The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutU-3330 (7)Project Commitments Page 1 of 2 FONSI TIP No. U -3330 US 301 BYPASS IMPROVEMENTS ROCKY MOUNT , NORTH CAROLINA TIP PROJECT NO. U -3330 WBS PROJECT NO. 36596.1.1.1 PROJECT COMMITMENTS Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit To reduce the potential for stormwater pol lution 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 protective sediment an d 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. Th e 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 A greement with FMP (dated 6/5/08), 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 wate rshed (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 restrict construction limits to the north of the drainage div ide 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 c onstruction 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 roadwa y embankment that are located within the 100 -year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. Project Commitments Page 2 of 2 FONSI TIP No. U -3330 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Noise Walls: A wall that is 10 feet in height and 1,070 feet long was found to be feasible based on a planning level noise analysis . Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, a design noise wall analysis will be conducted during final design to further investigate the feasibility of a wall at this location. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT i D ECEMBER 2012 Table of Contents I. Type of Action ........................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Description of Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 1 III. Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................................ 2 IV. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 7 V. Selection of the Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................... 10 VI. Summary of Project Impacts .............................................................................................................. 1 1 VII. Comments and Coordination ............................................................................................................. 16 VIII. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................... 2 0 IX. Wetlands Finding .................................................................................................................................. 2 0 X. Floodplain Finding ............................................................................................................................... 2 1 XI. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ................................................................... 22 A ppendix A ppendix A – Agency Responses to Environmental Assessment List of Tables Table 4.1 – 2030 AM and PM Intersection Analysis for Alternatives A, B and A1 ................................ 7 Table 4.2 – Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4.3 – Summary of Costs ....................................................................................................................... 10 List of Exhibits Exhibit 2.1 – Project Location and Study Area Map Exhibit 3.1a -3.1c – Build Alternative A Exhibit 3.2a -3.2c – Build Alternative B Exhibit 3.3a -3.3c – Preferred Alternative A1 Exhibit 9 .1 – Riparian Buffers and W ater Supply Watersheds Exhibit 10 .1 – Floodplains TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 1 D ECEMBER 2012 I. Type of Action This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) describes alternatives considered, and the Preferred Alternative for the proposed US 301 Bypass Improvements (TIP Project No. U -3330). In accordance with the National Environmental Pol icy Act (NEPA), this FONSI describes why it is determined the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and concludes that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required (40 CFR 1508.13). The information presented in this FONSI is a summary of the analyses contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA), dated April 30, 2009. The EA contains supporting project information, including background data on the purpose and need for the proposed project, a discus sion of the affected environment, and a complete description of the anticipated impacts of each alternative considered at that time . To maintain brevity, the EA is incorporated by reference [40 CFR 1500.4(j)]. As a result of the public hearing process af ter EA distribution, a new “hybrid alternative”, A1 , was developed . Th erefore, th is FONSI is based on public and agency responses to the EA, and necessarily includes a full analysis of Alternative A1 . II. Description of Proposed Action The North Carolina De partment of Transportation (NCDOT) 20 12 -20 20 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the widening of a 2.5 mile section of US 301 Bypass in Rocky Mount, North Carolina from just south of SR 1836 (May Drive) to the interchange of NC 43/48 (Benvenu e Road) and US 301 bypass. Exhibit 2 .1 shows the project location. The proposed project is referred to as US 301 Bypass Improvements (TIP Project No. U -3330 ). Right -of -way acquisition is scheduled for 2017, with construction scheduled for 2019 (based on the 2012 -2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program [STIP]). 