turn located south of
Hunter Hill Road. Due to the location of the Rocky Mount Fire Station on Rowe drive,
the median for this intersection will be constructed in such a way that fire trucks will be
able to make left turns from Rowe Drive if necessary.
This intersection currently operates at LOS C, with an average delay of 28.3 seconds
per vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will
operate at LOS E in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 71.2 seconds per
vehicle in the PM peak hour. As a result of the Alternate B improvements, the
southbound approach will operate at LOS C with an average delay of 21.2 seconds per
vehicle in the PM Peak.
US 301 Bypass at US 64 Bypass Eastbound (EB) Ramps): US 301 Bypass intersects
with the US 64 Bypass eastbound ramps at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
northbound approach of the bypass has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. The
southbound approach has a left-turn lane, and two through lanes. The eastbound Off-
ramp from US 64 Bypass has a left-turn lane, a shared left and through lane, and a right-
turn lane. Alternative B will provide three through lanes for the northbound and
southbound lanes. The southbound approach will be modified to have four through
lanes. The northbound approach will be modified to have three through lanes, and a
3-45
right-turn lane. The eastbound off-ramp will be modified to include two exclusive left-turn
lanes, and a right-turn lane
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 15.4 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS E in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 75.9 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the Alternate B improvements, the southbound
approach will operate at LOS B with an average delay of 17.7 seconds per vehicle in the
AM Peak, while the northbound approach would operate at LOS C with an average
delay of 23.2 seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass Southbound Ramps at US 64 Business: US 301 Bypass southbound
ramps intersects with US 64 Business at a signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
southbound off-ramp has one left-turn lane, and one right-turn lane, the westbound
approach of US 64 Business has left turn lane and two through lanes, while the east
bound approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Alternative B will not
modify the configuration of this intersection; however Alternative A calls for the
replacement of the existing US 64 Business bridges over US 301 Bypass. These new
bridges will result in a change in the grade on the eastbound approach of US 64
Business from 1.5% to 3.4%. Analysis in Synchro shows that the impact due to this
grade change is less than one second of approach delay.
This intersection currently operates at LOS B, with an average delay of 15.1 seconds per
vehicle during the AM Peak. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate
at LOS C in the design year of 2030, with an average delay of 23.5 seconds per vehicle
in the PM peak hour. As a result of the recommended bridge replacement, the
eastbound approach will experience an increase of 1.2 seconds delay, from 24.6
seconds/vehicle to 25.8 seconds per vehicle. Overall, this intersection will operate an
acceptable LOS C, with an average delay of 23.8 seconds per vehicle during the PM
peak with no additional improvements.
US 301 Bypass Northbound Ramps at US 64 Business: US 301 Bypass northbound
ramps intersects with US 64 Business at a un-signalized, 4-leg intersection. The
westbound approach of US 64 Business has two through lanes and a right turn lane,
3-46
while the east bound approach has two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Alternative
B will alter this intersection by removing the loop ramp, and adding a left-turn lane on the
eastbound approach. Alternative B also calls for the replacement of the existing US 64
Business bridges over US 301 Bypass. These new bridges will result in a change in the
grade on the westbound approach of US 64 Business from 1.7% to 4.7%. Analysis in
Synchro shows that the impact due to this grade change is less than one second of
delay for the westbound approach.
This intersection currently operates at LOS A, with negligible delay during both Peak
hours. If no improvements are made, this intersection will operate at LOS A in the
design year of 2030, with negligible delay. As a result of the recommended bridge
replacement, the removal of the loop ramp, and the addition of the eastbound left-turn
lane, this intersection will operate an acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour with an
average delay of 13.5 seconds per vehicle.
US 301 Bypass at NC 43/48: While project limits extend to NC 43/48, there are no
anticipated changes to the existing interchange as part of this project.
Ramp Junctions - Ramp performance for Alternative B will not differ from the analysis
for Alternative A with the exception of the US 64 Business interchange. Alternative B will
remove the loop that is currently used by US 64 Business eastbound traffic to access
northbound US 301 Bypass. This traffic will be routed through left-turns on to the
existing ramp for the westbound US 64 Business traffic.
TABLE 3.4
RAMP JUNCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DENSITY FOR ALTERNATE B
A M PEAK PM PEAK
RAMP JUNCTION
Density

D: Diverge LOS
(pc/mi.ln) LOS Density (pc/mi.ln)
M: Merge
US 301 Bypass
NB at US 64 M B 19.1 B 15.3
Business
3-47
Segment Analysis:
In addition to the intersection analysis, a segment analysis was performed using the
HCS software. This analysis evaluates the capacity of the thru-lanes, and their ability to
move traffic between intersections. As shown in Table 4.7, the segments that make up
this project would all operate at an acceptable level-of-service in the design year under
PM peak hour conditions, considered to be the heaviest load on the facility.
TABLE 3.5
SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PM PEAK FOR 2030 DESIGN YEAR
Northbound Approach Southbound Approach
Intersection Level of Density Level of Density (pc/mi/In)
Service (pc/mi/In) Service
May Drive to US 64 B 11
9 B 17
2
Business . .
US 64 Business to Stone C 18
2 C 21
8
Rose Ave. . .
Stone Rose Avenue to US B 17
9 C 21
3
64 Bypass . .
US 64 Bypass to Sutter's B 17
4 C 22
6
Creek . .
Sutter's Creek to B 17
5 C 21
3
Independence Drive . .
Independence Drive to End B 12
0 B 16
0
Project . .
g. Service Roads/Sidewalks
No service roads are proposed for this alternative. In addition to driveway access at US
301 Bypass, access to a large number of businesses along the corridor is also currently
provided by large, interconnected parking lots and several small roads outside US 301
Bypass right-of-way. No sidewalks are recommended for this alternative.
h. Railroad Crossings
One railroad grade separation is located near the southern terminus of the project. At
present it is anticipated that modifications to US 301 Bypass will not affect this asset.
However, a slight chance exists that storage turning lanes may extend through the
railroad crossing. This issue will be addressed during final design.
i. Structures
Alternative B includes the replacement of the bridges over Stony Creek, the replacement
of the US 64 Business bridge, the extension of the box culvert at Goose Branch and the
3-48
extension of the 48-inch pipe at the UT to the Tar River. Final dimensions and
configurations will be decided during the final design phase. Bridge locations and
structural specifics for each bridge within the project study limits are shown in Exhibit
3.6. Specific descriptions of the structures being modified by the project are presented
below.
Stony Creek
Bridge Numbers 173 (northbound) and 175 (southbound), which carry US 301 Bypass
over Stony Creek will be replaced with a single span bridge that is approximately 188
feet long and 117.5 feet wide. The northbound bridge is currently considered structurally
deficient and has a sufficiency rating of 48.6. The new bridge will carry three 12-foot
travel lanes in each direction, and provide a curb and gutter with sidewalk section on the
outside. A center median will be provided by constructing a concrete monolithic
(variable 6-foot to 14-foot width) island.
US 64 Business
Bridge Numbers 196 (eastbound) and 198 (westbound) which carry US 64 business
over US 301 Bypass, will be replaced with one new structure in order to fit the needed
lanes underneath them. The new bridge will be approximately 230-feet long and 54-feet
wide on the eastbound bridge and 42-feet wide on the westbound bridge. The current
loop in the southeast quadrant of the interchange will be removed and replaced with a
new ramp in the northeast quadrant of the interchange to accommodate left turn
northbound movements onto US 301 Bypass. The new bridge structures will be raised
due to vertical clearance issues and the need for extended span lengths. The bridges
will be raised approximately 6-8 feet to meet current design standards. The new vertical
clearance under the bridge will be approximately 17-feet.
SR 1544 (Hunter Hill Road)
Structure Number 181 is a grade separation that carries SR 1544 (Hunter Hill Road) of
US 301 Bypass. As part of TIP Project No U-3621, this bridge will be replaced with a
new structure that is approximately 232-feet long and 35.5-feet wide. The new bridge
will carry two twelve-foot travel lanes in each direction with 4-foot inside shoulders and a
curb and gutter with sidewalk section on the outside. The new vertical clearance under
the bridge will be approximately 17-feet. Pedestrian access will provided via sidewalks.
3-49
Goose Branch
Goose Branch is carried underneath US 301 Bypass by a double 6-foot by 7-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert. The existing culvert will be extended approximately 35
feet on the east side of US 301 Bypass and 80 feet on the west side of US 301 Bypass
to accommodate the additional travel lanes on US 301 Bypass. Hydraulic analysis
indicates that the existing structure may not handle the 50 year flood, therefore NCDOT
will determine if culvert size is adequate; if culvert requires replacement with a larger
size culvert, or if lateral floodplain pipes can be installed to the sides of the existing
culvert. In consideration of this, resizing of the culvert will be evaluated during final
design.
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to the Tar River
The UT to the Tar River is carried underneath US 301 Bypass by a double 48-inch
reinforced concrete pipe. The existing pipe will be extended approximately 8 feet on the
east side of US 301 Bypass and 12 feet on the west side of US 301 Bypass to
accommodate the additional travel lanes on US 301 Bypass. This culvert appears to be
undersized as evidenced by significant scouring around the inlet on the west side of the
US 301 Bypass and the ponding around the inlet on the east side of the US 301 Bypass.
I Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
No bicycle and pedestrian facility or greenway is proposed for this alternative. This topic
is discussed further in Section 5.E
k. Utilities
The proposed project would require the relocation of existing underground and overhead
utilities with the possibility of short-term interruptions to service during construction;
however overall impacts to public utilities are anticipated to be low with no long-term
impacts.
1. Landscaping
No specialized planting plans are associated with the proposed improvements.
3-50

Number
Route
Across
Year Built Structurally
Deficient Functionally
Obsolete Suff.
Rating Under
clearance
101 NC43 US301 BYP. 1988 No No 80.6 151611
173 US301 BYP N STONEY CREEK 1954 Yes No 48.9 N/A
175 US301 BYP S STONEY CREEK 1963 No No 78.5 N/A
181 SR1604 US301 BYP. 1955 No Yes 48.6 141711
196 US64B EBL US301 BYP 1954 No Yes 57.5 14' 6"
198 US64B WBL US301 BYP 1960 No Yes 72.9 141811
214 US64 EBL US301 BYP. 1980 No No 99 19'0"
215 US64 WBL US301 BYP 1980 No No 98 16' 5"
US 301 Bypass Bridge Locations
TIP No. U-3330 1 inch = 2,000 feet
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road)
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 3.6
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are currently included in the design of either build alternative; however
a noise wall was evaluated for the west end of the project to evaluate impacts from both
build alternatives to the Rosedale subdivision. Analysis showed that a noise wall at this
location would protect (provide a minimum of 5 dBA reduction) 13 receivers for
Alternative B.
Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, a wall is potentially justifiable and therefore
will be evaluated in a more detailed noise barrier study as final designs are completed.
Section 5.J contains additional information on noise impacts and abatement.
n. Work Zone Traffic Control and Construction Phasing
Construction of the proposed project will temporarily affect the traveling public. A traffic
control plan will be designed to minimize impacts and maximize safety and mobility. The
plan will conform to all temporary traffic control standards set forth in the latest editions of
the MUTCD, the NCDOT Roadway Standard Drawings, and all applicable guidelines and
methods used by the NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control Unit.
Generally speaking, Alternative B will be built by building most or all of the U-turn bulb
intersections first, before converting existing intersections from full-movement crossovers
to the superstreet design. Then, the new U-turn intersections are made operational, and
the existing full-movement crossover intersections are temporarily closed completely
while the superstreet median work is built. All driveways and side streets will have a
minimum of right in/ right out access during this construction phase and a U-turn
movement will be available for drivers to safely access all streets and businesses from
either direction of US 301 Bypass. In particular, during the median work at the
intersection of US 301 Bypass at Rowe Drive/ US 64 Bypass WB on-ramp/ WB off-loop,
the contractor will be instructed to stagger barricades so that an emergency vehicle
coming from the Fire Station on Rowe Drive can still make a left onto US 301 Bypass.
When actual construction is taking place preventing an emergency vehicle from making a
left onto US 301 Bypass, the emergency vehicle will turn right and U-turn 1000' away at
the newly constructed, newly signalized U-turn just North of Hunter Hill Road.
In both build alternatives, new bridge structures are proposed along US 64 Bus over US
301 Bypass. Bridges must be raised due to vertical clearance issues and need for
extended span lengths. Bridges will be raised approximately 6-8 feet to meet current
3-53
design standards. This design will maximize improvements to the facility in the final
condition; however, replacement of the structures will cause considerable impacts during
construction.
The bridges can be stage-constructed, or built while maintaining traffic along US 64
Business and the interchange ramps. US 64 Business traffic would be reduced to a two-
way, two-lane pattern (one lane in each direction) for an extended period. Locals who
typically use this route as a through route to other destinations may choose to use US
64 Bypass in order to avoid the construction area, thereby leaving US 64 Business as a
viable means to access the businesses and residences in the immediate vicinity of the
bridges. If it is deemed unacceptable to maintain US 64 Business in a two-lane, two-
way traffic pattern for an extended time period, long term offsite detours would have to
be implemented, most likely using US 64 Bypass and US 301 Business.
Replacing the bridges along US 301 Bypass over Stony Creek will also cause
construction impacts. Construction of either the dual span bridges or single span bridge
will have to be stage-constructed, or built in several stages while traffic is shifted to
various temporary patterns on either the existing structures, portions of the new
structure, or a combination thereof. Since US 301 Bypass must be returned to two lanes
in each direction at the end of each work period, it is likely that travel lanes will have to
be narrowed to 10.5-feet to 11-feet during construction, with portable concrete barrier on
one side of the travelway.
3-54
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
This section summarizes the proposed improvements for the project and discusses the
subsequent steps in the project implementation process which are in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This Environmental Assessment (EA) presents two build alternatives that address the
transportation needs in the area and fulfill the purpose for the project. The selection of a
Preferred Alternative will occur after a public hearing is conducted and adequate
opportunity to receive and consider public and agency comments is realized. A final
recommendation will be made with the final environmental document, which is
anticipated to be a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Alternative A and Alternative B both widen US 301 Bypass to six lanes, adding a
through-lane to the outside of existing. This improvement necessarily widens or
replaces several roadway overpasses and hydraulic structures. Alternative A represents
a "conventional" widening solution whereby additional travel lanes are added to the
existing highway, and existing signalized intersections are modified by the addition of
turning lanes, additional queuing capacity in turn lanes, and changes to traffic signal
phasing and timing plans. Alternative B also adds additional travel lanes, yet utilizes a
superstreet-type configuration which incorporates median treatments and islands to
restrict left turn and straight-through movements from side-streets for the entire length of
the study corridor.
Based on the findings of the EA, which indicate that neither of the Build Alternatives will
have significant environmental impacts, it is anticipated that a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) will be prepared for this project. After circulation of this EA for public
review, completion of a combined public hearing, and consideration of all comments
received, an alternative will be selected for implementation and discussed in the final
environmental document.
Final roadway design plans will be developed which may further minimize environmental
impacts, and will consider all public comments received on the preliminary design plans
and the EA. Coordination will be maintained with regulatory and resource agencies
4-1
during final design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and construction phases to
ensure that avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation efforts will be made.
The final environmental document will describe the Selected Alternative for the proposed
US 301 Bypass Improvements.
4-2
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. NATURAL RESOURCES
The following paragraphs contain information from the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR), prepared for the proposed US 301 Bypass Improvements (NCDOT, 2005). Descriptions
of natural resources are summarized in this section; detailed descriptions can be found in the
NRTR. A full discussion of potential impacts and anticipated permitting needs is contained in this
EA.
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial areas found in the project study area can be
characterized as Urban-Paved, Maintained/Disturbed, Bottomland Hardwood Forest,
and Mesic Hardwood Forest. The Bottomland Hardwood Forest is a wetland
community including the Stony Creek and Goose Branch floodplains and areas
affected by beaver activity. The hydrology of these wetlands is dependent on
periodic flooding, stormwater drainage, and beaver activity. The Mesic Hardwood
Forest includes the upland forested areas adjacent to the Bottomland Hardwood
Forest. An isolated wetland (Wetland E) is located within the Mesic Hardwood
Forest and has many of the characteristics of a wet flat, but is located on a gradual
slope next to the US 64 eastbound on ramp. The terrestrial communities are shown
in Exhibit 5.1.
The project study area consists of a mix of human-dominated and natural communities,
oftentimes with small patches scattered in and among one another. As a result, most
faunal species observed are opportunistic species that will inhabit any and all of the
terrestrial areas discussed. Most of the animal species present in the project study
area are capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (i.e.,
flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components.
b. Aquatic Communities
As shown in Exhibit 5.2, the aquatic communities within the project study area consist
of streams and wetlands, a naturalized borrow area, and areas affected by beaver
activity.
5-1
Goose Branch is a perennial, beaver-impacted stream that flows into the Tar River. In
the last 20 years, commercialization of the area surrounding Goose Branch has
occurred at a rapid rate, and its relatively intact vegetative buffer has been very
important in preserving the water quality of the stream. Goose Branch and its adjacent
wetlands provide important aquatic habitat, as well as providing water quality functions
through attenuation of floodwaters and the filtering of pollutants.
Stony Creek is a stable, large perennial stream with very good aquatic habitat, and a
moderate vegetative buffer within the project area. The creek provides habitat for many
species of fish including redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), warmouth (L. gulosus), flier (Centrarchus
macropterus), largemouth bass (Micropterous salmoides), striped bass (Morone
saxitilis), white perch (Morone americana), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
(Ashley, 2005). The adjacent wetland (Wetland F) is hydrologically connected to the
creek during flood events, and together the system provides habitat for amphibians,
reptiles, and macrobenthos.
The naturalized borrow area near Lowe's is a permanently inundated area that provides
aquatic habitat as well as a potential water source for wildlife. Beavers maintain a dam
at the eastern end of the area that maintains higher water levels. This area is potential
habitat for multiple species of aquatic insects, salamanders, frogs, turtles, snakes, and
crayfish.
The UT to the Tar River is a perennial stream that provides valuable aquatic habit for
a variety of fish species, amphibians and macrobenthos. The portion of the stream
on the east side of the US 301 Bypass has a well-established riparian buffer. The
riparian buffer on the west side of US 301 has been significantly impacted due to
past clearing and grading activities. The riparian buffer along this portion of the
stream is limited to grass.
5-2
•,1 1. r r Y?TT +4, K ? ?' Yr.y ' d ,'
10 WO
A.y}?1 i ?^L: ?? ? .'Y? ?• :. /bra {. J ?? ,e1 „'.(i ?
O
,
-A 7

r ?? T k ?.L'+ „p '?+"' .1 `r y ? ?'%?1 '? i' ' ' h•' n ., ? 1 ,?f ?k v

Y' CA)
" a
1 ?? 3
,
t 'Y•.
?,? ? aPr ? i ? 'fir ti{,.a'?? •{1 ?:4 Y'"'7gS?? /. /? '`\ '
ip All
v t? OJ `r"r t RIF

