Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2233B Rutherfordton Bypass EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 US 221 Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) Rutherford County State Project 8.1891001 WBS Element 34400.1.2 TIP Project R-2233B ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS STATE RECORD OF DECISION In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act OCTOBER 2013 Additional Information regarding this action may be obtained by contacting: Richard W. Hancock, PE, Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 (919) 707-6000 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT COMMITMENTS .............................................................................................. i 1.0 DECISION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................. 1 3.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 2 4.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM .......................................................................... 3 5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES 1 Detailed Study Alterna A-1 A-2 A-2 A-2 LIST OF FIGURES 1Vicinity Map 2Preliminary Alternatives 3Detailed Study Alternatives 4Selected Alternative B1 2012/2040 No-Build Traffic Volumes B2 2012/2040 No-Build Level of Service B3 2012/2040 Build Traffic Volumes B4 2012/2040 Build Level of Service B5 Potential Noise Wall Locations APPENDICES Appendix A Description of the Selected Alternative Appendix B Revisions to the State Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C Comments on the State Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 PROJECT COMMITMENTS US 221 Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) Rutherford County State Project 8.1891001 WBS Element 34400.1.1 TIP Project R-2233B Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit/Roadway Design Unit NCDOT will coordinate with local officials as the proposed project progresses regarding the status of local greenway plans and proposed walking trails. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit-Natural Environment Section The project will be resurveyed for the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf prior to construction. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants that will be impacted by the project will be transplanted to the Tate property conservation area. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit-Historic Architecture Group Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing condition of Ruth Elementary School in accordance with the Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan. Copies of the documentation will be deposited in the files of the State Historic Preservation Office and the files of the Historic Architecture Group of NCDOT. NCDOT will compile a historic context documenting the history of Consolidation-Era public schools within Rutherford, Polk and Cleveland counties. The context will compile documentary materials, bibliographical sources, National Register eligibility considerations and digital images. The final report will be in a digital format and will be provided on a CD-ROM to the State Historic Preservation Office. Another copy of the report will be deposited in the files of the Historic Architecture Group of NCDOT. The final digital product will be completed and distributed within three years of the execution of the Memorandum of A effects on Ruth School. State Record of Decision-R-2233B Page 1 of 5 October 2013 i EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit-Historic Architecture Group/Rutherford County The Rutherford County Manager will establish a committee to oversee the development of an adaptive use plan for the campus and buildings of Ruth Elementary School within six months of the filing of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the . Members of the committee shall include representatives from the State Historic Preservation Office and the Historic Architecture Group of NCDOT along with municipal staff and local citizens with a demonstrated interest in the school and its potential redevelopment. NCDOT will provide funds not to exceed $10,000 for use by the committee to accomplish the following tasks: identify and analyze the issues associated with reusing the structures and campus, develop alternatives for consideration and produce an adaptive reuse plan for the site. If the Rutherford County Manager chooses not to establish the committee, no funds will be available for this study. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit-Traffic Noise and Air Quality Group/Public Involvement and Community Studies Group/Roadway Design Unit For the proposed bypass, five noise barriers were determined to be feasible and reasonable. Property owners and residents of all the noise receptors that would benefit from construction of the five likely noise barriers will be sent ballots to allow them to vote on whether or not they want the noise barrier that would benefit their property or residence. Consideration of the noise barriers will continue unless a simple majority of the distributed points are returned indicating the balloted voters do not want the abatement measure. Roadway Design Unit 2:1 side slopes will be used at all stream crossings, wetlands and at dwarf-flowered heartleaf sites along the project. A portion of existing SR 1537 (Water Works Road) will be left in place to provide access to a Town of Rutherfordton lift station located northeast of the SR 1536 (Old US 221)/SR 1537 intersection. Access will be provided to a Town of Rutherfordton lift station located in the southwest quadrant of the proposed US 74 Business-US 221 Alternate (Charlotte Road) interchange with the bypass. ADA-compliant pedestrian crossings will be provided at the intersection of US 64 with US 74A (Railroad Avenue) and at the Overmountan Victory