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, in an area expected to experi ence continued growth and increased traffic. This project is part of the North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor System (SHC) and has been classified as an “expressway”, which envisions a high speed , median - divided, partially -controlled facility withou t traffic signals. Other purpose s are to replace functionally -deficient structures and improve travel conditions for all modes of transportation along TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 2 D ECEMBER 2012 the facility, in order to fulfill the SHC vision. In the project corridor, one bridge is l isted as structurally deficient and three bridges are listed as functionally obsolete. III. Alternatives Considered This section identifies the various alternatives considered to address the transportation deficiencies in the study area . Alternatives that did not me et the needs of the project, or were considered impractical or noncompetitive, were eliminated from further consideration. All alternatives were presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA), with the exception of a newly developed “hybrid alternative”, A1 which is described later in this section. A. Alternatives Studied in the Environmental Assessment Travel Demand Management (TDM) – This alternative includes demand reduction 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/restauran t destinations in the immediate area, make this alternative an ineffective solution for the congestion and safety issues associated with travel on US 301 Bypass. Mass Transit – Although the project study area is served by mass transit, expansion of existing transit services will no t, by itself, 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 desti nations that also draw patrons from rural areas not served by transit. For these reasons, expansion of mass transit was eliminated from detailed study in the Environmental Assessment. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) – Transportation Systems Manag ement (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. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 3 D ECEMBER 2012 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 ruled out as detailed study options . This secti on of US 301 is already designated a bypass of US 301 Business to the east. As well, Interstate 95 parallels US 301 Bypass to the west. Although commercial development is prevalent throughout this section of US 301, the local and regional mix of traffic indicates that improving the existing route is still a viable option and a step toward achieving the local and state long -term vision for the road facility. The US 301 Bypass corridor is bound by commercial properties and is connected to the regional tran sportation 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 f oregoes any improvement to the US 301 Bypass within the project study area. No roadway or intersection improvements w ill 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 City of Rocky Mount’s goal to provide a safe, economical and environmentally sensitive means of moving people, services, and goods through an accessible transp ortation 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 volume increases without f acility improvements will likely 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 TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 4 D ECEMBER 2012 inefficient 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 elim inated 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 the purpose for this project. The No -Build Alternative does, however, provide a basis for comparing the benefits and adverse impacts of the Build Alternatives. Alternative A (conventional) – Alternative A (Exhibit 3.1a – 3.1c) 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 cap acity, 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). Alternative A provides conventional improvements to existing intersectio ns 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. The length of improvements is a pproximately 1.9 miles , from SR 1836 (May Drive) to just south of the NC 43/48 interchange. The Environmental assessment (EA ) presents Alternative A in more detail. Alternative B (superstreet) – Alternative B also widens 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 3.2a -3.2c). Inside shoulders are 6 -feet wide (including 4 -foot paved shoulders), while out side 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 corrid or. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 5 D ECEMBER 2012 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. Alternativ e 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. US 301 Bypass is part of the NC Strategic Highway Corridors Program and designate d as an expressway . T he ultimate goal is to reduce the number of signalized intersections to the maximum extent possible by prioritiz ing through -movement over side -street left -turns and side -street through -movement. The superstreet configuration provides right -in/right - out movements and eliminates left turns from side streets. As shown in Exhibits 3.2a – 3.2c, Alternative B would eliminate left turns from side streets along the US 301 Bypass. Because of the constrained intersection spacing resulting fro m retro -fitting this type of treatment along the heavily developed corridor, Alternative B is not a full super -street design . 