T

Legend
.:? p ; r' ' r' ? ., , ,.. ??
7,4
f•?,, '* -??' +rs/, L Y 1r?? ,'``• ,?? * .fir.{r •,^•
' ,? r ?. r ?n*? ?` , "?-?..: •

Study Area
Al

-0 PW W. "I I W,
Bottomiand Hardwood

A Mesic Hardwood

, -?•? .y c :?`?? 1 `Ak jr t 'tr A ? ',eL/ d r)F , +'r '?, '' `
;5 >r
`A? j?A M +Y?,rt
?
+t 4 k " "d
e?t
?
.
y•
?
y?
F tit, M? 'ygyh
Ii?y}F T W ?, rJr ?` 1?F? ?T? •slT.N l*yI , 1?' a' ; TI ?' i(?1 JI n' ?'rtb? ey 1 l
i?."•`,?,+r? Nfl, 1 ?yh -?r r J.t n a 4 ?y jIR A AriyVY f w+bgV.? FtY` 41
.
1
(
??
:
+
C
L
'``
T
"
T°
, .? ,?
?`??N l
..
?4 t,""?
Ir .i.
''+r?"`','
V ?
,?
. 4 ;'?5•
•
X
e
g?T V,
yi
At1?,,, r *.t
t y? ks??J
'14 Ow-
+
;!";L1?
} '.t xl`;.+?• 1. ?, ?4h`. YrIL
Y? 1^
1 ;,?~ ^`Ay?? °v ,'Tar River 4ti.,
Y •y ` +:'+,r'. r.',t... . rt.y1 ?:4
??1 ,'?8 .rt1
W-4 A
?' {I v 1• • Y f Y %
LON"
~' y r u° :,t.. ?' ?1r T `"'C r ro? • :'. t * Ir' r r^?rl ^? 1,=?"yr
5?10 .4.
?N 4W
.
4' rry. tr ` 4 JC..R
g ?,,
f
?an ``. i` 1 ?"? ? ? ? ( '? `,?',•?'.. <,+, k ? ,r?x y
?? I l ? r`?
? ? r "?•?? r?,M'r, ` ?,?. ?°,
+
,
PIE, ??_ +
l
,
e
., it
?14?? A?
Roc Mount ? 'A. ? a .
? 1 4F Sy??
?M,i?l?

Off
s ?t? T a v wa- sClj
,
IAI
r r r -r
+!py NNNNc *t r: i.
PA W,
ri
, of `
rlT
' 1 r
?
?
*
A, ??
'
'
.
,` "
` .?
?,I
' >
i
1 1 ?"7?vtM" r `,F'?
rX]?i aft 1I v ?r? ,3'?? µ?
" VV
.? US 301 Bypass Terrestrial

111 TIP No. U-3330
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Communities
Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.1