National Historic Trail crossing of the proposed SR 1520 (Rock Road) realignment. State Record of Decision-R-2233B Page 2 of 5 October 2013 ii EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 A sidewalk will be constructed on the south side of US 64 from the intersection of US 64 with US 74A to the proposed driveway to Ruth and Trinity Schools, in order to accommodate the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. NCDOT will provide access between the proposed sidewalk along US 64 and Southern Street via a pathway from the vicinity of the relocated driveway for Ruth and Trinity schools in order to accommodate pedestrians who wish to follow the historic route of the Overmountain Victory National HistoricTrail. NCDOT will design this pathway for pedestrian use and construct it in a manner that is ADA compliant to the greatest extent possible. NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the Overmountian Victory National Historic Trail and the SHPO regarding the trail by providing post-hydraulic design plans to the parties with a 30-day review and comment period. Structure Design Unit A sidewalk and 42-inch hand rails will be provided on the south side of the proposed bridge carrying US 64 over the bypass, in order to accommodate the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. Roadway Design Unit/Division Thirteen/Signing and Delineation Unit NCDOT will install signage provided by the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail to mark and indicate the status of the pathway as an official portion of the trail. The number of signs and their location will be determined in consultation with the Trail and in accordance with NCDOT policy. Roadway Design Unit/Structure Design Unit/Transportation Program Management Unit/Town of Rutherfordton The Town of Rutherfordton has requested decorative murals or etches be provided on some of the structures for the proposed bypass. The Town will provide NCDOT with the location of the suggested treatments and drawings or photographs depicting the etches or murals. NCDOT will evaluate the practicality and cost of the etches or murals and provide the anticipated cost to the Town. If practical, these decorative treatments will be included in the project if the Town will agree in writing to fund the treatments prior to the final design field inspection for R-2233BA. A municipal agreement will be prepared prior to project construction regarding State Record of Decision-R-2233B Page 3 of 5 October 2013 iii EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Roadway Design Unit/Roadside Environmental Unit/Division Thirteen/ Transportation Program Management Unit The Town of Rutherfordton has requested landscaping as a part of the proposed project. NCDOT will coordinate further with the Town regarding landscaping during the preparation of right of way and construction plans for the project. A municipal agreement will be prepared prior to project construction regarding any maintenance responsibilities the Town may have for landscape plantings. Roadway Design Unit/Transportation Program Management Unit/Town of Rutherfordton The Town of Rutherfordton has requested decorative traffic signal poles be provided at locations where traffic signals are proposed. NCDOT will coordinate with the Town during preparation of project plans regarding decorative options for signal poles and the locations where the Town would like decorative poles. A municipal agreement will be prepared prior to project construction regarding Hydraulics Unit/Natural Environment Unit Prior to the Concurrence Point 4B NEPA/404 merger team meeting, the merger team will review Streams 2UT1C and 1N to determine if additional minimization is feasible. Hydraulics Unit The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) for approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each new crossing of a FEMA regulated stream. Division 13 Construction 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 located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. State Record of Decision-R-2233B Page 4 of 5 October 2013 iv EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 In the event unanticipated archaeological discoveries, such as unmarked cemeteries, are made during construction, the NCDOT Archaeology Group will be notified and consulted immediately for any necessary resolution or coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, prior to any additional construction work in that area. Location and Surveys Unit/Roadway Design Unit Unmarked graves are believed to be located behind the church building on the nd Mountain View Baptist Church property. The church is located on 2 Street in Rutherfordton. Efforts will be made to locate these graves and avoid them if practicable during final surveys and design for the project. Roadside Environmental Unit/Division 13 Construction where possible. State Record of Decision-R-2233B Page 5 of 5 October 2013 v EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 1.0DECISION The proposed action involves constructing the US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton, in Rutherford County. NCDOT selects the preferred alternative, Alternative 3, as the proposed action for this project. The proposed bypass will be constructed as a four-lane roadway with a 46-foot median. Portions of the bypass will be constructed on new location. Full control of access will be obtained for new location sections of the bypass. Partial control of access (one access per parcel with no other access) will be obtained for sections of the project along existing roadways. The proposed project is approximately 8.5 miles long. This project is identified as project number R-2233B in the approved 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The initial right of way acquisition and construction for the project are scheduled for state fiscal years 2016 and 2021, respectively, in the draft 2013-2023 NCDOT Program and Resource Plan. The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Preliminary alternatives considered for the project included the following: No-Build Alternative Alternate Modes of Transportation Improve Existing Facility Construct Bypass It was determined the No-Build Alternative and alternate modes of transportation would not fulfill the purpose and need for the project. Also, improving the existing facility through downtown Rutherfordton would have excessive impacts to the National Register-listed Downtown Rutherfordton Historic District. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Based on the initial evaluation, only the Bypass Alternative was determined to meet the goals of the proposed project. A total of nine bypass alternatives were investigated for this project (see Figure 2). Of these, four alternatives were selected for detailed study. These four alternatives are shown on Figures 1 and 3. Table 1 presents a comparison of the detailed study alternatives. EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Table 1 Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison Alternatives 3 4 6 US 74A Residential 99 163 91 88 Relocatees Business 27 43 26 32 Relocatees Wetlands Affected (Ac.) 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.7 (Delineated) Stream Impacts 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200 (Ft.) Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf Impacts 371.5 172.3 371.5 371.5 (Sq Ft.) Impacted Noise 9 0 0 2 Receptors Length New Location 7.2 4.3 8.3 3.8 (Miles) Total Length 8.5 9.3 9.4 8.7 (Miles) Total Cost (Million) $223.0 $219.0 $234.0 $200.0 Impacts and costs based on field surveys and design at time of selection of the preferred alternative (February 2010). The design, impacts and costs of the selected alternative (Alternative 3) have been updated since that time and may differ from the information presented here. 3.0SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 3, described in Appendix A and shown on Figure 2, is the recommended alternative for the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass. Alternative 3 was selected for this project for the following reasons: Alternative 3 would affect fewer homes and businesses than Alternative 4. Alternative 3 would affect less wetlands and streams than Alternative 6. Although Alternative 3 would affect more wetlands and streams and relocate more homes than Alternative US 74A, Alternative 3 has the following advantages over Alternative US 74A: Alternative 3 provides a higher level of service than Alternative US 74A (level of service B versus D). Alternative 3 potentially provides increased safety. 2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Alternative 3 will provide a lower travel time for motorists using US 221 in the project area than any of the other alternatives. Alternative 3 has less potential for indirect and cumulative impacts than Alternative US 74A. No access will be provided along Alternative 3 between US 74 Business-US 221A and US 64, while one access per property will be provided in this area with Alternative US 74A. Alternative US 74A will relocate 30 percent (9 of 30) of the businesses within the Town of Ruth and may require the relocation of the largest employer in Ruth. Alternative 3 will only affect five businesses within Ruth. Most comments from citizens and local officials after the public hearing have been in favor of Alternative 3. The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with the selection of Alternative 3 at a merger team meeting held on February 17, 2010. The selection of Alternative 3 for the proposed bypass was announced to area residents by a newsletter sent out in March 2010. 4.0 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM During development of Alternative 3, the following changes were made to the proposed design in order to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams: The design of the proposed interchange with existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton was changed from a diamond interchange to a half-cloverleaf interchange. No ramps are proposed in the northern quadrants of the interchange. This design change will reduce stream impacts by 375 feet. The bridge over SR 2201 (Thunder Road) was extended by approximately 500 feet to bridge Stonecutter Creek and an unnamed tributary to Stonecutter Creek (Stream 1E). This design change will reduce stream impacts by 1,111 feet and wetland impacts by 0.02 acre. 2:1 side slopes are proposed in jurisdictional areas and in areas containing the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf. The design of the ramp in the northeast quadrant of the proposed US 64 interchange was changed. The ramp will now more closely follow the alignment of the proposed loop. This change will reduce stream impacts at this location by approximately 243 feet. This change in the design was made prior to selection of Alternative 3. The alignment of the proposed connection between SR 1536 (Old US 221) and SR 1520 (UT2K). This design change will reduce stream impacts by approximately 288 feet at this location. The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on avoidance and minimization measures for the project at a meeting held on April 14, 2011. 3 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Additional measures to minimize harm proposed include: The project will be resurveyed for the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf prior to construction. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants that will be impacted by the project will be transplanted to the Tate property conservation area. Prior to the Concurrence Point 4B NEPA/404 merger team meeting, the merger team will review Streams 2UT1C and 1N to determine if additional minimization is feasible. Additional minimization measures will be considered as the project progresses. 