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 pro tected (via the use of islands and signals) U -turn location, then turn right onto the desired street. FIGURE 1 EXAMPLE 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.] TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 6 D ECEMBER 2012 By removing left -turns and through movements from the side streets, Alternative B cr eates a corridor that can be controlled by two -phased traffic 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 greatl y improves the traffic flow is due to the ability to coordinate the two -phase signals along the corridor . T raffic progression with minimal delays is provided to the mainline movement under the “superstreet” concept . In addition to traffic flow improveme nts, the elimination of left turns from the side streets increase s safety by reducing the potential conflict points at each intersection. The EA presents Alternative B in more detail. B. Development of a New Alternative after the Environmental Assessmen t and Public Hearing Following the public hearing and comment period, a post -hearing meeting was held with the project team and Rocky Mount City officials to discuss the verbal and written comments received as a result of the public hearing. Based on input from the public and the City of Rocky Mount, the NCDOT project team developed a new hybrid alternative, Alternative A1, which modified Alternative A by adding a superstreet in front of the Golden East Crossing Mall. A capacity analysis , pre liminary design , and impact analysis was then completed to compare Alternative A1 with Alternative A and Alternative B. This information was presented at the Preferred Alternatives Selection meeting held in December 2011. Attendees at this meeting includ ed NCDOT staff and representatives from the City of Rocky Mount. A detailed description of Alternative A1 is provided below . Alternative A1 – Alternative A1 also widens existing 301 Bypass from a 4 -lane facility to a 6 -lane facility, by adding an outside travel lane in both directions. Alternative A1 (Exhibit 3.3a – 3.3c) is an alternative that melds attributes of Alternatives A and B. Whereas Alternative A is a c onventional widening for the project length, and Alternative B proposes three (3) distinct superstreet configurations, “hybrid” Alternative A1 adopts conventional widening for most of the project length, yet places a single superstreet in the vicinity of t he Golden East Mall. The improvements to US 301 upon which the conventional intersection portion of this project will be constructed will begin at SR 1836 (May Drive ) and continue northward through the US 64 Bypass Interchange. From the US 64 Bypass to the NC 43/48 interchange, a superstreet configuration is TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 7 D ECEMBER 2012 proposed , with protected leftover lanes that are located between the U -turn ends at Sutter’s Creek Road and Independence Drive . Improvements on the conventional portion of the project will consist of 12 foot lanes with 10 foot shoulders, 4 foot of which will be full depth pavement. The superstreet design follows NCDOT Guide for Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (R -R -R) g uidelines to minimize the design footprint. Impacts are minimized by using 8 foot shoulders (4 foot of which will be full depth pavement) and reducing ditch slopes to 4:1 and cut/fill slopes to 3:1. Auxiliary turning lane widths on US 301may be reduce d to 11 foot lanes. Hybrid A lternative A1 compromises between Alternative A and Alternative B in regards to fulfilling the Strategic Highway Corridor vision . IV. Comparison of Alternatives Alternative A1 was identified after completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA). Therefore , a new traffic analysis, impacts summary and cost comparison tables for all three build alternatives is provided for comparison. The following tables provide a comparison of traffic capacity, impacts , and costs between the thre e alternatives. TABLE 4.1 2030 AM AND PM INTER SECTION ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVES A, B AN D A1 Alternative Intersection Signal/ Unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS Alternative A Independence S 22.7 C 32 C Alternative B 8.5 A 14.2 B Alternative A1 11.7 – 14.1 B 14.3 – 19.6 B Alternative A Sutter’s Creek S 31.5 C 48.6 D Alternative B 10.3 – 12.8 B 7.5 – 21.7 A/C * Alternative A1 9.8 – 12.9 A/B * 8.2 – 23.9 A/C * Alternative A Home Depot S 10 B 8.1 A Alternative B 10.6 B 19.5 B Alternative A1 15.2 B 13.8 B TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 8 D ECEMBER 2012 TABLE 4.1 2030 AM AND PM INTER SECTION ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVES A, B AN D A1 C ON’T Alternative Intersection Signal/ Unsignalized AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS Alternative A Rowe Drive/US 64 Bypass S 20.8 C 37 D Alternative B 30.7 D 22.1 C Alternative A1 S 28.6 – 32.9 B/C * 28 – 39 C/D* Alternative A US 64 Bypass Ramps S 26.1 C 13.7 B Alternative B 11.2 – 23.2 B/C * 10.3 – 21.2 C Alternative A1 Not Applicable Due