Px 7,
`>
k>
ZN-
Till
Aip
'? t ? "t"? .? y A i' ? ?T ? ? •? ,.jjt?.i?f ir??? Ir'i? .? ?t ? P,* ,?.
I ''?}?y 9l?R y. `r14`?-,:?+t^ / . . ? 7 x\ •'., ?.i 'S?./ f, - '??_atA? Y' ,?, !? 4I- ; ? ? ?'
t < ? ? A,?f « lit Ow+?Y.
No?
KAI/'
r
\.P??1x*? t #?' ;# pd? '+V .• r Inset
US 301 Bypass fiwv?
?Y
M ?i? A «•
a' ?" r ?# ?? v V 4r: /+, lpl _??tid?
? '.•y? ? 'hl? .t. i?, .? 'Y? ? A :Y?`af? ? r ? x?' ? A';'.cF `r
?c r 6f
?. i Inset B Inset A
homi.ti Are, , ?Ij A a
t Goose Branch 5 150 225 you' ?A ?' ?` y",a r
{, t<i? 4, ,. t PlWvr f M r v?r+ 1t US 301 pass i
N,.la ?Y ,`??. J'4: ,?y rI/ dl?' y }+ xv<n+t k"+.
r 6' . a ' P `" VA t 1? 1 ? i.Y,
lip
?? yyrdr/(p,', "' ?.^ tt ) , RG " rv
r ` ?7 u 6 777+ h 1? i ' e ''r' a a !??l S Frt .` 64 8
w AID"-
ft 4 10
w 1 ? Tr /" }'` f A? Y,? .. Qa h., G? ^ x \, 1 r 'r a ? 'x t f ! ? ?? ^ ??
;? r r 1 ed Wetland
??y ¢( n
rl "i. f a
?, ? TL a 5 $. y +?? ? ? R t ^v4 r Lowe's UT
? y„
T- ?, • M'?, .r_ x t ,P? r . ?; ''„ ?.+ j 1.4/7 A/t I r 0 t xY, ?.?,.
r. ,'. , ` t •,. w?a .tVe? s ?.• x •71w ill •
r V .? Y
At ., y+ r 1?r a +"? rf
;t V r•,? .:>V? . ????,,.??.,•.A? ??; ?' " r?7 r ,err +,,, ?;+rf, . + ?.?? d ,?, ,' K ,?_ ??,. ??. ,
T' / P ?` V r. + ?r s A? + f •N. FT. Sn N a},
Ayy?? l DTI 1TI r?+
lotw
/ • yw?, x /' ?1: 'd > t .A :j n?1?F?.. .fie{ ?06
?{? . , s ?,?+ ??*a;' r„ , A±« Rocky Mount' ;f
Z.. IP ' a, a? c
r ? k ,? '.Vr e e
P+?t.M°4 ih?1"x at U.,^+?? ?? I r.. a . ,?lrIt? 1?t {y of Mx'
Inset Cxi?
Inset C ?. ??'Nt''.'1 ?"' •F,x? WY; 1' y ?. q. ?. thin ???a7C''? \? n'* 1y.;'F'. :.-r r , F%} ?Yyt:i x ?,{y.`r.1' pit ?????AA" • L'..
Z' ,,?; ? ?T;e; i'? ,? ?f f r ??f ? ? ??V1 IRS 6!? r yj,• 1 ?.. a,? ? +
UT to Tar River
MUM
K?{?i?±y?y', ???V., ?, W ???j5'. '_ ?r. tl ?F? {?"j"am I 'T' t V ?, `J •'p?'i
' ?f? •IA ?,•{ r i ['.??'' ?? r.: Inset A a+ ?'d+'?? ,V•r ?'. t"t. ?i? 531
r` Stony Creek
US 301 Bypass Streams and
TIP No. U-3330 Wetlands
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.2
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects to Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting slopes, can result
in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Any construction related activities in or near biotic
communities have the potential to impact biological functions.
Plant communities found within the project study area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. The widening of US 301 Bypass may reduce habitat
for some faunal species, and would likely reduce habitat for those species specific to
the Bottomland Hardwood Forest within the vicinity of Stony Creek. Areas modified by
construction would become road shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced
habitat may displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities may repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Impacts
often associated with instream construction include increased channelization and
scouring of the streambed. Instream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate would
produce siltation, which in excessive amounts can clog the gills and/or feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish,
and amphibian species. Benthic organisms may also be covered by excessive
amounts of sediment. Some of these organisms may be slow to recover or
repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site also alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of
erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes the soil thus mitigating these
processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds, and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes increase
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside clearing also leads to
5-7
more direct sunlight penetration causing an increase in water temperatures, which may
negatively impact some species.
2. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987
Guidelines. Delineated streams and wetlands are shown in Exhibit 5.2. The design of
Alternative B necessitated the extension of the project study area southward to include
crossing of the UT to the Tar River. Subsequently, fieldwork in this area was conducted
to delineate the stream and Wetland W. Coordination has been initiated with the
USACE to obtain a jurisdictional determination on the UT to the Tar River and Wetland
W. This information will be included in the FONSI.
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
Surface waters in the project study area are located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101) (NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Subbasin
03-03-02) (NCDWQ, 2003a). As shown in Exhibit 5.2, four jurisdictional, perennial
streams are located in the project area: Stony Creek, Goose Branch, an unnamed
tributary (UT) to the Tar River, and a small man-made naturalized channel that drains to
Wetland F. This man-made channel will hereafter be referred to as the Lowe's
tributary.
Goose Branch has been heavily impacted by beaver activity in the past and has
characteristics of a bottomland hardwood swamp with associated wetlands. The
downstream portion has been cleared of trees and is in the early stages of succession.
Stony Creek is a large perennial stream that flows west to east and crosses the US 301
Bypass midway between the US 64 interchange and the US 64 Business interchange.
Stony Creek has a wide floodplain with a water width ranging from 37 to 57 feet and a
water depth between 5 and 8 feet. Bankfull flow of Stony Creek contributes significantly
to the hydrology of adjacent wetlands. Stony Creek has a large watershed that drains
much of the west side of Rocky Mount.
5-8
The Lowe's tributary flows from the Lowe's naturalized borrow area along the west side
of the US 301 Bypass for 190 feet until it crosses beneath US 301 Bypass through a
culvert and drains into Wetland F on the east side of US 301 Bypass. Although man-
made, the borrow area and the Lowe's tributary are considered jurisdictional because of
the hydrologic functions and aquatic habitat that have developed since the creation of
the channel 10-15 years ago. The tributary is considered perennial due to the number
of minnows observed in the channel.
The UT to the Tar River is a perennial stream that flows west to east under the US
301 Bypass near the southern terminus of the project. The stream flows through a
large established residential neighborhood where it has been piped and channelized.
Upon leaving the residential area, the stream enters Englewood Park and continues
onto a vacant undeveloped commercial parcel where it is channelized until it reaches
the east side of the US 301 Bypass. Upstream runoff has caused the channel on the
west side of the US 301 Bypass to downcut, especially along the vacant property
adjacent to the US 301 Bypass. The stream on the east side of the US 301 Bypass
has retained a naturalized state. There is an established riparian buffer that provides
good coverage on both sides of the stream. The stream is able to access its
floodplain and maintain a natural sinuosity; however, the channel has widened near
the culvert entrance due to upstream influences.
1) Best Usage Classifications - All streams have been assigned a best usage
classification by the NCDWQ. All waters within the project study area have been
classified as C; NSW waters. Class C designates these waters for aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish),
wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture, and other usage except for primary
recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes. All freshwaters with this designation shall be classified to protect
these uses at a minimum. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take
place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. Stony Creek's use
category is primarily for aquatic life. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are areas
with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from
nutrient enrichment (NCDWQ, 2004).
5-9
As shown in Exhibit 5.3, the southern portion of the project, which encompasses the
UT to the Tar River, is within a water supply watershed (WS-IV) for the City of
Rocky Mount and within the water supply "critical area" which is defined as the land
within a 0.5-mile upstream radius of a water intake. There is a drainage divide
between US 64 Business and the south end of the study area. Measures will be
taken to maintain construction limits north of the drainage divide to avoid impacts to
the critical area. However, if construction limits cannot be maintained north of the
drainage divide, then NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will investigate the need for
hazardous spill containment measures during the final design stage. There are no
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or High Quality Waters (HQW) within one
mile of the project study area (NCDWQ, 2003b).
2) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Waters - Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting federal water
quality standards or which have impaired uses. Listed waters must be prioritized,
and a management strategy or total maximum daily load (TMDL) must
subsequently be developed for all listed waters. Stony Creek and the Tar River
are listed as Section 303(d) listed waterbodies in the final 2006 303(d) list.
Stony Creek is biologically impaired and the Tar River is impaired due to
mercury.
3) Other Classifications - Stony Creek, Goose Branch, and the UT to the Tar
River are subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy (15A NCAC 2B) (aka Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules);
therefore, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with
these regulations.
b. Wetlands
Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Wetland delineations were conducted using methods outlined in the
5-10
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). The wetland
communities are described in further detail in the following paragraphs.
The Goose Branch Wetland Complex is a riverine bottomland hardwood wetland that
has been highly influenced by beaver activity. The wetland area spans both sides of
US 301 Bypass and includes wetlands GA and GB (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset B).
Wetland D (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset A) is a small, narrow riverine wetland located on
the left bank of Stony Creek, east of US 301 Bypass. This wetland is hydrologically
fed by the bankfull events of Stony Creek
Wetland E (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset A) is a non-riverine wetland with some wet flat
characteristics, although it is located on a slope. The wetland is within the project
study area (bounded by the right-of-way fence) and was considered an isolated
wetland by the USACE because of the lack of a surface water connection with
federal waters. Although this wetland is non-jurisdictional for the USACE, it is
subject to the NCDWQ Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300). Wetland E
receives stormwater from the US 64 on-ramp and has a soil profile with a dense clay
layer that keeps the water perched near the surface of the wetland. Standing water
was observed in many of the small depressions during the site visits.
The Lowe's naturalized borrow area is a man-made waterbody created by the
construction of the US 64 interchange and enhanced by beaver activity that exists
between the Lowe's complex and the US 64 off-ramp. The borrow area is
characterized by standing, dead trees, resulting from the significant flooding of the
area.
Wetland F (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset A), the largest wetland in the project study area is
located in the southeast portion of the study area and is hydrologically fed by Stony
Creek and the road drainage from US 64. Wetland F includes an open, marsh-like
area and a bottomland hardwood area. The marsh-like area also includes the power
line easement right-of-way that bisects the wetland. The bottomland hardwood area,
primarily located on the southern portion of Wetland F near the US 301 Bypass,
contains many of the old meander channels of Stony Creek.
5-11
Wetland S (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset A) is a very small riverine wetland located on the
Stony Creek floodplain, west of US 301 Bypass. This wetland receives additional
stormwater from the Hardee's parking lot adjacent to the Stony Creek floodplain and
is flooded regularly by high flows from Stony Creek.
Wetland W (see Exhibit 5.2, Inset C) is a small riverine wetland located adjacent to
the UT to the Tar River, east of the US 301 Bypass. This wetland receives
stormwater from the US 301 Bypass through a small corrugated pipe that directs
runoff into the wetland and is also hydrologically connected to the UT to the Tar
River.
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects to Waters of the United States
Alternative A would impact 0.6 wetland acres and create 250 linear feet of stream
impacts. Alternative B would impact 0.6 wetland acres and create 370 linear feet of
stream impacts. These impacts are associated with the extension of the existing
structures at Goose Branch and the UT to the Tar River as well as shading impacts
from extending the bridge structures at Stoney Creek. Impacts are based on the
construction limits of the build alternatives plus an extended 25-foot boundary to
account for clearing.
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement construction. The following impacts to surface water
resources may result from construction activities associated with the project:
increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion resulting from vegetation removal and soil disturbance in the project study
area; changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal; alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow from construction; changes in and
destabilization of water temperature due to increased sun and wind exposure
resulting from streamside vegetation removal; changes in dissolved oxygen (DO)
levels; increased nutrient loading from the stormwater runoff of areas disturbed
5-12
during construction, and increased input of toxic compounds from demolition,
construction, toxic spills, and highway runoff.
Streams traversed by the road widening would be impacted as a result of bridge
and/or culvert construction at stream crossings. During roadway construction, there
is usually a direct correlation between the amount of suspended particles in the
stream channel and the amount of clearing and grubbing activity, embankment
modifications, and project duration. Disturbance can cause changes in the physical
characteristics of the stream such as changes in flow rate and stream course,
leading to increased stream bank scour and erosion.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Stream impacts to the Lowe's tributary were avoided during the preliminary design of
the build alternatives.
Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through reduction of median
widths, rights-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
The proposed project is in a highly urbanized area and is therefore constrained by
existing socioeconomic conditions that the design must accommodate. In addition,
shifting the alignment of the build alternatives to avoid impacts to Wetland F would
have created stream impacts to the Lowe's tributary.
To reduce the potential for stormwater pollution in to area waterbodies, the NCDOT
will 1) include stormwater treatment devices in the proposed roadway's final design;
5-13
and 2) utilize the most protective sediment and erosion control best management
practices (BMPs) during construction as detailed in 15A NCAC 4B .0124 (Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds). The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 2007) would also be adhered to during
the construction phase of the project. Additionally, if there is potential to impact the
critical water supply intake area, NCDOT will investigate the need for hazardous spill
containment measures during the final design stage. Guidelines for these practices
include, but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater
away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Limiting in-stream
activities and re-vegetating streambanks immediately following the completion of
grading would further reduce impacts.
Potential impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers will be minimized to the greatest
extent possible by widening within the existing right-of-way where possible and limiting
the use of mechanized clearing. Additional measures include steeper slopes and
maintaining the current ramp structures near the US 64 Bypass/US 301 Bypass
interchange since wetlands abut these ramps.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States.
As discussed above, compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream losses may be
required where avoidance and minimization of impact is not possible. Mitigation
requirements will be dependent upon final project plans.
e. Anticipated Permit Requirements
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), a permit is
required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States".
5-14
Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are a type of Section 404 permit issued by the USACE
which are pre-authorization for specified categories of activities within a specific area
that authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands. General permits issued nationally are called Nationwide Permits.
The purpose of the Nationwide Permit Program is to streamline the evaluation and
approval process throughout the nation for certain types of activities that have only
minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. It is expected that a Nationwide Permit 14
will be required for this project. NWP 14 applies to activities required for the
construction, expansion, modification or improvement of linear transport crossings in
waters of the US. NCDWQ notification and concurrence is required for NWP 14
approval.
A NCDWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required prior to the issuance of
the Section 404 NWP. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in
a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required and may have
additional conditions for the activity causing the discharge. Prior to issuance of the
Water Quality Certification, NCDWQ must determine that the project will not result in
cumulative impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality
standards. An assessment of indirect and cumulative effects is contained in Section
5.H.
The jurisdictional streams within the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and
Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers" (15A NCAC 02B.0259). The Tar-Pamlico
Riparian Buffer Rules were established to protect water quality of streams in the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin through the protection of riparian buffers. A minimum 50-foot
vegetative Riparian Protection Area (i.e., buffer) is required along all perennial and
intermittent streams, lakes and ponds. All runoff from new ditches or man-made
conveyances must be converted to diffuse (non-erosive) flow prior to entering the
riparian buffer. Corrective action must be completed as necessary to ensure that
diffuse flow is maintained in the riparian buffer.
5-15
The Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules apply to surface waters that are shown on the
most recent version of either soil survey mapping prepared by the USDA or the USGS
1:24,000 scale topographic quadrangle maps. Impacts to the riparian buffer zones for
road crossings are allowed with the minimization of impacts and compensatory
mitigation for impacts greater than one-third of an acre or 150 linear feet of buffer. The
Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules would apply to riparian buffer impacts along Stony
Creek, Goose Branch and the UT to the Tar River. Approximately 0.1 acres (4,356
square feet) (Alt. A) and 0.2 acres (8,712 square feet) (Alt. B) of regulated riparian
buffers as shown in Exhibit 5.3 would be affected by the build alternatives. This
quantity is based on a 50-foot offset of project study area streams and includes
wetlands as well as upland maintained/disturbed areas. Potential impacts to the
riparian buffers along these streams would be minimized. Impacts over one-third of an
acre may require mitigation.
3. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. On August 8, 2007, the bald eagle was de-listed as a protected species
under the Endangered Species Act. Upon this action, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA) (16 USC 668-668d) became the primary federal law
protecting bald eagles. The BGPA prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and
provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". As of January 31,
2008, the USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County, shown in
Table 5.1. Biological conclusions regarding potential project impacts are
summarized in Table 5.1 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
5-16
J: w
Al
?? ?
r
?T jr fI e I i
AOO*
?
'if
y' ? ?\ry?, ?, ` ?lFi '.`?,, ??! `, 4 ? Y ? ?'?'-? ?It y`v. 4'I '?'"?t.?r ??_ e?,!, ' `f. ,??s'??`??! ? ,??" .. •"'1-, .7....
pr i
.??, •?"?? ?'?I ., ?P?J' ?r`?/?j!'l r 'Y°9?? 4' ? - r ?°? ?? ? ? ti?it+? ? r' ? (M
1 ?O:r. r t q' '? 199pa5s T. N
-u, 1 ' y' ? •Il r .. ?C ^O i .- Y 'f?A1.
11"^^ (, t'VVaiJand ?• r r'.i y'` `',.? ?JJ .}1, n ,
01
? I Al e' j o?AO r
ss4eJITY?, 1 ?t?T r
.r_..?. i? I,r? 9 ?? 1 yAa Inset B (? / \
„ US 301 Bypass r> {? A:.y ,?.
d
F -1
Legend
Study Area
50 foot Riparian Buffer
Wetlands
City of Rocky Mount Water
Supply Critical Intake Area
- Water Supply Watershed
(WS-IV)
Limits of Wetland and
Stream Delineations
? ell
'` Y. ', ? n;?1 '?`?? 'f cr ?? ,? ? ? •? \ ? ? n 1^ i LOW2'S UT
X
77
US 301 Bypass jr r ' bf 4?j
r' ¢ f 1 dti k h k t
l+?
Inset B f s k! j 't F'~
9 11 •. -.
~R ry
"C OC
Goose Branch ?.?r ? r_? M ??;•Ir' + ,
? .r y
ISO A
'a I r '' h rWy,N l+?Y'r'r ti.: hr I•r Si
yet ?y . *1r?? ?rInsetA `V •dkn`? r }: r' S, ?'
` r i r t sNr r i ff; ?w?
I 1
y,, - - r ?, 11 'rV' '!?'/ 5 4• 1, ,f ?4 r' CN 1! r x ' 1 ,
R i 7, r ?4?1
?'? A r H'?, ;_ ?'??.', ri ty7Y' . .r ?,r'? r: •? i .?' ? T.,T jL lX
IJ'? r'^F r r?
F i
WetlandW?
J Q ??? `??
r w?)?w2r py ?1
o q i 5Q a?00,;
?f?? i}!l!,? y .alt/ b? k. .?1?? Tt =? ?;fir`? fy? ?t• ;i a ee7trl
SfonyCreek
3 ' 1. "? atC• f / MaY,,/ ??I. ??? t i '? 'r s , T?? E
I' ' 711
' / t S! ?,If , ?, ° '. r??y, ???.. r IP ?,;rvc? ?e"t?, d ',• jp%
T I p'a l' . ?? I?A??_ _Jlr? r r l Nrf ifT?l.]a
,??'!?? •f,'r +..??;`` ?„ i.? Rocky Mount
?r' (R ? "+ 4rt?,??N4 ???? ,fr .?3 A? l,,?rn "'r ,r,. i?,`';,I?iY?+ ? ???i, . r ?j' i ?}r'ax y'a'?? `•r ? t
r r .?? T 3. Ip a,,,.? ??? ?..0??? '^?ti'?{?? ?f> r,,,yr?,,?.r: • ?f,??? d rll ? f y,.?!?? „A.. '„> ?r }„ i+'?„"1. ? ,'i?!' I
,1., i { f0 •?? je. _ ` ?• •/ r!1^?`Y•+?Y,,? ??? J ' '?( ,"'t. ?? k ;'i}," tr? I »'7r:^l
Ale.
;f 1iJ tia
. F, ??? itr ?yh"d + r'iT-44 t? rp 5 y
Inset C e + •, * ,A 1
1•' .:?:. .,.f *fee 'li?;r?r, AyN'`?`a !! !'/.ls f?^r ?.'?Y !. '. ` / ?/' ?,, r I a `"'r: i•?' t"?+r,r .;, ' r.
r r." Inset C}?` .1: r I'4 _ y .`•. ,. a':Ikrf?Ir.. 1, q/.f ,? .q '"?. :iy;a't?;. ?t?, `'?r?
'. A'? ..'d. __AA__ :? a4Hi Cr a,.i .F }rff r' e'
T I? A
ry a ' ! Ijl
'1+
} 1 1
W 4W A,-
{y fj >n
Stony Creek _22J .'330`, -.;
Riparian Buffers
US 301 Bypass and Water Supply
TIP No. U-3330 Watersheds
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.3
TABLE 5.1
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR NASH COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS CONCLUSION
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E No Effect
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel E No Effect
*Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGPA No Effect
NU I ES: E denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a signitcant portion of its range).
T denotes Threatened (a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
BGPA denotes the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Field surveys for red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) habitat were conducted within the project study area. No large
open stands of pines are located within the project study area. Planted pines of less
than 10 inch dbh are located adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64; however,
these stands do not provide adequate habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity would preclude the RCW
from using the area for foraging. Given the absence of suitable habitat and field
survey results, the proposed project would have No Effect on this species.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana) - Field surveys were conducted in June 2007 to assess the
suitability of aquatic habitat in Stony Creek and Goose Branch. An in-stream
exploration of Stony Creek concluded that the stream was largely unsuitable for
mussels and no live mussels were found. Goose Creek was found to have
inadequate habitat for mussel species. A subsequent assessment of the UT to the
Tar River in November 2008 determined that the stream is too small and urbanized
to provide suitable mussel habitat. The area anticipated to be affected by the
proposed project is highly urbanized and stream habitat is not adequate to support
either mussel species. Given the absence of suitable habitat and field survey
results, the proposed project would have No Effect on these species.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - No evidence of bald eagles within or near
the project area was noted during field site visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F
complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract bald eagles. The associated
5-19
water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too urbanized to support
them in anything other than a transient role. Additionally, land use within a one mile
radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and does not provide
suitable habitat for bald eagles. Given the absence of suitable habitat and field
survey results, the proposed project would have No Effect on this species.
b. Rare Species
Within one and a half miles of the proposed project area, one rare fish species and two
rare mussel species reportedly exist in the vicinity of the Seaboard RR bridge over the
Tar River. Correspondence from the NC Natural Heritage Program stated that
sedimentation from the project could reach the Tar River to impact these rare species
unless proper sedimentation and erosion controls are in place. These species are as
follows: Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), and
yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa).
4. Soils
The project study area lies within the Norfolk-Rains Soil Map Unit System located on nearly
level to gently sloping uplands with loamy to clayed subsoil in the Coastal Plain. The Soil
Survey of Nash County (USDA, 1989) identifies eight soil series within the project study
area.
Five soils of the project study area are generally characterized as hydric (wetland) soils
(USDA, 1989). These soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation (Cowardin et al., 1979). Hydric soils border much of the areas along
Stony Creek, Goose Branch, and the UT to the Tar River and include Bibb loam, Meggett
loam, Rains fine sandy loam, Tomotley fine sandy loam, and Wehadkee loam.
The other three soils, Nankin sandy loam, Norfolk-Urban land complex, and Udorthents
(this unit consists of areas where the natural soil layering sequence has been destroyed by
earthmoving machinery) are found in the upland areas father away from the streams of the
project study area.
5-20
Grading activities would temporarily disturb the soils of the project site. No borrow or fill
areas would be created by the proposed project.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) states that there are no known
historic resources likely to be affected by the proposed project. Letters to this effect, dated April 12,
2005 and February 21, 2007, are included in Appendix A. No impacts to cultural resources are
anticipated from the proposed project.
C. SECTION 4(F)/6(F) RESOURCES
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act provides protection for publicly owned
parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) of 1965 (16 USC 4601-4) requires federal agencies to analyze
potential impacts to lands acquired or developed with LWCFA grants and prohibits the
conversion of these properties to non-recreational use without replacement of the land and
approval of the National Park Service (NPS).
Englewood Park, shown in Exhibit 5.4, was developed with a LWCFA grant and is a Section 6(f)
property. Likewise, it is a publicly owned park and therefore a Section 4(f) property. A
description of the park's facilities is described in Section 5.E.5. As shown in Exhibit 5.4, a small
portion of the Englewood Park property is separated from the main park facilities by Winstead
Road. This small section of the park is an open/maintained area that is not currently in
recreational use. This partitioned area abuts the existing US 301 Bypass right-of-way, but
would not be affected by construction of either build alternative as the proposed project would
be constructed within the existing right-of-way at this location. No impacts to Englewood Park
are anticipated from the proposed project. There are no other Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties
within the project study area.
D. FARMLAND
In accordance with the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and state Executive
Order 96, the impact of the proposed action on prime, unique, and statewide important
farmlands has been assessed on the proposed project. As defined by the US Council on
Environmental Quality (1976), prime farmland is land having the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime
farmland includes cropland, pastureland, rangeland and forestland; but not land converted to
5-21
urban, industrial, transportation or water uses. Unique farmlands are those whose value is
derived from their particular advantages for growing specialty crops. Statewide and locally
important farmlands are defined by the appropriate state or local agency.
Development in most areas typically requires the submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating Form (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Form AD-1006) to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS); however, there are areas that are considered exempt under the
FPPA. If a property is classified as urban by NRCS criteria, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
Form is not required by the NRCS. Lands that are not covered by the act include, but are not
limited to: areas shown as "urban built-up" on USDA Important Farmland Maps; lands identified as
"urbanized area" on US Census Bureau mapping; and lands with a tint overprint on a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map [7 CFR 658.2(a)].
The project study area is classified as an urbanized area on US Census Bureau mapping for the
Rocky Mount area and does not require the submittal of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
Form. It is concluded that no impacts to prime, unique, or important farmlands are associated with
the proposed project.
E. SOCIAL EFFECTS
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
As shown in Exhibit 5.4, the heavily commercialized US 301 Bypass corridor is flanked
by several areas of residential development; however, these residential areas are not
within the US 301 Bypass project study area and would not be affected by the proposed
project.
No adverse impacts to local neighborhoods or community cohesion are associated with
the proposed project.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
There are no residential or business relocations associated with the build alternatives.
5-22
;!y H /+' )1 A-•2' llf,fl ? 1 I d ?;' 4 7 yl. c? e ? I ? ,+S ? ''???.' w l8
?G'"?k .PJ!kW00di/ ? F? a? Fr° ± rl (? 1Y4 ` 1
1
r t?%Ir? A A Bapttist"wChurch
A6, PF
is
0 ?1 - -
?? ? ? ? Y ?A
•,. }'fit Ty"' y ?t _? PP T.?••yy 4?,
e ?, '"' -j J. } l ?.??? l} ? ? n ?? .R a }4 } ?`
•'r ielk,
/40
Fy y,
W
yy,,1} tit
!? ?? I! h 41417 }"11 ?/`? ^^TT w,<
air
ti9 ' s d l? , f
VIA
Legend
Municipal rr tation?•""?y Airport
4: A/• Study Area
p
?W
T ,f?,' j+ ..?.• ?1Rr?S k, aa,.' f :.`"'x',idV? R? ;.5+'?'.I:. ?, School
u?+?*. Church
yp ® Park
v A d l.! ?, i'i
Fire Station
w,$Edgewood United
41
Methodist Church
? '??r????,? ?,? °}''k - ?,; 7 ?' ?`A ' I?'h1i;? " f4k?h"? ". *?? 'h ;.9e?`9r ?Yl4y, :!. ? I .?
?'' M t Q?•` 'r ,? ,
w ?. 111' (
7 W.. AP
.?R(4 W -.N sky'. ¢?? /;sR ?v?
?IM9' 71?R J r ' !i ,r* w• r1f '? , y^? ?. i ? {c 1.
I *4 'i
y
°, Y?r,!' ,rt?'?,? } ?. t ?! Y.'d, r17, •' AY?xJ `4's + ?
Tar Riven
?J ?.. .v m W'Q9; t'? .i ,,,F`• l ' ;' '' • yy ,#'?'^ ?' _? ???}r?!'!? 1...1? A\ Y .? + + ?r.ti
'11 J
'if¢F 4LI` 7111 ?.{??.•1 .R°'.t1 A?, i? .? ?'i," ?1
?I r+ ^i I ?y t1! ` ?^`? "w4!? / . Fa IsM1 Road Baptist"
ChUrch?Schoo,
qY .IN q t %,1 y7' r' r'?' ,1r ! a J f aE?''.?icy ,?G,??p+e?il?'
50
Ir 1 ?I° _' gyp'
IfEdgewood Park « ?%Ne
.!,* Sunset P. Rocky Mount
14' , ' ? t I 1 -,t f? ,r ? 1'q•
;? .? `l +•(?- .• ( s. ,? y?
?`?;?? a
1 ?? ? ?5 ? 1 f ? ? lx ?R, ??I' .?, ? ?f? ? Fly a-??i,/?j?x'?. ,?•?
City /L]lie'
?', 'J• ('1et7. i.? i1 b. I} '?,,' }>?;'It y.
Pr7! kr%"?s? 1 ?T ` y?? •,? a \i I i? :FFF? tl, e? p
? ' } A ? ? d1 ?I}? ? ;'% ??I I, ??r? °?N ? ?t i'.'` •?"'7ti' ? M ? ?tq ? "}^•F ` .°J& ,l 'I
y+l r?Xl a t?.%M7'• '+,y1"" y?, "?xti].? ?'/ 'r I
?'.? q n,,4N';Y,i,,,', 1 (."t ik .,.t Iy? d M?ji + ?' ` RIY 1 Ale
''}i+rsr,I,s.A 7.'1!iFi,,?R go,
+• M
US 301 Bypass Community
TIP No. U-3330 Facilities
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.4
3. Environmental Justice
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice to Minority
and Low-Income Populations and the United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Order 5610.2, Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations have been set forth to (1) avoid, minimize, or
mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects,
including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations;
(2) ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process and; (3) prevent the denial of, reduction in, or
significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations (FHWA,
2000).
There are no low-income or minority populations within the project study area and further,
no relocations associated with the project. In addition, adverse as well as beneficial
impacts associated with project construction would be experienced by all travelers through
the area. Based on these considerations, the project would not create any disproportionate
effects to low-income or minority populations
4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The City's Comprehensive Bicycle Plan (City of Rocky Mount, 2007) includes a
greenway and multi-use path along the southern bank of Stony Creek under US 301
Bypass. The NCDOT assessed the feasibility of replacing the existing bridge with one
that could accommodate the path, but the existing elevation of US 301 Bypass in
combination with the floodplain elevations and normal surface water elevations of Stony
Creek would necessitate raising the roadway elevation to provide adequate clearance
between the path and the bottom of the bridge structure. This effort would require
reconstructing the roadway to meet the new bridge at a higher elevation, incurring a
higher construction cost and creating the potential for additional riparian buffer and
wetland impacts. An at-grade crossing of US 301 Bypass (i.e., crosswalk) was also
assessed. Due to the roadway's high traffic volumes and the limited ability to provide for
pedestrian safety through the use of a signal or refuge island at this location, a
crosswalk was determined infeasible.
As planning of the greenway progresses, alternate bicycle/pedestrian crossings would
need to be assessed based on the selected alternative for the US 301 Bypass
5-25
improvements. In either alternative, pedestrian crosswalks with dedicated signals and
pushbutton activation can theoretically be added at any signalized intersection where
sidewalk is incorporated. Any such accommodation would enhance pedestrian mobility
and safety over the current condition, which does not provide pedestrian accommodation
of any kind. Additionally, if Alternative B (superstreet) is chosen, pedestrians actually
have fewer points of conflict for crossing at intersections, since many vehicle movements
are prohibited.
The City also has plans for a multi-use path from SR 1836 (May Drive) across US 301
Bypass and continuing west on SR 1713 (Old Mill Road). This path would provide
connectivity between City Lake Park and Englewood Park. The City has not extended
the path across US 301 Bypass at this time; however, the planned path includes an at-
grade crossing of US 301 Bypass. Although the City's greenway plan would remain
feasible with construction of the proposed project, since US 301 is a strategic highway
corridor for vehicular travel and due to the high traffic volumes in this area, the current
design does not include sidewalks or curb and gutter along US 301, nor does it provide
widened outside lanes or shoulders for bicycle accommodation.
5. Recreational Facilities
As shown in Exhibit 5.4, Englewood Park is located on the western side of US 301
Bypass extending westward across Winstead Avenue, continuing along the north side of
SR 1713 (Old Mill Road) to Forest Hill Avenue. The park has a baseball field, several
little league fields, tennis courts, a basketball court, a fitness trail, picnic shelters, and
playgrounds.
As shown in Exhibit 5.4, a small portion of the Englewood Park property abuts US 301
Bypass; however, the park would not be affected by construction of either build
alternative.
6. Other Public Facilities and Services
a. Schools
As stated in Section 2.9, five school buses travel this section of US 301 Bypass two
to four times per day; however, there are no schools along US 301 Bypass within the
project study area.
5-26
b. Churches and Cemeteries
There are no churches or cemeteries within the immediate project study area.
c. Police and Fire Stations, Rescue Squads and Emergency Management
The City of Rocky Mount Fire Station #6 is located on Rowe Drive, and uses US 301
Bypass to access its service area. Emergency medical services are primarily
provided by the Nash County and Edgecombe County EMS departments, and likely
use US 301 Bypass to access locations and to transport patients to nearby Nash
General Hospital located on US 64 east of Rocky Mount.
Construction of either build alternative would be staged to avoid and/or minimize
delays for fire trucks leaving the Rowe Drive fire station. In general, construction of
the proposed project would have minor, temporary effects on emergency response
times due to possible delays caused by construction and traffic related to
construction. Upon completion, the proposed project would aid in the reduction of
emergency response times within portions of the project study area and vicinity.
F. ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Increased congestion in future years could deter local shoppers and transient, non-resident
shoppers from patronizing retail businesses along the US 301 Bypass corridor if no
improvements are made. Maintaining access, safety, and regional connectivity would have
positive economic effect for the businesses along US 301 Bypass.
During construction of either alternative, temporary lane closures will be implemented along US
301 in order to construct the outside widening and the median work. During these lane
closures, at least one lane in each direction of US 301 will be open at all times, and access to all
driveways, businesses, and side streets will be maintained. Lane closures will only be
conducted in order to limit delays due to construction. During periods of lane closures, local
traffic may experience greater than usual delay and may choose to avoid using US 301 as a
through route. As a result some of the businesses along the project may see a decrease in
business from passerby traffic; however, any such decrease will be temporary in nature.
Additionally, although the superstreet alternative (Alternative B) modifies business access, the
superstreet design greatly improves the long-term operation of the facility and businesses are
likely to receive more patronage traffic due to the improved efficiency of the superstreet system.
5-27
More information about the construction phasing and potential temporary impacts is provided in
Section 3 discussions of Alternatives A and B.
G. LAND USE
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
The project study area is primarily urban in nature with commercial development along a
large portion of the roadway corridor. The northern portion the project study area
contains numerous restaurants and large retail stores such as Home Depot, Lowe's
Home Improvement (formerly the site of the Tarrytown Mall, which was closed due to
flood damage resulting from Hurricane Floyd in 1999), Target, Best-Buy, and the Golden
East Crossing Shopping Mall. The southern portion of the project study area primarily
contains service-based businesses such as Office Depot, Firestone, CarQuest, and
Advanced Auto. The portion of the project study area immediately south of the US 64
interchange is forested land that is currently undeveloped.
The City of Rocky Mount has zoned the project study area for business use and has
characterized US 301 Bypass as a major retail corridor intended to serve both local
residents and non-residents traveling through the area (City of Rocky Mount, 2007).
2. Future Land Use
Future development within the project study area will most likely follow current land use
patterns. As stated above, the roadway corridor through this area is zoned for, and
successfully been developed for, commercial uses.
3. Project compatibility with local plans
The proposed improvements are compatible with the Rocky Mount Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (Rocky Mount MPO's) Transportation Plan 2030
based on the Rocky Mount Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by the Rocky Mount
MPO and NCDOT in 2003. These plans identify the US 301 Bypass as a major
thoroughfare and include the widening of the US 301 Bypass. The proposed
improvements are also compatible with the City's transportation goals to reduce traffic
congestion along US 301 Bypass (City of Rocky Mount, 2003).
5-28
H. INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines indirect effects as "impacts on the
environment which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance,
but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Induced development or altered growth
patterns are typically the most common forms of indirect impacts. The rate and type of
development, however, usually coincide with other factors such as zoning and the availability of
electricity and water service. Cumulative impacts are defined as those "...which result from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other
actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). Preparation of this indirect and cumulative effect (ICE) summary
utilized the final pre-screening guidance contained in Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (NCDOT/NCDENR, 2001.
Revised January 14, 2004.). This summary also follows procedures contained in Cumulative
Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permit Programs, Version
2. 1, (NCDWQ, 2004).
The proposed improvements were initially analyzed using the NCDOT/NCDENR pre-screening
process to determine if the project warranted an ICE analysis. Due to the availability of water
and sewer in the project study area, the City's development market, and relatively weak growth
management policies (in non-flood prone areas), the screening results determined that an ICE
analysis was warranted. However, examination of this project's long-term effects on the project
study area and vicinity indicate that the proposed improvements do not have the potential to
result in substantial ICEs as defined by NEPA. This conclusion is based on evaluation of the
project's design concept and scope, including purpose and need, type, facility function, in
combination with evaluation of the project study area's demographic, land use, and planning
trends. As discussed in previous sections, the project study area is highly urbanized, with
development continuing to occur regardless of the proposed improvements. The type and
extent of development expected to occur on a long-term basis is not anticipated to change as a
result of the project.
With regard to satisfying the requirements of the NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
Program, NCDWQ policy guidance states that small-scale widening projects, bridge
replacements projects and intersection improvement projects "normally have a low potential for
cumulative impact since little, if any new impervious surface is added and the projects are
5-29
usually in already developed locales." The guidance further states that a generic description of
ICEs can be developed in the context of the 401 Certification rules. The following ICE summary
is provided to meet this requirement.
Potential ICEs associated with the proposed improvements are categorized as "encroachment-
alteration effects" (NCDOT/NCDENR, 2001). New ICEs from either build alternative are very
limited, as the amount of new impervious surface created by the roadway improvements is
minimal. Potential effects include ecosystem-related ICEs such as water quality effects, habitat
fragmentation, and noise; however, these are long-term effects associated with the US 301
Bypass that were created at the roadways' initial construction, which are anticipated to continue
through the project's 2030 design year. Improved mobility through the project study area has
the potential to provide beneficial ICEs such as improved air quality and safety.
As most of the proposed improvements would be constructed within the existing right-of-way,
with minor adjustments along connecting local roads, changes to traffic patterns and land use
are not expected as a result of the project. Overall, the proposed project would impart only
minimal indirect and cumulative effects upon the surrounding area since this area.
HYDRAULIC IMPACTS AND FLOOD HAZARD EVALUATION
This section summarizes information contained in the Hydraulic Technical Report (NCDOT,
2008a), prepared for the proposed US 301 Bypass Improvements. The major drainage structure
recommendations in this section are preliminary. After the project enters the 25% roadway plans
stage, final hydraulic analyses using more accurate and complete survey data incorporating any
changes that occur in the interim will allow for more precise structure sizing. Regulatory floodplains
were identified in accordance with Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management. The National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determined the regulatory floodways, floodplains, and other flood
hazard areas for Rocky Mount and Nash County. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulates activities associated within these designated areas.
Exhibit 5.5 details the flood hazard areas associated with waterbodies of the project study area.
These areas are primarily designated as Zone AE floodways and floodplains, which correspond
to a statistical 1% annual chance of flooding (i.e., 100-year flood) (NFIP, 1980). The Zone AE
floodplains are flanked by "Zone X" flood areas, which are those areas having a 0.2 percent
annual chance flood (i.e., 500 year flood).
5-30