5.0CONCLUSION This final statement is in conformance with applicable provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and satisfactorily describes the anticipated environmental impacts, including physiographic and cultural effects. Comments on the SFEIS have been reviewed, and no new substantive issues or impacts were identified; therefore, the SFEIS remains valid. All avoidance and minimization measures identified in the SFEIS will be incorporated into the project. Based on the analysis l consideration of all social, economic and environmental factors and input from the public involvement process, NCDOT selects the preferred alternative, Alternative 3, as the proposed action for this project. ______________ ____________________________________________ Date Richard W. Hancock, PE Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation 4 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED US 221 RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS RUTHERFORD COUNTY TIP PROJECT R-2233B FIGURE 2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Description Alternative 3 involves widening a portion of existing US 221 and constructing a bypass on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to south of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road). From south of SR 2194 to existing US 221 north of Rutherfordton, a bypass on new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton. This new location roadway would cross SR 2194, existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton, SR 2193 (Old Stonecutter Road), SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate (Charlotte Road), Green Street and US 64 before connecting back with existing US 221 at SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of Rutherfordton. US 221 would then be widened from SR 1536 to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). The total length of Alternative 3 is 8.5 miles. Grade separations will be provided at Poors Ford Road, Old Stonecutter Road, Thunder Road and Green Street. No access to the bypass will be provided from these roadways. Interchanges will be constructed at existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton, US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate and US 64. North of US 64, the proposed bypass will transition to an expressway facility. A "superstreet" design is proposed. Left turns onto the bypass will not be allowed, but left turns from the bypass will be accommodated at directional median crossovers. Median crossovers and wider pavement will also be provided in some locations between intersections in order to accommodate u-turns. At-grade intersections and directional median crossovers are proposed at Old US 221, existing US 221, SR 1367 (Thompson Road) and the northern intersection of Roper Loop Road. A 70 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project on new location. A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project which involve widening existing US 221. The roadway typical section will be a four-lane roadway with a 46-foot median. Twelve-foot lanes and ten-foot outsided shoulders (four-foot paved) are proposed for the project. Proposed right of way for the project ranges between approximately 200 feet to 300 feet. Right of way widths greater than 300 feet may be required in some areas with high fill slopes. Partial control of access is proposed for the portion of the project which involves widening existing US 221 from north of US 74 Bypass to south of Poors Ford Road. Full control of access is proposed for the new location portion of the project from south of Poors Ford Road to north of US 64. Limited control of access (access from public roads only, no driveways) is proposed for the new location portion of the project from north of US 64 to existing US 221 north of Rutherfordton. Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other access) is proposed for the portion of the project which involves widening existing US 221 between Old US 221 and Roper Loop Road. A-1 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Cost Estimates The latest cost estimates for the project are presented on Table A-1 below. Table A-1 Project Cost Estimates Right of Way Acquisition $44,365,000 Utility Relocation $4,771,000 Wetland/Stream Mitigation $7,400,000 Construction $142,000,000* Total Cost $198,536,000 * - Does not include cost of noise walls. Summary of Impacts Anticipated impacts of the selected alternative are shown below. Table A-2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts of Selected Alternative (Alternative 3) Residential Relocatees 105 Business Relocatees 28 Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0.76 (Delineated) Stream Impacts 9,889 (Feet) Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf 0.23 Impacts (Acres) Forested Areas (Acres) 197 Impacted Noise Receptors 22 Length New Location (Miles) 7.2 Total Length (Miles) 8.5 Total Cost (Millions) $198.536* Impacts and costs based on current design and field surveys. * - Does not include cost of noise walls. A-2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX B REVISIONS TO THE STATE FEIS EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX B REVISIONS TO THE STATE FEIS Existing/Future Traffic Volumes Sections 1.3.2.1 and 1.3.2.3 of the state FEIS present existing (2010) and future (2030) traffic volumes along US 221 in the project area. Section 2.3.3.1 of the state FEIS presents the 2010 and 2030 traffic projections for the detailed study alternatives. Since completion of the state FEIS, an updated traffic forecast has been obtained for use in design. These new traffic projections were produced for the years 2012 and 2040. The 2012 no-build traffic projections were based on current