to Design Alternative A Lowe’s Driveway S 11.7 B 12.4 B Alternative B 10.7 – 16.8 B 11.7 – 15.0 B Alternative A1 S 2.8 – 12.9 A/B * 3.6 – 11.9 A/B * Alternative A Stone Rose S 27.7 C 24.3 C Alternative B 15.0 B 20.7 C Alternative A1 S 49.5 D 54.8 D Alternative A1 US 64 Bus . Entrance Ramps S/Free/Stop 8.5 – 16.7 B 13.9 – 14.7 B Alternative A Not Applicable Due to Design Alternative B Not Applicable Due to Design Alternative A May Drive S 18.6 B 16.4 B Alternative B 7.5 A 9.9 A Alternative A1 S 40.9 D 32.2 C Notes: Alternative B has seven (7) U -turn locations, the majority of which operate at an LOS of B. Alternative A1 has U -turn locations at Independence Drive and Sutter Creek, both of which operate at an LOS of B. * LOS combinations (ex. A/C) represen t a range in delay (seconds/per vehicle). The range in delay is due to the superstreet U -turns. The superstreet U -turns and the mainline intersections are grouped together for ease of comparison. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 9 D ECEMBER 2012 According the FHWA and NCDOT, t he results of the intersection analysis indicate that all the intersections for all of the evaluated alternatives function at an acceptable LOS as a result of the proposed improvements. TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS EVALUATION FACTOR ALTERNATIVE A ALTERN ATIVE B ALTERNATIVE A1 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS Residential Relocations 0 0 0 Business Relocations 0 0 0 Schools/Parks Impacted 0 0 0 Churches Displaced/Cemeteries Affected 0 0 0 Homes Impacted by Noise 1 17 22 17 Noise Wall Considerations 2 Yes Yes Yes INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS Transmission Lines Yes Yes Yes Natural Gas Lines No No No Water/Sewer Lines Yes Yes Yes CULTURAL RESOURCE FACTORS Potential/Recorded Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 Historic Properties Affected 0 0 0 NATURAL RESOURCE FACTORS Protected Species Impacted 0 0 0 Water Supply Watersheds 3 Yes (WS -IV, CA) Yes (WS -IV, CA) Yes (WS -IV, CA) Upland Natural Systems – acres (sq. feet)4 0 0.99 (42,983) 0 Wetland/Aquatic Systems – acres (sq. feet) 4 0. 85 (36,940) 1.08 (46,906) 0.81 (35,402) Stream Impacts – linear feet 173 251 151 Riparian Buffer Impacts – acres (sq. feet) 5 0.13 (5,734) 0.19 (8,426) 0.07 (2,875) PHYSICAL FACTORS Floodplains 6 Yes Yes Yes Farmland – acres 0 0 0 Hazardous Materials Sites 10 10 10 Exceedances of CO NAAQS (Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards) 0 0 0 Notes: 1 The No -Build Alternative w ill 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 Wetland/Aquatic Systems are b ased on the build alternatives construction limits plus an extended 25 feet. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 10 D ECEMBER 2012 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. TABLE 4.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS ALTE RNATE LENGTH (MILES) CON S TRUCTION COST RIGHT OF WAY UTILITIES TOTAL Alternative A (conventional widening) 2.5 $21,900,000 $6,000,000 $3,626,630 $31,526,630 Alternative B (Superstreet) 2.5 $26,300,000 $9,000,000 $3,626,630 $39,026,630 Alternative A1 (Hybrid) 2.5 $21,900,000 $7,125,000 $3,626,630 $32,651,630 Notes: • Alternative A1 design r econfigures the loop at 64 Business • Alternative A1 i ncorporates elements of both Alternative A and Alternative B • Alternative A1 is $1,125,000 more than Alternative A. • Alternative B is $7,500,000 more than Alternative A and $6,375,000 more than Alternative A1 V. Selection of the Preferred Alternative Alternatives A, B, and A1 present comparable solutions. Of note, differences among natural resource impacts between alternatives were negligible and therefore not a primary factor in determining the Preferred Alternative . Key consideration s included local concerns, comments received , cost, overall traffic performance, and safety issues in front of the G olden East Mall . Alternative A1 provides the solution that best attains a balance of meeting state transportation needs while addressing local concerns. T herefore, NCDOT recommend s Alternative A1 as the project’s Preferred (or Selected ) Alternative (Exhibit 3.3a – 3.3c). Alternative A1 provides the superior traffic efficiency of a superstreet design in the most congested location, melded with the business community’s comfort and familiarity with access control measures associated with a conventional widening. Alternative A1 best suits the future land use planning goals and objectives of the C ity of Rocky Mount . T he cost of Alternative A1 is also comparable with the lower cost of Alternative A, which is $6 million less than Alt. B . Further, Alt ernative A1 provides an acceptable traffic LOS in the design year for all intersections , and is expected to cause less driver confusion than Alt ernative B in most location s. I n most locations, Alternative A1 yields better traffic capacity than Alternative A and yields comparable traffic conditions to Alternative B. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 11 D ECEMBER 2012 VI. S ummary of Project Impacts Descriptions of the anticipated Alternative A1 impacts are provided in the fol lowing section. Tables 4.2 and 4.3, presented in the previous section, provide a quantified summary of the impacts and costs associated with the Preferred Alternative : A1. Land Use and Transportation Plans - Alternative A1 is consistent with local land use and transportation plans, including 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 identified in the transportation section of the City of Rocky Mount’s co mprehensive plan, Together Tomorrow (City of Rocky Mount, 2003) with the goal of reducing traffic congestion along US 301 Bypass. Relocations – No business or residential relocations are associated with the Preferred Alternative. L and Use – The project s tudy area is primarily urban in nature , with commercial development bordering a large portion of the roadway corridor. 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 – 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 trav elers through the area. Based on these considerations, the project would not create any disproportionate effects to low -income or minority populations. Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources – No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from the proposed project. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 12 D ECEMBER 2012 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) 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 by the project. Terrestrial Communities – Mesic/Mixed Hardwood Forest and Bottomland Hardwood wetland communities will experience minor impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative . Approximately 0.0 acres of upland impacts and 0.81 acres of wetland impacts are associated with the construction of the Preferred Alternative. Waters of the United States – The Preferred Alternative modifies three existing crossings under US 301 Bypass , with the addition of fill material for the widening of the roadway. Approximately 151 linear feet of stream impacts are associated with the construction of the Preferred Alternative. Rare and Protected Species – The Preferred Alternative will not affec t any federal or state protected species. Field surveys were conducted in June 2007 to assess the suitability of aquatic habitat in Stony Creek and Goose Branch for the Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon ) and Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana ). 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 offer inadequate habitat for mussel species. A subsequent assessment of the UT to the Tar Ri ver in November 2008 determined that the stream is too small and urbanized to provide suitable mussel habitat. Water Quality – Construction of the project will slightly increase the amount of impervious surface within the project study area, which will su bsequently increase stormwater runoff. To reduce the potential for stormwater , the NCDOT will 1) include stormwater treatment devices in the proposed roadway’s final design; and 2) utilize protective sediment and erosion control best management practices (BMPs) during construction as detailed in 15A NCAC 4B .0124 (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds ). The hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 13 D ECEMBER 2012 state agency for administering FEMA’s National Flood I nsurance Program, to determine status of the 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). 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 radi us of a water intake . Measures will be taken to restrict construction limits to the north of the drainage divide However, if construction limits cannot be maintained north of the drainage divide, then NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will investigate the need for ha zardous spill containment measures during the final design stage. Riparian Buffers – R iparian buffers are limited due to the urban nature of the project study area . F inal design of the proposed project will maintain adherence to the Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0259) as required. 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. No impacts to prime, unique, or important farmlands are assoc iated with the proposed project. Air Quality – Nash County is currently a maintenance area based on 1997 Ozone Standards. Th e project would not have any adverse effects on air quality and conformity . The project is included in the current Long Rang e Transportation Plan (LRTP) and has been modeled and inc orporated in the latest conformity analysis of the Rocky Mount MPO . Noise – The Preferred Alternative w ill impact 17 noise receivers, however; the No -Build Alternative w ill impact 16 receivers, indi cating that noise impacts would occur with or without the proposed project due to the increased numbers of vehicles using the roadway. A noise wall was evaluated for the west end of the project near the Rosedale subdivision. A wall that is 10 feet in height and 1,070 feet long was found to be feasible based on a planning level noise analysis . Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, a design noise wall analysis will be conducted during final design to further TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 14 D ECEMBER 2012 investigate the feasibility of a wall at this location. Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs) – New ICEs generated by the Preferred Alternative are limited, as the amount of new impervious surface created by the roadway improvements is minimal. Potential effects include ecosystem -rela ted 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 and are anticipated to continue through the project’s 2 030 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 – There are ten underground storage tanks (USTs) loc ated in the project study area; however, no adverse environmental effects w ill be created by the alteration of these sites. No hazardous waste sites, landfills, or other geo - environmental concerns were identified within the study area. Utilities – Water, stormwater, natural gas, and sanitary sewer, fiber optic, and electrical power are located throughout the project study area. The proposed project will require the relocation of numerous existing underground and overhead utilities, with the possibility o f short -term interruptions to service during construction. The final locations of utility work will be determined during final design. Direct Impact Avoidance & Minimization –Impacts to wetlands, streams and businesses were minimized by adjusting alignm ents , widths and slopes; and, reducing the design footprint in an effort to minimize impacts. Permits A list of permits that may be required for this project is provided below. • Section 401 General Water Quality Certification – A NCDWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 NWP. A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification will be required for any activity that may result in a discharge into “Waters of the United States ” or for which an issuance of a federal TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 15 D ECEMBER 2012 permit is required. 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 s tandards. Based on the anticipated wetland (0.81 acres) impacts a 401 Water Quality Certification will be required. • Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules - 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 t he 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 dif fuse (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. 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 mi tigation 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. The Preferred Alternative (A1) impacts 15 1 linear feet of stream and 0.07 acres of riparian buffer, therefore a buffer mitigation plan (including use of the N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program) must be provided to NCDWQ prior to the approval of the General Water Quality Certification. • Sec tion 404 (Impacts to “Waters of the United States”) – Impacts to “Waters of the United States” fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Discharges of dredge or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands, streams, or open waters associated with the constr uction of the bridge or other roadway improvements will require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. The proposed project impacts 0.81 acres of wetlands, which TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 16 D ECEMBER 2012 exceed s the NWP permit thresholds for wetland/stream impacts (0.5 ‐acre cumulative wetland impac t). Therefore, an Individual Section 404 permit will likely be required. • State Stormwater Permit - Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). After final designs are completed, NCDOT will coordinate with regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary permits. Since the project lies within the Tar -Pamlico basin, the Tar -Pamlico Rivers Nutrient Management Strategy: Basinwide Stormwater Requirements apply. NCDOT is subject to these rules for specific construction activities. The affected local government will notify the NCDOT of the required nutrient removal prior to construction. VII. Comments and Coordination The following sections describe public involvement and agency coordination efforts conducted after publishing the Environmental Assessment (EA). Circulation of the Environmental Assessment – The EA was circulated to federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments on March 10, 2010. The EA and project mapping were also made available for public review. The review period for the EA closed in June 2010. Agency Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment – Comments on the EA were received from the federal and state agencies. These letters are contained in Appendix A. Project - specific comments requiring a detailed response are included in the following bullets. • US Environmental Protection Agency (March 17, 2010) - “…EPA has not identified any substantial environmental concerns for the proposed project. EPA notes that the EA is very comprehensive and includes a very detailed impact summary table at Table S.1. EPA notes the following potential impacts to human and natural resources based upo n either Alternatives A or B: noise receptor impacts of 17 or 22; terrestrial forest impacts of 0.1 or 0.7 acres; wetland impacts of 0.6 acres for each; stream impacts of 250 or 370 linear feet; riparian buffer impacts of 0.1 or 0.2 acres; and 10 hazardous material sites each. EPA notes that the stream systems that are potentially impacted include the Tar River and an unnamed tributary (UT) to the Tar River and that TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 17 D ECEMBER 2012 they are included on the 303(d) listed of impaired waters. EPA