Legend
Q Study Area
Zone AE Floodway
Zone AE Floodplain
® Zone X Floodplain
US 301 Bypass
TIP No. U-3330
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road)
Nash County, North Carolina
,X
Floodplains
Not To Scale
Exhibit 5.5
As shown in Exhibit 5.5, a considerable portion of the project study area is within the floodplains of
the Tar River and Stony Creek. Most of the land between the Tar River and Stony Creek is within
the floodplain; this includes the US 301 Bypass from the southern limits of the project study area to
the US 64 Bypass interchange.
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP),
the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement
with FMP (dated 6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on
or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
The existing dual bridges on US 301 Bypass over Stony Creek are within a Zone AE floodway.
This structure is affected by backwater from the Tar River in the base flood event. Due to age and
condition, the existing dual bridges will be replaced with either new dual bridges or a single bridge
that would provide equivalent or greater hydraulic conveyance. As a result of a widened roadway
and the possibility of deeper girders, the replacement bridge will be longer in order to provide the
desired hydraulic conveyance. Due to backwater from the Tar River and upstream encroachment
on the floodplain, the structure is not the primary limiting factor in water surface elevations for the
base flood and therefore there are limits to the benefit that can be gained by a longer bridge. The
existing double 6-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on US 301 Bypass over
Goose Branch is within a Zone AE floodway. The culvert will be extended, given that the culvert is
in good condition and the stream does not show signs of instability. Hydraulic analysis indicates
that the existing structure may not handle the 50 year flood, therefore NCDOT will determine if
culvert size is adequate, or if culvert requires replacement with a larger size culvert, or if lateral
floodplain pipes can be installed to the sides of the existing culvert. In consideration of this,
resizing of the culvert will be evaluated during final design.
5-33
J. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
The following sections include summarized information contained in the Noise Analysis Report
prepared for the proposed US 301 Bypass Improvements (NCDOT, 2008)
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed project on noise levels in the
immediate area. The investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels within the study area. It also includes a
comparison of predicted and ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts are
expected from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined using the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part
772, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Noise is defined as undesirable sound and 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 pressure to some common
reference level, using the decibel (dB). Sound pressure levels described in decibels are often
defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The A-weighted scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear by placing most
emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale
closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed
as dBA. Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighted
decibel level.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The Leq, or equivalent sound
level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same
energy, as does time-varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise
are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
5-34
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise results from natural and mechanical sources of human activity normally
present in a particular area. In the beginning of the analysis, ambient noise levels are
determined to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise levels for residences and other noise sensitive receivers.
For areas adjacent to existing roadways, ambient noise was estimated using the Traffic
Noise Model described in the next section. For comparison, eight locations were
measured in the field using a Rion NL-21 Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer.
The area is highly commercialized and measurements were taken at locations where
increased sound levels would have the greatest impact. Exhibits 5.6 and 5.7 show the
locations where noise measurements were taken. A summary of the ambient noise
readings can be found in Table 5.2.
The methodology used to predict future noise levels in this study is the Federal Highway
Administration Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5 (TNM). TNM uses the number and type
of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road
(curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receiver location and height, terrain, ground
cover type, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top
elevation.
The noise predictions made in this report are based on traffic projections for either the
base year or design year. Design hour and level-of-service "C" volumes were compared
for the proposed design. Existing noise levels derived from the TNM model were used to
evaluate impacts. Noise measurements in Table 5.2 were used to validate the existing
levels yielded by TNM. The basic approach involved creating a network of roadways and
receivers for both the existing and proposed scenarios. Receivers were assigned to
locations of anticipated human activity. Due to the highly commercialized nature of the
project study area and lack of control of access, receivers were primarily assigned to
exterior areas of residences and motels/hotels.
5-35
TABLE 5.2
AMBIENT NOISE READINGS
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA))
SITE
NO. LOCATION DISTANCE FROM
ROADWAY (FT) LEQ NOISE
LEVEL (dBA)
1 Helm Street Residential Area N/A 67.6
2 Golden Corral Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 67.4
3 Lonestar Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 61.0
4 Ham's Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 62.0
5 Western Sizzlin Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 64.9
6 KFC Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 62.6
7 Hunan Garden Restaurant Parking Lot N/A 65.8
8 Rosedale Avenue Subdivision N/A 62.8
TNM was used to predict design year noise levels and determine potential impacts for
both the No-Build and Build scenarios. These scenarios are discussed in the following
section.
2. Analysis Results
To determine if highway noise levels are 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 accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.
TNM was utilized to determine the number of Category B land use receivers that, during
the peak hour in the design year, would meet either of the conditions described above.
Due to the highly developed, commercial nature of the project corridor with lack of
control of access, businesses, with the exception of hotels and motels, were not
analyzed, as abatement measures would be neither reasonable nor feasible. For the
entire project study area, 109 Category B land use receivers consisting of residences
and motels and hotels were analyzed. Noise impacts were determined based on the
FHWA and NCDOT criteria previously discussed.
5-36
CO)
d
G
V)
W
!F
{D
COD
1 I '?
I
f? r
(ID'
got,
A R??
pde m ,.
aose C" - A
V
N
01 BYpass
aS 3 M c
ay

8
r
9
Co
Co
0
o
nx 0 d
d
a 0
P B
o Bo
o a ao
o
n ,

M
a
M
a
V
Z
a
O?
0 0
b ,n? II`
U$ 30 BVr
Legend
Proposed Widening
®* Noise Measurement Location
?? Rxx Noise Receiver Location - Non-Impacted
RXX Noise Receiver Location - Impacted
US 301 Bypass Alternative A
TIP No. U-3330 Design Year 2030
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.6
a
0
N
0 r'
dale ?A;?
Ross N?
o`?°? °
f
418Ypass ? o
3 ?yay ,
I 0
0
25?II
? p
?I O
?D
8
o 0
y
c
m
co
z
:
/ 6
`? ???\\\/ VVVIIJ
3??JHA
Fif ,U 8 pass

?s

0
P P
0 B
0 6 0
a,
o ? B
B
A ? B
d
`mod
l2)_
01,
sp
eya
dss
S80r B6, Mass
CO
a
v
Q
AN
U Legend
Proposed Widening
® Noise Measurement Location
RxxI Noise Receiver Location - Non-impacted
RxxI Noise Receiver Location - Impacted
- US 301 Bypass Alternative B
Design Year 2030
• TIP No. U-3330
?v SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.7
a
0
N
0 r'
dale ?A;?
Ross N?
o`?°? °
f
418Ypass ? o
3 ?yay ,
I 0
0
25?II
? p
?I O
?D
8
o 0
y
c
m
co
z
:
/ 6
`? ???\\\/ VVVIIJ
3??JHA
Fif ,U 8 pass

?s

0
P P
0 B
0 6 0
a,
o ? B
B
A ? B
d
`mod
l2)_
01,
sp
eya
dss
S80r B6, Mass
CO
a
v
Q
AN
U Legend
Proposed Widening
® Noise Measurement Location
RxxI Noise Receiver Location - Non-impacted
RxxI Noise Receiver Location - Impacted
- US 301 Bypass Alternative B
Design Year 2030
• TIP No. U-3330
?v SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43148 (Benvenue Road) Not To Scale
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 5.7
Table 5.3 shows a summary of impacts predicted for each build alternative and Table
5.4 summarizes the number and degree of noise level increases predicted for each build
alternative. The table lists all impacted receivers, their predicted noise levels, and the
type of impact. According to the analysis, it is anticipated that 2030 traffic volumes will
result in 19 impacted receivers for the No-Build Alternative, 20 impacts for Alternative A
and 29 impacts for Alternative B. All of these impacts occurred because predicted noise
levels meet or exceed the NAC.
TABLE 5.3
NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS SUMMARY
(Number of receivers considered as impacts per alternative)
Approach or
Exceed NAC Substantial Increase vs.
Existing Noise Levels Total Impacts
No-Build 19 0 19
Alt. A 20 0 20
Alt. B 29 0 29
TABLE 5.4
NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
(Number of receivers per alternative experiencing listed noise level increases)
dBA Increase <1-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >7
No-Build 0 31 38 17 23 0 0 0
Alt. A 0 9 70 27 2 1 0 0
Alt. B 0 2 37 48 13 7 2 0
Under design year 2030 traffic conditions, 19 - 29 Category B receivers, from a total of
109 analyzed locations, are predicted to be impacted based on FHWA criteria and
NCDOT guidelines. Noise abatement measures were evaluated for these impacted
receivers. The following section provides a discussion on each method of abatement
and its relative effectiveness for this project.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table
5.5. One factor for considering traffic noise mitigation is when future noise levels either
approach or exceed the criteria levels for each activity category. Title 23 CFR, Section
772.11a states, "In determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration
5-41
is to be given to exterior areas. Abatement will usually be necessary only where
frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit."
TABLE 5.5
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
(Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA))
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and
A 57 (Exterior) serve an important public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended
purpose.
B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A
or B above.
D --- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.
The NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines state that noise abatement must be
considered when either of the following conditions exists:
1. The predicted design year noise levels approach (reach 1 dBA less than) or exceed
the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772 as shown in
Table 5.5, or
2. The predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels as
defined below:
Existing Leg(h) Increase
50 or less dBA 15 or more dBA
51 dBA 14 or more dBA
52 dBA 13 or more dBA
53 dBA 12 or more dBA
54 dBA 11 or more dBA
55 or more dBA 10 or more dBA
5-42
NCDOT uses a 10 dBA to 15 dBA increase of future predicted noise levels above
existing noise levels to define "substantial increase" in exterior noise levels. This sliding
scale allows a greater increase at a lower existing noise level before a "substantial"
increase is defined. As noise walls generally reduce volumes by 5 dBA their use is
usually not as effective in less noisy areas. A 10 dBA change in noise levels is judged
by most people as a doubling or halving of the loudness of the sounds.
Based on the guidelines above, a traffic noise impact occurs when either of the previous
conditions is satisfied. Consideration for noise abatement measures can be applied to
receivers that fall in either category. 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 detract, absorb, and reflect highway
traffic noise emissions. These measures may include earth berms or noise walls. Other
abatement measures include modifications to vertical and horizontal alignments, buffer
areas, traffic management measures, and insulating public/non-profit structures. These
measures are described below.
Horizontal and Vertical Alignment - The improvements are located in a highly
developed commercialized area where right-of-way is limited and noise impacts already
occur. Adjustments of the horizontal or vertical alignments will be minimal due to the
existing constraints. Therefore no further changes to the horizontal or vertical
alignments to reduce noise impacts are recommended.
Buffer Areas - In locations where impacts occur there is not suitable area for effective
buffers. Therefore, buffer areas are not considered a reasonable noise abatement
measure for this project
Traffic Management Measures - Because of the anticipated type of traffic along this
road (high percentage of commercial traffic) and expected volumes, signalized
intersections will be optimized for traffic flow, however, traffic management measures
are not considered a reasonable noise abatement measure for this project.
Insulating Public/Non-Profit Structures - The affected properties are neither non-
profit nor public entities.
5-43
Earth Berms - Earth berms are not considered a viable option in this highly developed
area.
Noise Walls - For some of the impacted receivers, specifically those along US 301
Bypass, noise walls are not a viable option due to the need to maintain access to
existing properties. However at one location, on the west end of the project, impacted
receivers are clustered and a noise wall would not necessarily require an access break.
Exhibit 5.8 shows the approximate location of the evaluated wall in relationship to the
Rosedale Avenue subdivision. The noise wall evaluation and results for the two build
alternatives are described below:
A noise wall was evaluated for the west end of the project to evaluate impacts from both
build alternatives to the subdivision on Rosedale Avenue. Analysis showed that a noise
wall at this location would protect (provide a minimum of 5 dBA reduction) 12 receivers
for Alternative A and 13 receivers for Alternative B.
For Alternative A, the wall would be a maximum of 12 feet in height and a length of 976
feet and would result in an estimated cost of $11,446 per receiver. For Alternative B, the
wall would be a maximum of 10 feet in height and 1,070 feet long and would result in an
estimated cost of $11,605 per receiver. Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy,
NCDOT will further analyze a noise wall in this location.
4. Construction Noise
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for
passersby and those individuals living and working near the project, can be expected
particularly from earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering construction noise is relatively short in duration, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial. The transmission loss provided by nearby structures and
vegetation should be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
5-44
Legend
® Proposed Widening
Proposed Noise Wall
0 Rxx !xx; Noise Receiver Location Benefiting from Wall
(5dBA or more reduction in noise levels)
and Number of Dwelling Units Represented
,c
. ,c 0
J V
° C)-
\ cc _Q

` d. 0
0 ?- 0

_a
` ?, F= ==e
cc
0
0 ? LU ?--- - v
i}
e
NO
eQyeo 0 0 0
e6a` 0 0
S 000 0 ?
v
epye? 0 0 0 -?
Oil 0
R°S00 0 0
0 1 Bypass
OS 30 0 ?? I Bypass
US t
? o
-?3
000 rD
J ? o
d' ®?J o 0

J
J
?Opp- N N
IJ ?_
(

a Q
0 oP? -?y N-)
= o aoaQ

Zke
CD
Alternative A Alternative B
Length of Wall = 926'
Benefiting Receivers = 13 Length of Wall = 1070'
Benefiting Receivers = 13
US 301 Bypass
TIP No. U-3330 Noise Mitigation
Evaluation
SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road)
Nash County, North Carolina Not To Scale
Exhibit 5.8
5. Summary
Potential noise impacts were analyzed for the No-Build Scenario and for the two build
alternatives. The analysis included 109 receivers and resulted in 19 to 29 anticipated
impacts based on 2030 traffic projections. Of the build alternatives, Alternative A would
have the lowest number of impacts with 20 and Alternative B would have the most
impacts with 29. Noise mitigation measures are considered reasonable and feasible for
both build alternatives near the Rosedale Avenue subdivision and a wall be evaluated in
a more detailed noise barrier study when final designs are completed.
K. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The project is located in Nash County, which is within the Rocky Mount nonattainment area for
ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. This area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the
eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. However, due to improved monitoring data,
this area was re-designated as maintenance for the eight hour 03 on January 5, 2007. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to the
intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Nash County. The Rocky Mount Metropolitan Planning
Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTR) and the 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP.
The USDOT made a conformity determination on the 2030 LRTP on October 1, 2008. For the
donut area of Nash County, the projects from the June 16, 2008 Rocky Mount MTIP conform to
the intent of the SIP. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design
concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses and this project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed
of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
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
5-47
allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis - Recently, concerns for air toxics impacts are
more frequent on transportation projects during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies
are increasingly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in their
environmental documents as the science emerges. MSATs analysis is a continuing area of
research where, while much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics,
many questions remain unanswered.
In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health impacts from MSATs
are limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks
should factor into project-level decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Also, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has not established
regulatory concentration targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the
project development process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has several
research projects underway to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions
associated with transportation projects. While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each
NEPA document to qualitatively address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway
project through a tiered approach.
The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative
analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in Appendix B. In sum, when a
highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT
emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this
could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated
with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts
away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
with fleet turnover, will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will
cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
L. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Within the limits of the proposed project, there are ten underground storage tank (UST) sites
presently or formerly containing petroleum. This total number includes three active gas stations,
5-48
two inactive gas stations, two former automobile repair shops, and an industrial site. No other sites
of geoenvironmental concern (e.g, landfills, hazardous waste sites) were identified. Due to the
presence of geoenvironmental sites within the project study area, low monetary and scheduling
impacts would be associated with construction of the proposed project. No adverse environmental
effects would be created, however, by the alteration of these sites.
M. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Table 5.6 provides a summary of anticipated effects associated with each build alternative.
TABLE 5.6
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
EVALUATION FACTOR ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B
CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
Mainline Length (miles) 2.50 2.70
Preliminary ROW encroachments - # parcels impacted 23 26
Additional ROW - acres (sq. feet) 1.19 (51,953) 1.51 (65,990)
Temporary Construction Easement - acres (s q. feet 3.98 173,295 4.78 199,468
Permanent Drainage Easement - acres (sq. feet) 0.27 (11,771) 0.27 (11,771)
Railroad Crossings 0 0
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Residential Relocations 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0
Schools/Parks Impacted 0 0
Churches Displaced/Cemeteries Affected 0 0
Receptors Impacted by Noise' 17 22
Noise Wall Considerations 2 Yes Yes
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Transmission Lines Yes Yes
Natural Gas Lines No No
Water/Sewer Lines Yes Yes
CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Potential/Recorded Archaeological Sites 0 0
Historic Properties Affected 0 0
NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS
Protected Species Impacted 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 3 Yes (WS-IV, CA) Yes (WS-IV, CA)
Upland Natural Systems - acres (sq. feet)4 0.1 (4,356) 0.7 (30,492)
Wetland/Aquatic Systems - acres (sq. feet) 4 0.6 (26,136) 0.6 (26,136)
Stream Impacts - linear feet 250 370
Riparian Buffer Impacts - acres (sq. feet) 5 0.1 (4,356) 0.2 (8,712)
Floodplains 6 Yes Yes
Farmland - acres 0 0
Hazardous Materials Sites 10 10
Exceedances of CO NAAQS 0 0
5-49
Notes:
The No-Build Alternative would have 16 noise receptors impacted by noise.
A noise wall will be considered for both build alternatives near the Rosedale Avenue subdivision.
The southern portion of the project study area is within the water supply watershed critical area for the City of Rocky
Mount's drinking water intake location.
Impacts to Upland Natural Systems and Wetland/Aquatic Systems are based on the build alternatives construction limits
plus an extended 25 feet.
Riparian buffer impacts are based on the construction limits of the proposed project. This quantity is based on a 50-foot
offset of project study area streams and includes wetlands as well as upland maintained/disturbed areas.
As shown in Exhibit 5.5, a considerable portion of the project study area is within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.
5-50
6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on August 21, 2007 from 5:00 to 7:00 pm at the City
of Rocky Mount Environmental Services Department in Rocky Mount. Seven citizens were in
attendance. Exhibits showing the proposed alternatives were made available to attendees. No
written comments from citizens were received during the workshop or mailed/emailed following;
this is likely due to the fact that the project is within a commercial corridor, would not create any
residential relocations, and would benefit citizens by relieving congestion along this section of the
US 301 Bypass.
B. LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING
The Local Officials Meeting was held on August 21, 2007 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm at the City of
Rocky Mount Environmental Services Department in Rocky Mount. During the meeting, a
description of the project was given, the purpose and need for the project discussed, exhibits of
the proposed alternatives were presented, and the current status of the project explained. Design
issues and potential impacts were discussed. Seven city representatives attended the meeting.
In correspondence from the City of Rocky Mount provided after the meeting, it was requested that
the NCDOT fund landscaping improvements at the intersection of US 64 Business and the US
301 Bypass. Therefore, it is anticipated that NCDOT will provide landscaping measures per
normal cost thresholds.
B. PUBLIC HEARING
A Public Hearing will be held for the proposed project after the public review period for this EA.
The goal of the Public Hearing is to provide information to local citizens based on comments
received during the EA public review and to provide an additional opportunity for the public to
express comments or concerns regarding the proposed project so that they may be considered
during design.
C. NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS
In an effort to streamline the environmental planning and permitting process, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed an interagency agreement integrating the
6-1
environmental screening requirements of NEPA and the USACE Section 404 permitting
process. This process is known as the NEPA/404 Merger Process.
The NEPA/404 Merger Process was designed to apply to new location projects and other
projects that would likely require an individual Permit under Section 404 of the CWA. If impacts
are anticipated to be low, the NCDOT initiates a screening process to determine the applicability
of the N EPA/404 Merger Process for the project.
Given the low amount of stream and wetland impacts and the absence of relocations or other
social impacts, it was determined by the NCDOT, FHWA, USACE, and NCDWQ that the project
would be planned outside the NEPA/404 Merger Process and that agency coordination would
be limited to the project scoping and permitting phases.
D. OTHER COORDINATION
1) Project Scoping
A start of study letter was mailed on January 29, 2007 to local, state, and federal
agencies, as well as the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, to solicit comments on the
scope of this environmental document. The responses to the start of study letter are
included in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes comments previously solicited from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Historic Preservation Office (HPO),
and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) in a letter dated March 15, 2005.
2) Small Group Meeting
During the environmental study process, one small group meeting was held on December
4, 2007. The meeting was held for business owners along the US 301 Bypass corridor at
the Rocky Mount City Council chambers. Approximately 35 to 40 people were in
attendance. A presentation was given to the group and then the meeting was opened for
questions. Many of the questions were related to the design of the proposed build
alternatives, access control, and other TIP projects in the vicinity. Local business owners
expressed favor for both alternatives; however, some expressed concerns about access
and property values.
6-2
3) Mailing List
A computerized mailing list consisting of state and federal environmental regulatory and
resource agencies, elected officials, civic and business groups, local governmental
agencies, and interested persons was compiled at the beginning of the environmental study
and continually updated throughout the planning process. This list is used to distribute
project information and to notify the public and local officials of upcoming meetings.
4) Newsletter
One newsletter was distributed for this project. The newsletter contained information
regarding the proposed project and provided contact information for additional questions.
6-3
7.0 REFERENCES
City of Rocky Mount. 2003. Together Tomorrow - The Comprehensive Plan. Planning and
Development Department. Adopted June 9, 2003.
http://www.rockymountnc.gov/planning/forms.html
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina. Reston, VA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. US Department of Transportation. FHWA
Technical Advisory No. T 6640.8A http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 1995.
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Version. January
1995. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2007. Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2001. (Revised January 14, 2004.)
Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in
North Carolina. Prepared by the Louis Berger Group, Inc. Cary, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2005. Natural Resources Technical
Report for the US 301 Bypass Improvements. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services
Inc. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2006. Functional Classification
System. Transportation Planning Branch. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/FCS/
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2008a. Hydraulic Technical Report for
the 1-95 at US 301 Interchange Improvements. Prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2008b. Noise Impact Analysis for the I-
95 at US 301 Interchange Improvements. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. Cumulative Impacts and the 401
Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permit Programs, Version 2.1. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2008 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
Approved May 17, 2007. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/303d-Report.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Surface Water Classifications.
Division of Water Quality. Classifications and Standards Unit.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html#C
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide
Assessment Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section. June 2003.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. Cumulative Impacts and the 401
Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permit Programs, Version 2.1. Raleigh,
NC.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 1980. Flood Insurance Rate Map Definitions. US
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal Insurance Administration.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Nash County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Updated January 31, 2008. Endangered
Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern, Nash County, North
Carolina.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. National Wetlands Inventory
Mapping. United States Department of the Interior.
APPENDIX
RESPONSES TO THE START OF STUDY LETTER

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
March 10, 2009
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ted Devens, PE
Project Development Engineer
c?-
Gregory A. Smith, PE
Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor
Review of Draft Environmental Assessment
US 301 Bypass Improvements, Nash County, TIP # U-3330
The Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group reviewed the subject document and offers the
following comments:
1. Project Commitments - "Green Sheet"
The final commitment listed refers to preparation of a Design Noise Report during
project design. Such a report is standard practice when noise-sensitive areas are
identified during project planning and not a special commitment for this project.
We recommend removal of this commitment.
2. K. Air Quality Analysis; Page 5-45
The first paragraph should include the following language with the correct
conformity dates inserted. This text is taken from Air Quality Guidelines for
Environmental Documents, found on the FHWA/North Carolina Division web site,
found at http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/ncdiv/docs/tcproces.pdf.
Nash County (8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area):
The project is located in Nash County, which is within the Rocky Mount
nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. This area was
designated nonattainment for 03 under the eight-hour ozone standard
effective June 15, 2004. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area
was redesignated as maintenance for the eight hour 03 standard on January
5, 2007. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans,
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER
4701-116 ATLANTIC AVENUE
RALEIGH NC 27604
U-3330
Page 2
programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Nash County. The Rocky Mount
Metropolitan Planning Organization (year) Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) and the (years) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform
to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on the
LRTP on (date), the TIP on (date) and Nash County projects from the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) on (date). For the donut area
of Nash County, the projects from the (year) STIP conform to the intent of the
SIP. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final
conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant
changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity
analyses.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. Please contact meat [phone]
if you need additional information.
I
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
F
R
STATE NUMBER: 07-E-4220-0261 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 02/01/2007
AGENCY RESPONSE: 02/26/2007
REVIEW CLOSED: 03/01/2007..
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES-HISTORY BLDG - MSC
4617
? u f?
?
n1,4
RALEIGH NC

REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE r a

?
06
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES

DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
i
'
?

REGION L COG
NFO
M
O G? al ?5,d t
PROJECT I
R
ATI
N ?
APPLICANT. NC Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmenta l Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue
Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
?l? i1?Jbi
DATE: ._? }?