requests that NCDOT conside r during planning and final design the most stringent of soil erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management practices to minimize potential water quality impacts. EPA plans to attend future hydraulic and permit review meetings that may be conducted by the NCDOT for the proposed project.” Response: The commitment to include stormwater treatment devices in the proposed roadway’s final design and 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 ) is being carried forward in this FONSI and will be resolved during the final design. - “…EPA notes that the EA indicates that a noise wall is being considered near t he Rosedale Avenue subdivision. . “ Response: For purposes of the noise analysis, noise walls were evaluated for feasibility and reasonableness. A noise wall was evaluated for the west end of the project near the Rosedale subdivision. Based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy, NCDOT will furth er analyze the justification and viability of a noise wall at this location during final design. • North Carolina Division of Water Quality (April 6, 2010) Project Specific Comments provided below: − “…Goose Branch and Hornbeam Branch are class C:NSW waters of the State. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these w aters. NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQs Stormwater Best Management Practices .” Response: Comment noted. TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 18 D ECEMBER 2012 − “…Stony Creek is class C;NSW, 303(d) waters of the state. The Tar river is class WS -IV, NSW, CA, 303(d) waters of the state. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented in accordance with Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds to reduc e the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQs Stormwater Best Management Practices .” Re sponse: Comment noted. − “…Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical Area (CA) in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project implementation, NCDWQ req uests that NCDOT 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 (Wa ter Supply Critical Area) classifications. Response: 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 ). - “…This project is within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts shall be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0259. New development activities located in the protected 50 -foot wide riparian areas wi thin the basin shall be limited to “uses” identified within and constructed in Accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0259. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 19 D ECEMBER 2012 impacts resulting from activities classified as “allowable with mitigation” within the “Table of Uses” section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be provided to NCDWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification. Response: Co mment noted. • NC Wildlife Resources Commission (March 2, 2007) − “…NCDOT proposes to widen an approximate 2.1 mile urban section of the US 301 bypass from a 4 lane to a 6 lane facility. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of this facility include 0.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and up to 370 linear feet of perennial stream. The document reflects prior coordination, comments, and recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources in the project study area. At this tim e NCDOT has not selected a preferred alternative, however we will continue to assess the impacts associated with the design and construction of this project. We concur with the EA, and appreciate the opportunity to comment.” Response: Comment noted. Pr e -Hearing Open House and Combined Public Hearing - In accordance with 23 USC 128, the North Carolina Department of Transportation certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held, and the social, economic and environmental impacts, con sistency with local community planning goals and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. A Public Hearing was held on June 17, 2010 at the Rocky Mount Shrine Club in Rocky Mount. The meeting was advertised via a newsletter that announced the meeting, on the NCDOT website, and via a press release to local media. The Informal Public Hearing wa s held from 2:00 PM to 6:30 PM with a drop -in format and no formal presentation. Displays available for review included hearing maps of A lternatives A and B and travel time comparisons of the alternatives, a n animated VISSIM TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 20 D ECEMBER 2012 simulation of the access modification alternative (Alternative B), and a PowerPoint slideshow which provided detailed project background information. Based on the sign in sheets 39 people attend ed the Public Hearing. Summary of Public Hearing Comments – A total of six written comments were received at the hearing or during the 30 -day comment period following the hearing. A complete record of these comments is available in the project files. Steven Spiegel (Golden East Mall ), Gabe Rowe (Gabe Rowe Nissan), and Fred Turnage (Cha irman, Rocky Mount Chamber of Commerce) provided their written support for Alternative A, the conventional widening alternative. In his comments , Mr. Turnage noted that Chamber members along the US 301 Bypass corridor were surveyed as to which alternative they preferred . Alternative A was unanimously selected as the preferred alternative [Note: Four citizens responded to the survey, two were outside the project study area and the other two, who were business owners inside the project study area, were in support of Alternative A]. Bradley Walters (Gas System Engineer, City of Rocky Mount) and Bob League, AICP, (Principal Transportation Planner, City of Rocky Mount) supported Alternative B, the superstreet alternative . Mr. League noted that City, along with the staff members of the MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (Peter Varney, Brad Kerr, and Steve Yetman), support ed Alternative B (super street design ) for its long term value of better traffic efficiency and safety . VIII. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment Based on agency responses and review of the Environmental Assessment (EA), there were no additions or revisions to the EA. However, updates since the EA in clude development and evaluation of an additional alternative, Alternative A1, as previously discussed in Section III.B. IX. Wetland Impacts Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of “Waters of the United States” as defined in Title 33 of t he Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987 Guidelines. Wetlands are found in the transitional zone between terrestrial and aquatic habitats and are influenced to varying degrees by both. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or g roundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 21 D ECEMBER 2012 saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Wetland W (see Exhibit 9 .1, Inset C) is a small riverine wetland located adjacent to the unnamed tributary (UT ) to the Tar River located in the southernmost portion of the study area . This wetland was delineated when the design of Alternative B necessitated the extension of the project study area southward to include the crossing of a UT to the Tar River. However, t he USACE Jurisdictional Determination for this wetland was not pursue d since ultimately A1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative and does not impact Wetland W. Wetland impacts for the Preferred Alternative total 0.81 acres , which is slightly less tha n the other alternatives . These impacts occur to the wetland that lies between the east side of US 301 Bypass and Stony Creek (near the Lowes Hardware and the US 64 Bypass Interchang e). Stream impacts for the Preferred Alternative total 151 linear feet , which is the lowest impact of the three alternatives . Impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated by the USACE, in cooperation with the USFWS and the USEPA, through the CWA Section 404 permitting process. Issuance of a federal Section 404 permit requires a state Section 401 Water Qua lity Certification, which is administered by the NC Division of Water Quality. Compensatory mitigation for the proposed project w ill likely be provided through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The EEP was established on July 22, 2003 through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the NCDOT, NCDENR, and USACE. Compensatory mitigation w ill be provided in sufficient quantity and quality to offset project impacts in accordance with the requirements of the CWA of 1970, as amended. X. Floodplain Imp acts The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with federal, state, and local governments, has developed floodway boundaries and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Nash County. A considerable portion of the project study area is wi thin 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 TIP P ROJECT U -33 30 US 301 B YPASS I MPROVEMENTS F INDING OF N O S IGNIFICANT I MPACT 22 D ECEMBER 2012 US 64 Bypass interchange. Exhibit 10 .1 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 fl ood) (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). 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 Revi sion (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA -regulated stream(s). XI. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) This FONSI , in conjunction with the EA (incorp orated by reference), have been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. No significant impacts to natu ral, social, ecological, cultural, economic, or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans, and the project has been coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies. In view of this evaluation and based on resp onses to the EA and subsequent public involvement , it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI ) is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis is required. Table 11.1 summarizes the anticipated impacts associated with the proposed projects and assesses their significance based on each impact’s context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). The following individuals can be contacted for additional information on t he proposed project: John F. Sullivan III, P.E. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Division Administrator Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548 Telephone: (919) 856 -4346 Telephone: (919) 707 -6000