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE --
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
STATE NUMBER: 07-E=4220-0261 F02
DATE RECEIVED:. 02/01/2007
AGENCY RESPONSE: 02/26/2007
REVIEW CLOSED: 03/01/2007
MS CARRIE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGION L COG
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: NC Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue
Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: - co
j
DATE: ! Lo
U-J
\n ? r
C? t
C>?
aS1 d y. n.n,
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
February 12, 2007
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
FEB 2007
h
RSMM

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Anna P. Meares, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch r
SUBJECT: Review of 07-E-4220-0261, Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR
1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in Nash County. TIP No.
U-3330.
Currently, there are no identified conflicts located in the vicinity of the aforementioned
project. However, it is recommended that work associated with the subject project be
coordinated with the NCDOT Division 4 Engineer, Mr. R. E. Greene, P.E.
Please note that the "Air Quality Status" for the project area is not Attainment as stated
on the Scoping Information Sheet. Instead, it should be designated as Maintenance.
I can be reached at 733-4705 and would be happy to discuss any related concerns you
may have about the project.
APM
cc: Mr. R. E. Greene, P.E., Division Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
'H ' n? s v v ? ? c? r ? n w r ? .. n N n? n ere .a r? c w 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 276 99-1 55 4 www.NCDOT.ORG 27601
Phone: [phone]
P.- 04o_7'3Z-A7nr
O'T?`7+T?y
MCDENR
Nl rth C'amlil a
ryl<ural !Zttoat t5
Nltrhael Z= l ?+tcv,. ?tarxt r
?N liiiavxl G. Ross. j r,, Secretal
` '?4;rt?? Carc7li?ia
71FTC?)E?Ej31T*"
IMS on of Resources
?VT
NN' b 'L. Owem, ;L?hector
Khmary 2Q 2007
24 f ?t?.I f 1T? k' l'? c t `? a
TO: N1,zha. MeGt _ . Office of 11?S?ts aft ?, affair,
1 RO M: Mobvel.N.iu'rla . NC! Dlviskm oflac) es R 'fiou7"twes
St B,1E Scoing .??Il+,ifi:1er .{i.:?l' `tl 1srl c.11 of US X0.1 B j <s
x: ? ? .l.om SR, 1536 (Ni;:?
[a'? C q3 to .I, cii.G?`lalFv ???rlci,. tir; t Mount. TIE' 1'roFecC n>. LJ.333 r
The OI-th Cracl nay Division. of Fuss'' Rescyvc ..> ls:a & eviemmed the ref etxc_ed docuttie. t algid
oi`tWyS th.e .follow-i g awair ews got Could be itvffie Elk t.0
??lYo4f lluTI ?k:l.
;I, e k
.?n'.}_<llt 1)y t[, t £11 v1 t, 1) e th?1 t ,,A-a! .3.4?1??.st hant.l ac ,'+-.. 4£.at is A'.ti. mi.o'Y`?'d o tLLI'M1en out. (,) f oI Z St
pro welt r.Y Li a ! s u [(.!_i'? project
2. Lie proofs .tabs the con a:saaur 011 tike to kedlize th m.rehantal le iii b I. removed duti€.3g
o struK on. Emphasis should he on sell%:ng al( t ood prr:, uet . llo?;e er, i:f th. d.
p o d u U s ca 'Ou' sold t1,,Ln 'c.C rts:'sh(iuld b C1itltlc' € t ?1?1?l off tlm Iinutcrial ()I' turn h into
mulch "vir'I ra: Lib grindcr. This 1Srµuve Q H :1:Ia. t 7 ,:4 tlw Flee Ew ti lal-k bu ning and tbQ
rl sly of t, SCapea d- 1 aw and ;1',t]? ? It ?kI€;I r .llt.ill probleal's 4a rt sld{1mct, s; hi,,giiv, a s . schools, and
t6 °i't`i l 7.
a if wwdla-d ,?_;I=1 Q i r edea, the Cotitraao lutist Cclnp y I th f.i z lugs and ; eg"ulations of.
f,taou as C.QvQ J un ci G3. 113-60.21 rou. QS. 1.13-60.3 L Nash County, i
c Iw s 1fled vas a 1c n- lIlL
j i haz;" J°d Couvities,: and G.S. 113-60.24 requiri.7g ar ular burnitig
? 'c upl?3?GEate the o.p1 o lalll ? 1.i L'C,CITk CZ7 ,t11 t}lC "P£11 e Cif Ct? 2 fs: r3K tltXX' C ? 13 f} Ic cm,

161 " N fail . exv i e entei. Ral etk? North Carrel ina 27699-1601
ixlaon,-- 9:19: X16- ext 255 . FL1.X:919-71ti021 : 1n.temet
'AN Ft)C'_ ... O.PPOR11?*tiT€`r' z I li''=ti'1`l? I„ 1'(')N EM LrlYhmR, 50"F'aRE YALE-D;1054a'OST
WNSWOZ PAPER
A ?
}?
7
NCDENR
sc . ? t s !... !, _ .. ... .. Gai l' l i ij?it i r l an Nat[. r l
.1 G
MEMORANDIUM
TO: Chtrys as rK Ct1
n? .rEj r nbat j.? fi Of TH, apa
S1,j" 1 CM ,()7 ri?6 Js 't e U-IS 30: B
1,836 Th ITt_J.. co,iiniei t5 ; cr r v P, d ID th of."iaCt 91: du ate These on.it entti sl-,o.uId eforti= ardcd to
F?l?'?G p7.:C•3[C 3T1C3 TYi"??? P. ?3?1':,l ?: C}€T. elt"C ?:ti:Y?i; ?ul;flc?6:C 1?;iCi,a???,
Etta hi ient
Orly
tom` A gaRk i, ruat aro 'I
s.IRFIIE,.: V` '
'.tl?t.?t z..tl°.t. ail if
`?
d„a 5iA1p n
aSvti
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March 2, 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Environ. Anal.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Britt Cobb, Secretary

s?
Dear Mr. Thorpe: `-
Re: SCH File # 07-E-4220-0261; Scoping; Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836
(May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
x
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy
Attachments
cc: Region L
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone]
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00
e-mail [e-mail]
Act Coordinator
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
e a SrA7E
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March 16, 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Environ. Anal.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:

A

Britt Cobb, Secretary
Re: SCH File 4 07-E-4220-0261; Scoping; Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May
Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region L
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MR PHIL LETSINGER
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
MSC # 4716
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGION L COG
STATE NUMBER: 07-E-4220-0261
DATE RECEIVED: 02/01/2007
AGENCY RESPONSE: 02/26/2007
REVIEW CLOSED: 03/01/2007
7
f.
'No
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: NC Department of Transportation
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Scoping
DESC: Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue
Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
F02
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
? NO COMMENT
PZCOMMENTS AT CH D
SIGNED BY: ?-
DATE: ?? 13/6
sTo r£q.
h
v z.? pd
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Office of Geospatial & Technology Management
Michael F. Easley
Go 14 115 Bryan E. Beatty
6l
vernor ?
?
Jr;? Secretary
AA
March 13, 2001 C
CID L_ 20Q7 ?

Division of Emergency Management
National Flood Insurance Program
STATE NUMBER: 07-E-4220-0261
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
DESC: Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48
(Benvenue Road) in Nash County
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 3720385100 J dated November 3, 2004 shows
US 301 Bypass crossing Goose Creek which is mapped as a Zone AE with a regulatory
floodway. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 3720384000 J dated November 3,
2004 shows US 301 Bypass crossing Stony Creek which is also mapped as a Zone AE
with a regulatory floodway. Widening of the US 301 Bypass will require issuance of a
floodplain development permit by the City of Rocky Mount. If the project encroaches on
the regulatory floodways of Goose Creek and/or Stony Creek either a valid no-impact
certification by a North Carolina licensed professional engineer or an approved
Conditional Letter of Map Revision will be required before the permit is issued.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
T
Edward M. Curtis, P.E., CFM
Division of Emergency Management- NFIP
919-715-8000 extension 369
[e-mail]
MAILING ADDRESS: OFFICE LOCATION:
4713 Mail Service Center Disaster Recovery Operations Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4713 1830-B Tillery Place
Raleigh, NC 27604
Fax: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
www.ncem.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
d au. STATE
s
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
March 6, 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Environ. Anal.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Re: SCH File # 07-E-4220-0261; Scoping; Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836
(May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in Nash County: TIP No. U-3330
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region L

Mailing Address:
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Telephone: [phone]
Fax[phone]
State Courier #51-01-00
e-mail Chrys.Baggett cr ncmail.net
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

edtion Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina

5110 WE.
A Cj?,
. r NCDENR
North arollina De ar merit k Environment and Natural resources
?crai. Ev le'?. emr`;

State Clea?ri.nghou-se
FROM Melba McGee
V`Mtaaam, G, Ross Jr., Seccretarl
!S31 to l? ?. e. ,r W 43/4l .. ? Rif"k? F Mo?-_n a Nash YX14... n
t=?t
DAIQ February Q, 2001
'e'he: D-Pa.;3`"ft:. nt of r''i._. Z_;:on,'i o t and Natural Reata....i'c+_.'.5 a: s. : e:' wwe : the
p2idp't"bsed ,.,.„.:fo?`:t:at'kow 'I.•he attached co;ctmc`...ats are for the applicant's
information.
har?k You fox the Oppo-IntwAty to rev?ew,
Attachments
1601 Nla'l1 SC r icy- «Prber, Raleigh , Noeh Cardir,a 276? `60i? _
Fn'? t?"'?.1 ?,3"'*'{•+??? s t'? j• q} r 'r { } r ?j
e: ?

02/2e/28)D,7 1-1,,45 9
PAGE e3
North Ca
tk ss'
ion
1 :'r.4+1..C'Rlr? ??, .f"3i?.:.ti...'t??ia,2:?.p',f,;,'?':`e.'.l ?.i'?`[ti'''.I..?S)~iC;%4?a` ..,? . , ••.

TO
trG v ?s{ +` . , - :. 'l-aria" . F irs, ) .
Habitat crnzk Kati 1 tic' iw11l
'JT ?BT7 . v Re ? i
I. s t, CJ ti ? s ? . Lf?i .4 ftC?t, ?t?u;t 7 1tp Tl"..1F° LET: C, D'a tI?"1[ if
TT3t2 ]C} E4 1G1 r C:DQT} t , 1ardi l Sl G i?_?1.?i1fC t ?CSCwF 1? f?Y j}}
F'S J "+J c S r T, ,n f ? s 3-0 v, f z. ft `I,1. s J. :, tYJ itC 'tv 7 S? Rocky
'4 h F .
rif3 ti 1K [F S ?' tr. y A' l,£ill ?3MQj T'. ., T 4Q.
II" Pal F1 ra:ld,r111 sp ICJ f0 r_q, Cs?r0 rtQr, J..T3iorpac?ftI t???'T
f'?i. conjcC,7£1 T 'Teti impacts +,r., l.,i. and 3 .1,t1- CC5-(, T-CCS CP` 1tT31g fro ral
r.li7lt r_projp?c`, Bio1J is's on th-M S11afi?c'. tI N. C. ?; 1 .,?71" ? .«? CAS CC'rf 3??13 I t1
(?"C W.l_C) ir,.", Oilzcorri:7c-fAS are pr kav dedil7l'.
.+?,
'c?zuorl n-: ` ? ;*?? uertaim l rai'1? tJ! ik t}i i+"i 3{1 .3x1 I. 'It•?CLS77.C1c1 ,'Ralic?7't itA (C U.&C,
4332(2)(i-Y) aT7.d tfi.c. l it h ItId wr'i:"Och G (4 CS Sk t -401.., as `dim4'E€l4'a; 16
??t??3r Cx ??wk ??'i]1` ls? ;;r??a .?? ?r°r' ?:te prop„s4:?i ?rrsJec. Uai?rccar?s ?naicat? tI?£e
$ +- 3I r'Cl<tT1 ET° l f? ;'3Sj '•i +'^" Tip Ski l fiil Ft 1 ..f G: but fl j lil-. been i? 31tff-i2 in
11"'i 1"Y Cyctk
a -Pl I iC;f7(t patft dam Siat- E1kGtm-,.Lzd /
Y GCi;'r„ f2l 5 ti 't GS o'1. craace L';1:G' ° les7 ? L J ?grin t r C{ It l } :1I1 . ; CI,O';"v :?iT1l]I 11I5? I
Gr fiu?i <. ? bC]. t3} '.i.9V'L wil l' ? ??. ?tJ;l ' Ct t 'l 2I cJ pTw r,"I,?5, sa3tablc habitat c...
T`ar, s? a? s ._ s r t i? r'tr „r ri r t?tsaff ?'; a Fcd-n ail Em:dang,= -e-j I,iu--Sc1 found, wit ,irr r e
`ItiF 1?''_L'.'?i" ?S'dt?:5iT ?Y' T%?J'C `?, ?1? £- `c?lE1.a1 .'.?, 31w•?c S+ ..? =a h?: ptza?rst'p;'ic:U1`? tl.ir.
ss, ? 4avv, p' t C11t i1 i 00 37 cter? 1 -7,slt'?aa-m Eli
} 3] t { 3 ` J(.?T 5f 'LS 7i +: Gi1duc,. c ix a
00 l %CL' f +7',r"11 'tic,dI l cC it -:,' pI"+7jc,-c . T(j heir, r T.3J T iaClj' ??t. ??Ct:r[7UT1t ?7T? u21 ? l(JL?
Rild tlac., ' ;'t F C?:S. C, t1 : LT1 E7ic ,3;.1h71 ,, ir«t;?5 €htIiIIt. l b :Ac- r:
a 1)Cwu t t,t1Tf n iitst,cli 'tt, v1'ltd ife, r a uT-, c ?blll It pMiect 2xe 3
luc wdiTi.' aIi, t° I C .1 "o S.rfe- d t-,Si t)rQt LtL'`l ,-I, elld'ang re
cur' C7 .I cztinr2 1-1 ? ,cc_ . .' :4 nt1al b1.,,c,S 'rcas.tc, '.I µ'c icr rC, 0 ct
a2.??20/20.0 X.1,,4! ?Wz13?? 5 PAGE G4
7
ebr ty '10, 20117
co strttction should be. ncluded ii tbm im cztO les. A. hstir g o= de5i .ated.
pl. t species can e rle;'c)nped Iu u h cens'altatigr? t d?
p <<t' ;, wrlt3?? r pXi
IN. Division of Pfttk?ti .ce Fazio
113 l 3M(;! CCI]t
?; Lr 3.5r Pl#'T1k3U:.
nd'
1 ? ' £LTIx Cc)nsc v .'on, P"Ge`rf3 ti
P.:'0, Bo'x'2764-
.(9191 X33-. 610
2. Deswripffon of ?m i strc ,s ot- w ctlat-ds afteetcd by' the 1]1- ' t. Time need for
c f?arJ, lt?ir; r,? rel' cater It ,i inns of strc4 ]?s vr>sd sr,e cif
???'la cClr`vltl?,
cover tn)-- maps sh`rY 1a ` wct[ rd acnage: impa4tG?l b.. th projcet.
Wetiand acrings saoul:d c?ttrle aiI prE?j?ct-relatwd tha} rrs ux cr
1 'tj:iriCi iG G l i ?5 r I SU:: C}i ,lh-lnc, C thcw drama--or for-
??;'O Gt COIlzt txGt?G 3. VcFzland idt tiEcatEQI1';7 a be
aGC(k 1t 7S1? . tilLOtt l
cdorcl.inaticr. , it tn4 U. S pia.-aly Corps ?? 1 »:?i?zz4r,, (COI')' lY tHc CO
is S l CQ,]' llltzfl, t G ^@ =i '1 P_11:,ac tir'.y ii atlands shoul6 17 She .tl pk3 Lad,
UL'atC'11 l.St?ci.
'Ccvr ?-r tti7,c Tvaps c K ng ;?v r'ek -ws of-upland . ,a i1 l fo habitat irnpact'ed:'bythe
t r cs?t p~pje^t, Fo,e tial nr a,. s cs should btT.,71 ides.
rl?4 l Ltd*:{ }?'1]1ch iit p-mj , `s v4li zeS?'It in lo,-s.
il`2 T tCi,tatCv 7. of v l.Citfc hab:itat ? z tla l: s O 'u 11G[[lf
6- i\jlltigE ol'1 for a:J:ding J'; 1 it ; i]`R or vo'cT7 GrE52'11 F dl CGS 'I3 .: 1 71i4 ?.
dvgradakic ] in 13 bitaL ?u E:E? as .?.et'. a-5 q,1_tav"]t iar r4losses;
;', A c1TS Llat1•vc rr_lpazt aszcss;?ent sectinn'whie? anat.yz.cs d e cmi~ara,lcntal
e"T.e is ofhrgh vay coi?y_rtl. Ito- and rlurnlt? es the cbr_trtbitt c Hof this
indlividual prnipct to
8. de,cussian of :'rig; prubalt i.E pac_,l on narE_Ia; ~csl Lirces - ld h, will resvit
Irani s??condar, dt cIOpmc:nr facllltated by the iinnrnk ed road, ncc?ss.
9, li c+Ciis vjcm'c. ] of t11JS fact? i', is to b CG r?L 1=et Y W;[ otllZ' Si is , I l%t3lC ?al
at P] iv te`catelvit?c>t.11r?, t 2 di?s nptiouQfthcseproject shnldht
i ' lud?d ii] the n ar nrierr?t !c?c Irne1 t. and all -pr6j:p--I Vons,,rs shcr; l l:
"I"hark u for'rhe.ono-,t;u itv to ptovi.de. rmt in he ?r:x<pt?ui;Fe forth this
.Fro ?4F, If e Can Iutiller2 .t t y'C?tL* :l_°? ?t`w5 plcasw at 19) C b: Gaky TCFLCd? y USFW
i5taW of North Crardrima
] gsrfixrscrtt Krf :nt'2Pan me n t and Natural iesiDarces Ravi inl, CY.ttce.
I"NTE+RCC)L EWN' NI IZNTAI,RT IF1,4 C'O`i,,INIE14TS Psajrc vurl ei ?? „Dur,-DsKG:
„iL. of ;F.:> pit (m ii?as i s . tia: r-._ c llut .,_ £°SE{;pLr na i=i:?xe .„ a;7p vanIs. ind;ca1xd to rcc4 to ? 43xT .'rit l t tastier C. r it4 prq'= -iia cwnpty iirh?witrtit
s sTad r. .7 x, + ., [1bps : rd Y? srse rc.-I'i s.s i?elld IN-addlro cs? w tlrc .?. n4 Cffrica tnd tied 0n„ t he gvvu 0 ul o Erns, Atl' appl z„ars..knicYmxptsart v'4 gaidelimm
t ,a := lh'_xc rtau and pumis arc avai+able 11Tarh kbe st mc; lk r*rm 10111m

pFR .i; r 5[ CC tT. I' E I ?.C!'I PPOCIEDUR S f.t R QU t 1 ""'T9 d`' ° = .,y*

1 pt'n t tfY tOsrr Q lk OT.W.- 'kt :fLiS a$G iT ?.;eten+.
- ,t+dKTt
3 ?Y e75 t564'rt VX G`753dt`n
°?kd+F i & Si4°7'3f
?
? ?? 1Y' WYT,. lM Litt CdS'#$11'JT:.:4`iTi L 34?F'tl O'?IICYSSSiTCtI, t Lt
?? Cis:i",.,'S
.
,
,
?l.>e'f=° ?X liee,l? i? +#f 5 9Tau? ?T ra G txat 'S3. GGFII. at:L, + 415. bl,xpzaior ,-- tKl t ,S ltc$?kbt'..N....fir?2? LaNt?GSC'rLFC Ur' a?..
..... (AQ dqy )
t k k lbws 5 Wore tK r Kkk ry. ter le mallet t1X T
l ?:??t ? ?°en k S+Y dIi t. -ei 'i e Ct F8c-i' ?krT G :7.'?{tf74r ? ? .? ?' 17t,C' applfnf:l!t'f
r Chi c;eic pal A.bt.`I Tally-a?taK, pcvseet 3c Cl n5Jau1.K +ca-SSC f?sfer
(M?tl 4.'x:3+ r cur ? dV .: KS? Ct 3?X:`.1311? ?
' a
5
944.10 -4-ys
T(.l rc erd 'Y" cc; alll`?t
p???4. N.t"?lat
? ? Xast..q,Gayz??Crf?ect1Ytt$
?a
%
n
4?x?t
I r
4'lV°fi}
._
_
> p
?
a
,. ,,_sar ss c i tiY DES pert
l

ar We,. pt-Inat 1 Krth taa? c wnfarer ee +s manly avccb r f
1 y
fA?
i
a + •' Srrpl mOrt Irum.l't:.-uct1vtdo:,'il'?jKt-wh 23x5:L'.dr7LG7 fp'L*IC ?
3 & Cmstmc.Uca+ ]r-rT A 7&Is

s
+ ,r n a ?r a x?all, $

n 2 c o -nual Ise ELRmi a-t,a.t ad?•acralk njwnat pr'14 etr.d av ' h •, ii
t? r--. aa.d Pill P+;4M4
"

'
i?3r ,rt ,?;,. Ptc r+?•?,,?It:at c?r.rcc?r? ?.uaL F ltrg Trra? , ?atrr.

t'

I
?c ?vs
Try f C h-,r-, ;L.A,,, lj'- L 7 dr 4Yf?k"1 f dat tied: F2'"` mt I
?' ? L.i4VR:J_-
f
1
+ 'c a t< x r v. °:? a fiE Pr3ll?a?r 0.;r Gsn,ri,f ? ? .,
*X
l'' { rl .UK r t .S a 'CAC z
6th
dw+

---1--.. ..:wrw x-..x.....
..nx•.n..w-„v?..mmrwu - - _
_ ....
"

? ' ? + - rt r ? .s s ,ci rcd r.'TtY' sttb ? prtitl:+ustt` .... ...... .... ....
3
A, 0., 5 .?nr,,1 nevN IMIAC21-,IO.0
Zt --? Ir?1 u a icr x a c.^3 ttrnV - rsQ

O\ I fi't?a.;yt
L at,.rzlJt i,r in ?:l 4h.,;6,0{ r.??d9?1 T,'?',ldays)

k y
l1?ILT R rwa 1Gt{ urddT IS A `?CAV '

l ?"; c 7c ? c u ratrT Itt, tcr+ a rr ?« l;'ls n mkkHr?re+?r.rtr, r3 fc uz loads=ttur?xirc?aa5%rt Sr eta madL
?,, , e r tc+nry? ,??r.? , i f r +'.?ea ? r'+^+.f t' s tic l i?? + rd uis?i pru?cr Kea„ ark CSC ee ?FanJ ? -. F r +ar`?!
u -x F r a w 'r G ;; d- u, A :a cw 3,0 rr?T ith4 it ?cFc ?nu 5100 Rr.acA adt?Emxizoaerc or. pa-. tt:tst d 3r
k;Yf ?t nsr ? i
T<k k.•,.:r.SET.s1'#.It:On. 1;t3$I mat -zontwolk11wt: r19&9 .t!•r`rtna b6. ad"h'stcd 'I r3=":ct Un'pdL"cc ? LuUaT Cmvm3-,. 4.t,
t ? E,! t =r ai ' 'ti mf :. ` Y.'v'? f3 ?d ?mct t azirK
?zsri ca^ nr raEaares o a r+c [anj,A etc min4¢ teA +tfda
q d arse vs r R67n4bti t'!''-?-rrr C'77id glft5^. tteste.c..ed (6G&yi), ,Dt 3 _? tt ra e s pc n: c rn 6o.
rn„t-cox •r{yG.G+c.aor.tEirtvt??L, es,E rn.'Iexcea-s' Amy's tdak
+ 3Ptxs*,tCRYd1ta.t? t,aytraat n<g?ar K
... tcw 7 round t r r 4 a Frc ni - T t?ta au sprL.iX t .Y fi X. t1E\ sl,.mr Fon! t R? -es ? u Ld' rt niu r dwt day
Sp G. C ?
# i :c Lft+TSi soavz; 1.{ atM4ggwnlo mo.C; •c:a sc t}fecndrlcanra? tet r E+ i I ?, 4.,uhs {IKYI E t ;A;9 I
reY_ J{ csxc Ln k ?Pt aK ?al lx r x +.Irrr a', I
1
i'. „Si.,led> Y,w?I, t13XCSM £ il,': 9t7-7'3C1:da;?rs
t
(W X)
d
tt'?,rrT + c :c"xs Vpki? C.cLn f*7 ??? s, . ?, i?a ?.rlaaaTSt
rA •? -ik't• t E? cii t Igk F t'YC i TS h 4YYls ?? 2+a1'I. 1
i sc :i3ti c c orl+t u La;+R r' At ,alm ' a also (LgWre
: ;«. : i =* t ` rrnSLl rpg And fx
^tt )if lntdlyS
' :I oat., ra .k;' 3 csrtsE
l as is z v n ai tc nec-.sra }'s. vmOe Ray r' Classdrrgslipr. A t X64 daps)
t'm mum
c !`c i3arrrs a .m+sx ekl {t,. rauar, xdkttpxs
i pr ac: zing l e x a_ xa pet< tara_1M Or M WIV,11 .- k -C o
eat cell flil'I'Md I l
1 ??:tEasrt etatn?¢,?eT. ! q
T'+Hi140: F rs?tss Tura
'
4 iss
1 S?r r-IA L ATiwl_ru,?t 10N PROCEDUR:>_S OT PX-Q[ME%ME4?4lrq
t c Su lecri3 n. S * 1116 WM ENR ^a, inn to'sSa o of Nc gPmdi cina:? tha
} [ F?sit,r, co ?rEl"h?Mr;;rvt;tes} r..3T str ??+;e?rl >r;? w, 3 apzrrd ay?irekl cX.cta o sk 1„ 1r?fi,?r flb?r?,rrr.:n««be pSu?,?r+s T? d?y_LL
i :r.?c ?A i. ? to R rkTe? and re?,n'Ratf «?i+. v'
r
Ct }i c i a,FCtt .@2rn FealtSin s c ad- Witt E'?NR at ran Cl p- xla ;•o f sue nf: crr. i
' Y) Ss s:
• , -- _a1 " n..hy
€crtar. ury...jt 41rY _,r!ic nr_.r rar;"n. WA

S'ata [aTr:? Gnr,5lruGtlet . Pe,-r;y Ufl C tldtl dRCS`lldSwZ'` fJfS SITl.G ll., v;2C SS C.n'„t'??f, L"1't1?4 htk?US{C {?CStYjItT?r?if5.

ass frrgs of struexure L
ro-of z+{ tr•??rsasha
:f
:
x .?
l5 da_-=
. p
p
o
rtpa:
aM. 1 .
T L t
water( fty raj aaten i
VA 60 Lvs

4
E` ?iS;T rfi it it C f4r t+-WO i d . 'cry a s t ? 1 dE in7 a errc a -..,ISS 5 z ra r:
K i
4 *24 P.- rtnaY of 1 lr1Tk 4rmrla ?mca3 I3SD .-c mrist acomapan; pp'tewdun 7 iyar
l
"da c;
41wr-,I gce.`?'c'nv t7'.Wmn.Twlt!; ?xrt scat ._z nn ue near sxo pDDjM a t ?. §t an, +w MICMcrit n ru rt+ <eu at cs,rr?ycsT, p?s:se assn T.: .
"! 1- St++?. C;c. t?.i+Tx tr11 }a.b.E. ;rt:« C.,ii:I '
...
r `d,.. Smbd;, ?l`Ct.X0100:. (
?
'
?
r L i#t ariuit d(-, a c.
?:
r? er [agSt,raT 01icC,s .:.: lug' ??'.} 1:P"
7rr
::.Y,. ° t,:?vvrfp,uL<Id StrYagC IiRi+,. (LT3T`.i:? i171 ?YJrd:ti'crei? G(w,ZiE? ser;. ea+a•ral:t3ra G?'er»:arYr:,
j
9 W canpl a- ? wla ASA XC"&C-211 NO 1?4r;ist33.Sfc?Y2YiaFovar',a. thna is YA virv:.. ? X17 U,,.w,r T

.1
" Faml ca er tisa a Rlimdaa llv c bales ro u'str«T, I
?
y-, ? . :?,rrmenrx t?s+.cn add „cr•3 raz .?.°tu?.?n; t ?t ::.
. _ ,itecrfiar:nc? au
cti?zf.?}

Y fr. O ? ,v Nyr y .y
?
1
.,r
;4,a"'4 r?- } t X:? .F ?:
."K•x''n,..?J3
.Jx1^ '(f
7
.,
SP r Z}
r
,
s

f
I
i
REGIONAL. OFFICES
Quest icros rt;ga i- g t !Sxpc=ts st t:ux? he address:cI to e'Re?iaz:,al 0 11cc m irked bcl.qu,
, sfi ?°illc Rtgional Office
1090 US lllghw?? '71)
S ,vann'a110a, Nc'. 28'F 7 8
(824.) 2964500
;.? ??1??resr itl? RcgzoTial f?ffice
610 East renter Avmues Suitt 01
N-looresvile, NC 281.16
a04 613-16%
73 'vVilmingit i Regional Office
177, C --T-dinal DT vtr Exumsion
0 I'aNcttd.silit Pe i,011 C 0frIC4, :u R lt: g. L. .Regiana1 Office Wiristan-Balch c-gion t Office
2 Nt Yip Grctn Stze44, . -ifc 1.4 _ u l.}am:t;'f?) r , 5it?lfc 1 .1 ?h `v','al ?htc7 i l :f
F ciElev illesi'?C253i- 1-`043 It lei,?n 'tiC2;609 ?trin NC 27107
still .a3?Cr1;`r,.;9. ':?1?7
01 `ts.tfinftr?n Reg'icTrtal f Tice
?4? W&,';NLnLton Squarc Nla
T4)5" ashiI t cm,
y ? S
North Carolina
Department of Administration
;,;,
-P,
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
April 18, 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Environ. Anal.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Re: SCH File # 07-E-4220-0261; Scoping; Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May
Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
?o7A_Ax
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region L

Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
s r
r ?
+E
?t
?t ? L ?J) Ul"d
TO ch-',
slate Ica
',`lcleia t S ,rl 71 'From z: SS6 t(a N ' 149 .
t . 14 tl07'
a
11 `: `v? t Il Il °':t 'nnt : t 1 ,`i to ' ?_}17' aftel f ; 7 r?r 4C° l f ° C. E G" C 7 41 C3t1f T ? itt,
i, ?„.l5-2'I ;1,1i,d pal-( of oll'-,.p r .'io S t? l l tll pa;c agc°,
s
fi t€L fJ tY3k `Y zed 3+ d` oljvf s F ,f! " ''G ;fob'rn;p'r
r)llc
in Caro inn
"UM
DEPA P?
4+
.?
E T
F
E?v?l? If O?'??'? ENT AN ?w?
?E-?Ik
?r
?
i =
?f
?
i
[
r
1
I.?if?T'?.,f1 `.J?,V--; .. t ?F-SO1.,1F-,CF ,
g
f?
C
4F.:i "U.?C. Ck
DIVI.?ON O BI L ? € ?V? NT L l f r' 1 T1 County
Nash

ProicIN ame c D v f Type o ?Prolp-d x'01

5' ?? t3 .`.f. 4"i

.. ..
" - t?lgT1 LV ? 1 i"o, L3° i34
- . ..

rT 31 -.?7. ?c7r f;- e! Supply S?c,'Jon

I? t`= Y LC.f :T ?}Tl' 3:5- ? ?f'.l i?l RO Data x/13 0
cx..
r
`
P,crglr?ln wlt;:I ?f1% i?alni' rv"11-,Dl,i `ic-,nt2l.??rc.?4 :

all app < <Jbk( =*7_

r _uimc oni int^ rT 6 n io ,<< nlcr,-, review
r r-i ;nFrit rtt? ied

1

? - N

,k
. Pk i CA E NT 0 F? . NVI r1 011ME N AND r , _
NAJUC ?? ???UPICE [7?6
7- t
1?dCS1"0N OF ENkR0N10EN TAt- HEAL TH
02 TypecfFkqer
TIr r .r_:? 1 ,. 1UL?ir: k 1 r='
`f T <<,,
t?s a,
award of ;_i CGnt mf yl (;{_: I. of ?C,l<IG ,I .I si.l:Cl '? .Rs t? C',3'?!eF ?7 ?r' ),r}, NCri C j.,,.
13004. Q1 Fac 10 . _ ~, C _ Q, `Y;.171to VV .wr `°p?''s` 13 CODA,: (RI 9'1
??ry u, ti.:;I
Thb ycl} t '131 0 d I!ied' ...a C r-i0!1 -,ctJmI CI.I0y 1t1Nk WAr smpol ` a'7d 1'1ust ccrnp ?{
It t` Ir d :T i F,? c
t"1l ft7lt 11 C i" GP 11ant., of nicu,Fe Ii-,Tc7mPT' ' I the
ap c< nrt =hw,u dl -nt 'r.: tl'. N1O 'Vv ,.er?. ? ? 6: ri;r? i • , ,
nti. ti I _.
If t i p7 l v Is wr,:;t<<IaNd a y''CJjaned, v `, I..corTi!i,flV'lIc,aIJI= -r-4 f C?f.
x t - i to tt` t _ e I of COO"''. b or 1 "Lf?lY Tl_ wli?f'; -'C]„ ?` c• " ---r
1[ tae ('I
?,I;fjsh
Rn Au my
:ad SAWN ctJ'rll m tlli ?}lek a'?allha(lt??l ?`eGfG?hCl at 152)
`kh J? dispw m m:C III ,his I1r.?l!?? (c't` ar i??;1(w c: a'Tw .:uia kbeU!19°g
ubif:,tm For Imp j eppro1t1 ``,c Fldl'sa,. o. a c1 I`1 C IE`e1al I c?
I
i" s, `we
?p(1kwn ?t1rJlal4?k cct . .,`. Lhe r'LiC1 k HeAh Pest MafIC.go enk QcU{I 1 [phone]
The i,:I7.f711,sc1d °ai uIc' _b.. "?;r"„-1edl LI-iat Jf IU-,r to ti iu (c'mll:vt or. de('f'vl.t'bn of d up -od
stm tur[
l.?a?€'lr
. ?il;fl c.f t';1ltt?tl:r I .e.(it Cr1tCf_s`I rortlel ri?c°, t r be iinC',h
?' F J in cr C;? to 1?tr ;?t fr
:e?m t c F rodeMs to artisom ma, f or n c)Tma,Joi -1 one Gr1in,- .c?dcel cesl? .
( I(.i C I°Y.. 'n -9 'l s aVlit or Me 'JE]Ili.:. Ie'II1 IFS IG1?I.° ? 8 secJJf3 ci'
? YJ ( i1 l t
The ap?fl.n nt shto td be WWI to con Met Isualth rF r,rtment re?--nlting k:f cir
. quiire.ments for se??ur taiigk, tZ?_ tiarl5 (m reylrc, Ljad=r 15A NCAC 89.. I s rJ r i.
4.,' ?GI.1 Ilkf Illclt!:Ys'1 CeCS?a F l11 G sep', C fciaik =1n,? Mier C,I I ` he l; subm clspu f m l I xlC ,;
71 (..: 1 `, L:. CJI1 t I C 1f .7 i _ S6CH[.TI a.t (0124) f 337 239
Tf, *p?,Iica h aNd be 0 ??`ce?? t??e ]octf Ei?: fik,7 rm oi6rt?fi€??ll te:e?ar 1ng the
.
$--nktary facilities mquiFe-1 for his pr.gjeq.t.
THAN y'vno MS VAI b , eb wd cu,;'ng t} n ? a.1 rl cti[in, FBI ..r, ius` tryxreter We
(?C3tIC111 ['?LS1 Lla i?"ilEI',,`I.?r?df ['Ill"a€11r?e:?FJ( IJf ilk `tiP{ffr
Supply SerUol ??t?l i£t .r 634 t>?'iall ?Gl fit t x€',I P..I ? I ryg i
' . r, c,.I .lill" j(;1 i, , [7. ???! ?`;;???f ?x„+?".,2° ,.?6?,.
+r' .t n n I.,?.::rrt7nt? Gha I° r. Pi famn
Pat
F$: "tf 4xE6t ?Sf'I aul Pt a1 125 ?t f?4t! ??1 1?5 pgw 1 and 2 SCE [fj€"1u€.f,3c

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Britt Cobb, Secretary
February 1, 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. and Environ. Anal.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr: Thorpe:
Subject: Scoping - Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48
(Benvenue Road) in Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 07-E-4220-0261. Please use this number with .
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 03/01/2007. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
cc: Ted Devens, Project Engineer
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail: [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh. Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 30, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NorCh Carolina, 270699-11540
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of US 301 Bypass
from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Nash County, North Carolina (TIP
No. U-3330). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16.I;J.S.C. 66:1-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent.
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing'crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for suf ciellt-W ildaifc: Passage 'along Jue::rii verpiuVrs. `,1, here biidpng is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural-water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to: avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the. -flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life.stages. The general moratorium period
fo anad omo us fish is February 15' = J Une J V; ,
7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
8. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.aov/es/couiityfr.html .
The federally: endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) has been observed in
Stony Creek several miles upstream of the project area. In addition, Stony Creek is a tributary to
the Tar River, which supports the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Though neither of the species is known to occur near the project area, it is prudent that rnussel
surveys be conducted in Stony Creek at the project site if suitable habitat exists. Mussel surveys
must extend 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the project limits.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this off ce with your determination, the
results of your. surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including. consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action: .
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and. their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classif cation scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project: If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
n
i
- Pete Benjamin
Field. Supervisor
cc: William Wescott, USACE, Washington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
?.,,a. STAIZ Q,
Rwvn
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 21, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
FROM: Peter Sandbeck? c?
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road),
U-3330, Rocky Mount, Nash County, ER 05-0597
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 2007, concerning the.above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
rs:
. r
R
.? l
r •+•

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
. Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC.27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515N'. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleieli, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 30, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Norih Carolina 2769945-48
Dear Dr. Thorpe:

This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of US 301 Bypass
from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Nash County, North Carolina (TIP
No. U-3330). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 [..S.C. 664-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 T Q.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient vildiifLi illayJage along stile'arn i orrkdcrs. 5,Ticre brill.-Ing is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain naturalwater flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to,, avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the. flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life.stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
8. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html .
The federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) has been observed in
Stony Creek several miles upstream of the project area. In addition, Stony Creek is a tributary to
the Tar River, which supports the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Though neither of the species is known to occur near the project area, it is prudent that mussel
surveys be conducted in Stony Creek at the project site if suitable habitat exists. Mussel surveys
must extend 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream. of the project limits.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed.species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: William Wescott, USAGE, Washington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC

Lia Myott
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Ms. Myott:
artment of the Interior
LDLIFE SERVICE
Field Office
ce Box 33726
Carolina 27636.3726
21, 2005
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of US 301 Bypass
from NC 43/48 to May Drive, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3330). These comments
provide scoprng information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Wliere bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
MAR ? ? ZO(?
Raleil
BTAt?! i '?,.
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
8. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html .
The federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) has been observed in
Stony Creels several miles upstream of the project area. In addition, Stony Creek is a tributary to
the Tar River, which supports the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Though neither of the species is known to occur near the project area, it is prudent that mussel
surveys be conducted in Stony Creek at the project site if suitable habitat exists. Mussel surveys
must extend 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the project limits.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
reie mni amm
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 21, 2007
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
.??
FROM: Peter Sandbeck0-?,
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road),
U-3330, Rocky Mount, Nash County, ER 05-0597
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
? IA SiAip q,
awM

d

h
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
CVAM,
a`
APR .1 5 2005
STANTECC
' C l'd,> M -m8
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbecl:, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
April 12, 2005
Ms. Lia Myott
Scientist, Environmental Management
Stantec Consulting SerAces
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
SUBJECT: US 301 Bypass Widening From NC 43/48 to May Drive, Rocky Mount, U-3330,
Nash County, ER05-0597
Dear Ms. Myott:
Thank you for your letter of March 15, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
0'V_a
-ZQ
C,
eter B. Sandbeck
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
February 12, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
RE: TIP Project No. U-3330
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This is in response to your letter dated January 29, 2007, regarding the above referenced TIP
project. Based on the information provided in you letter it appears that the project in question
is located in Nash County, and as such is not within the jurisdiction of the Division of
Coastal Management.
If you have any questions, or I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Lynn W. Mathis
Coastal Management Field Representative
LWM/lm
CC: Frank Jennings, III, District Manager
Cathy Brittingham, DOT Projects Coordinator
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter- krlencv Project Review Resporise

Type, of Project
Ccrnrnr,r:ts provided hyr:
Pedon 1 Program Person
» ''tfl,Cl11. I ` 1f:.terv1sor f,, r Pt.bli i e Su 3i1` ? IQr1
t,;:tryrltr. Otrine og! s=rn p stJ''.
Name M.irhi.eI L)s:ruwrlt??-Tt.?l i IJ 1U.) Date:
Tefle
Proyrarn within Division of Environmental Health:
Public '.?:€e= Supply
Other, N?rrie of Prooraf-n.:
(;r f;c?rY ,.. (M'I? :I< all app icable):
t'•Jo objection to project r s. ropos.ed
No cornmDnt
Insufficient information to complate re iew
Comments attached
&-.e comments below
rt Y
/J-
f f 4.
z X,
....
Ott f ?? f i F .? tf
Return to:
1, 1 13
??1, Cyr t?; ??.+ie ?r _ ?1.r•T? t r t.?r ti';p
s?4w of En irc;rtrr? .,);.dl He 1t1
2/13107,
Project Number
07-0261
County
Nash
r J o': osal to =idcli I; 5 -101.
]Jr...: o N'C 4 3A8
I C'i t'riit?C t.l f ti.Na:h.
t cii:nt 'PIJ' No. U--'I'-;30

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
truer-i• gerr+. y Project Revie i Response
Project Name NC D01' Type of Project
Project Nurrlrber
67.0261.
County
Nash
Proposal .fix: v, idcr , LIS 01
Rt p,js1 tr413'J7.. 611 B36("`ti' ay
Dri)-(-) to NC 431,414
T it Sht d(l t i :i i p1ars t L' tr, Tur t*:c1 i 4011 ; 13
ro a w,-7..ter sjster'i 1 uLi2:ta"' 1.T' No, F. 1
iriprove-i its mua: .c approved b;, the D M,. on rr. Erlviaormbt -1 01 Het l.h , ior to tiie
ci' _ ra of a cJoritrf rt Or r' if { _ ,ro,. of r ofi?,rtJet.if.? («s Yrc l rt c` !' y 15,x,. NC AC '18C
,(1 0( f?i, . r f..1.?, For I"(%' f .'ior or, cont_=d the Rubli( vs-.ter w.?J , pll1y ".,tIC3, 4C ,
n : )1 . I
.
733-2-321
T hi,,, ,lrojec: will Pie f:P'?".!.tpt ?. ri0s r?ort?'tyilJrtlty public ,,r<Jtef supply and I'IUSt comply
with state and federal drinking water ri7onitaring requirements. For more: information the
ppticatnt should cf `a ;t the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 733"2321.
If this project is corl eructed as proposed, w i'?GornrTtend closure of 11-the feet of
t. to the i'Eairvest. of shellfish, For P f:`.T(lr.ICXrt ?C?...rlll:'ll?shellfish
a`,.lac n w a
>,r.,nitatiol prograrri; the applicant should cnr<, V-e- Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
,vi=,-fjg )w
f t_ dspos al z-e`r'luj ;;ropiosee or finis project may prciduGe z7 mosquito breeding
7ob!Kl l; ` For Ir"C`"..?srrf'intliifl =icerfiing c;l ,.: rol. _,:c .`7'ICIsqtts'tU control l r?lex.? s ?re,> `.., the
• p s ,?l `
nppifc"ri1 shoud' con:_,c' r'ie Public Health Pent {vlariE., nncn€ Section a: [phone],
j j The applicant should t , ?,dvr' d fhaat prior to the removal or derrlol t tin of d!iiapidated
Str;_IOtufeS, a extensive r?)d2nt control progra.rn may be necessary to c-rdc-r to. prevent the
migration of the rodents t.1 a?'i cent areas. For 'information ecin r r ir;c rodent control,
contact the local health de.-oar €ment or the Public Health. Past fvlar,?;. ment. Section Ut:
(91Q-) 733-(-)407.
rv_ e applicant sho{!!e.1 iae, advised to conLact t}ie IO .rt health depart-ment regarding their
C..,IIi,.I tfla:S to; SE(;•t. 8,1'.1 .no.ci?iCJri'S less requrr d !lllAel- 1:5A P' CAC 18A 1900 Cf,
7f„(,y. ; lt:Jr' IT zfC?. r.l at!oil Concf: rnll G septic tank and other on-site "dt 15.o I?it`7d..i,
rf)ra(c,:i;t.. the On-Site Section a,.', ? 9) 733-2895..
Cl The «pplicant should fie idvi e(. to ;onlad the low.??l he=pith depart-r?ent regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
j If existing water lines %%ill b relocated during the co i.;_ruction, plans for the water line
relocation tTIUSt be sr ..lusted to the Division of. P-t- irontneltal t•°3ealth, Public \Nater
U13r='''r` Section, g°eci I r Services Branch, 11.):34 i•t< Set-vice C enter, Raleigh, North 11; i
2769 ' (33-,' -D', 733-2321
,
I:_, For l 4--a onal and Cei!.r . (_ . e f;o':ylrneii_s, ee the reverse side' of this €?r ?.
,li!}-f cRight P10;`SS 2113,10
Re iewe.r Sec ioniBmi-Io l _ Date
r?..nacru'""':?IEr r,n (cf s F !.v4?tt Response Pg;s 1 and 2 u i put..dc•-.
Gum" ? "'?3sg4.??
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 2, 2006
MEMORANDUM

1, A'
William G. Ross Jr
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, DOT Project Development aild Environmental Analysis
0--L'
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Improvements to Existing Interchange at 1-95 and US 301; Robeson County
REFERENCE: Federal Aid Project No. IMF-1(64)22, WBS No. 35901.1.1, TIP No. 1-4413
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do
not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area
contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Ser4ce Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 OOOne
IOl1Tl1
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone] • Internet: wAfw,enr. state. nc. us
.A74LA.
NCDENR
CEE 0%
MAR 2 5 2005
STANTEC CCtSF'.3LT10
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
March 22, 2005
Ms. Lia E. Miott
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: US 301 By-pass Widening from NC 43/48 to May Drive; Rocky Mount, Nash County
TIP Project No. U-3330
Dear Ms. Miott:
The Natural Heritage Program has records of many rare aquatic animals in the Tar River within
two miles of the project area. Lying roughly 1/2-mile of the project area is the location of three
rare mussel species from the vicinity of Sunset Park:
creeper (Strophitus undulatus), State Threatened
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), State Threatened
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), State Threatened
Roughly 1.5 miles from the project area, in the vicinity of the Seaboard RR bridge over the river,
are records of the following rare aquatic species:
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), State Special Concern and Federal Species of
Concern [fish]
green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), State Endangered and Federal Species of Concern
[mussel]
yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species of
Concern [mussel]
Sedimentation from the project could enter Stony Creek and/or Goose Branch and reach the Tar
River to impact these rare species unless proper sedimentation controls are in place. Thus, it is
important that construction for the project minimize sedimentation, as this portion of the Tar .
River is considered by our Program to be a Nationally significant aquatic habitat.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NOnIeICarOllria
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper Natut all ff
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at <www.ncnhp.org> for
a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the
topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have
questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
WA--? ??
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to US 301 Bypass in Nash County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0301(17), State Project No. 36596.1.1, TIP No. U-3330.
Reference your correspondence dated January 29, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
streams, buffers and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Stony Creek TAR 02 C NSW 28-68
Goose Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-70
UT Hornbeam Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-72-1
UT Tar River TAR 02 WS-IV NSW CA
*303(d) Listed 28-(66.5)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT (or the consultant(s) that requested the comments)
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. These waters are class NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these
streams. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through
best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided
and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0259.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
NorthCarolin
Natimally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at 919-733-9817.
cc: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Jamie Guerrero, Division 4 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy
3. The Tar River is listed 303(d) impaired waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff
to Tar River and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm
water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ
Stormwater Best Management Practices.
4. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical
Area in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS CA
(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
1 1rt ?
PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NORTH CAROLINA
' T i>' STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Howard N. Lee, Chairman
! DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION June St. Clair Atkinson, ED.D., State Superintendent
<? a
WWW.NCPUBLICSCHOOLS.ORG
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Steven M. Taynton, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue
Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP
Project No. U-3330
Enclosed is a second response from Nash/Rocky Mount Schools in regard to the above referenced
inquiry.
ST/pr
Enclosure
.: SCHOOL PLANNING - DIVISION OF SCHOOL SUPPORT :: www.schoolclearinghouse.org
6319 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6319 919.807.3554 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
(2/8/2007) Pamela Ray - Fwd: National Environmental Policy Act Page 1
From: Steve Taynton
To: Pamela Ray
Date: 2/7/2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: National Environmental Policy Act
Pam,
Here is the response for the transportation letter from Nash Rocky Mount
Steve
>>> "Ronald Jancso" <rajancso ,nrms.k12.nc.us> 2/7/2007 3:41 PM >>>
Mr. Stanton, In reference to the memorandum from DOT about the widening
of US 301 we have at this time 5 buses that travel this section of US
301 (from May Dr to Benvenue Rd) 2 to 4 times dailey. By the year 2010
- 2012 this number will definitely increase. If you need any other
information about the buses please feel free to contact me at
252-462-2482.
Thank you,
Ron Jancso - TIMS Data Manager
Nash Rocky Mount Public Schools
Ron Jancso
TIMS Data Manager
Nash - Rocky Mount Schools
Transportation Department
Phone: [phone] or
Main Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

All e-mail correspondence to and from this address
is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law,
which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third
parties, including law enforcement.
APPENDIX
MOBILE AIR SOURCE TO ICS (MSATS) ANALYSIS
MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATS)
QUALITATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
US 301 BYPASS IMPROVEMENTS
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3330
WBS PROJECT NO. 36596.1.1.1
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non- road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates
or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete
combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from
engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements.
Between 2000 and 2020, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce
on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph.
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VMT Emissions
(trillions}year) (tons/year)
0
200, 000
DPN+DE
3
F
it 51b
2000
100,000
20055 2010 2015 2020
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for
oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table
VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for
elemental carbon, organic carbon and S04 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards
were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority
of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21
and the primary six MSATs.
This report includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project.
However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts
of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this report. Due to these limitations,
the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b))
regarding incomplete or unavailable information.
Unavailable or Incomplete Information
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project
would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling to
estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in
order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and a final determination of
health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by
technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the
MSAT health impacts of this project.
• Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has
limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission
factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this
typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission
factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time.
Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and
levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot
adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the
model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission
rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE
6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity
rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE 6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative
analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT
emissions. MOBILE 6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and
performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not
sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to
predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
• Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's
current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated
more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon
monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion
models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some
time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to
predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations
across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting
research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the
analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of
documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the public.
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a
lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT
background concentrations.
• Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and
concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current
techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching
meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments
are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs
near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed
to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-
year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have
to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects
emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties
associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of
factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to
the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in
health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments
would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information
against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSA Ts
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are
a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health
outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to
large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency
conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates
of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of
or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate
the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health
effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS
database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six
prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization
summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the
Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or
mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing
data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the
oral or inhalation routes of exposure.
• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans,
and sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the
combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary
noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function
and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure
relationships have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways.'
The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has
undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary
of the series is not expected for several years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs,
instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot
evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that
would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.
Relevance of unavailable or incomplete information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts on the environment, and evaluation of impacts based upon
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools
do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger
projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT
concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with
enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current
emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller
projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant
adverse impacts on the human environment."
In this document, NCDOT has provided a qualitative assessment of MSAT emissions relative to
the various alternatives, and has acknowledged that all of the project alternatives may result in
increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and
duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from
these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain
science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT
emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to
accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to
qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a
qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis
for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the
various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a
study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic
Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm.
For each alternative in this report, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase
in VMT will lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along parallel routes. The
emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds;
according to EPA's MOBILE 6.2 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except
for diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-
related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably
projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives presented in this report are
nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT
emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions
will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and
2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and
turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-
projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in
the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
Additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the Build Alternatives will have the effect of
moving some traffic closer to nearby development; therefore, under both alternatives there may
be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under the eventual
Preferred Alternative than the No Build Alternative. These localized increases in MSAT
concentrations would likely be most pronounced where widening occurs. However, as
discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the
No-Build Alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current
models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the
localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No
Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in
congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in
other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle
and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will, over time, cause substantial reductions
that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
The qualitative assessment presented above is derived in part from a study conducted by the
FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions among
Transportation Project Alternatives. The findings of this study can be found at
www. fhwa. dot. gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions. htm.