traffic counts. The 2040 traffic projections were estimated using 2010 census data, 2010 AADT estimates, historic traffic count projections and population projections. This latest traffic forecast is showing lower current and future traffic volumes than the traffic forecast available for the state FEIS. Although traffic volumes are lower, portions of existing US 221 are currently operating at levels of service E or F and will continue to do so in the future. The purpose and need for the proposed project remains valid since there are still capacity deficiencies along existing US 221 under current and future traffic conditions presented in the updated forecast. Updated No-Build Traffic Volumes According to the updated traffic forecast, estimated average daily traffic volumes in 2012 for US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton range from 5,100 to 8,700 vehicles per day without the proposed project. In the year 2040, average daily traffic volumes for US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton are expected to range between 7,500 and 12,100 vehicles per day. Figure B1 of this document presents the 2012 and 2040 no-build traffic projections. Updated Build Traffic Volumes (Alternative 3) Updated traffic forecasts were only obtained for the selected alternative for the project (Alternative 3). In the year 2040, average daily traffic volumes for the proposed bypass are expected to range between 8,000 and 14,500 vehicles per day. Projected average daily traffic volumes for the years 2012 and 2040 for the proposed bypass and the surrounding roadway network are shown on Figure B3. Existing/Future Levels of Service (No-Build) Even though the latest traffic forecasts are showing less traffic than earlier forecasts, portions of existing US 221 in the project area are currently operating at levels of service E or F and will continue to do so in the future. Figure B2 presents the 2012 and 2040 no-build levels of service. B-1 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Existing/Future Levels of Service (Build) As shown on Figure B4, the proposed bypass will operate at level of service A in both 2012 and 2040. Updated Noise Analysis olicy was revised on July 13, 2011, following completion of the state FEIS. A design noise report was prepared for the selected alternative (Alternative 3) following completion of the state FEIS. The updated traffic forecast and latest design was used for this analysis. Updates to the traffic noise information provided in the state FEIS are presented below. A copy of the unabridged version of the Design Noise Report can be viewed at the NCDOT Century Center Complex, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh. Physical Environment Characteristics-Noise Characteristics Section 3.3.1 of the state FEIS presents the ambient noise levels in the project area. This information was updated during preparation of the design noise report. According to ambient noise measurements and the predictions of validated traffic noise models, the loudest-hour equivalent noise levels at noise sensitive areas of frequent human use in the study area range from 48 to 66 dB(A). Impacts to the Physical Environment-Noise Section 4.3.1 of the state FEIS presents the anticipated impacts of the project due to traffic noise. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours Table 4-2 of the state FEIS presents the predicted traffic noise impacts for the project alternatives in the year 2030. As Table 4-2 of the state FEIS shows, Alternative 3, the selected alternative, would affect nine properties due to traffic noise in the year 2030. Alternative 3 would impact more properties due to traffic noise than any of the other alternatives studied. Based on the results of the 2013 design noise report, 22 receptors would be impacted by Alternative 3 in the year 2040. Two receptors are impacted under existing conditions (year 2012 traffic, no-build). Eight receptors would be affected in the year 2040 if the project was not built. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures NCDOT policy requires that noise abatement measures be considered for all receptors predicted to experience a noise impact. Measures to be considered include highway alignment selection, traffic systems management, buffer zones, land use controls, noise barriers and earth berms. B-2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 The July 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy outlines the criteria for determining if a noise abatement measure is feasible and reasonable. A noise barrier will be considered feasible if it is predicted to reduce traffic noise levels by at least five dB(A) at one impacted receptor. Engineering feasibility of noise abatement considers adverse impacts to property access, drainage, topography, utilities, safety and maintenance requirements. A noise barrier is evaluated for its reasonableness based on a maximum allowable base quantity of wall or berm and its ability to effectively reduce traffic noise. The maximum allowable base quantity of noise walls and/ or earthen berms per receptor is 2,500 square feet of wall and 7,000 cubic yards of berm, respectively. An incremental increase of 35 square feetfor noise walls and 100 cubic yardsfor earthen berms is added to the base quantity per the average increase in dB(A) between existing and predicted exterior noise levels of all impacted receptors within each noise sensitive area. At least one benefitted front row receptor must achieve the noise reduction design goal of seven dB(A) to indicate effective reduction of traffic noise. Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic management measures such as prohibition of truck traffic, lowering speed limits, limiting of traffic volumes, and/or limiting time of operation were considered but are not practicable because they would diminish the capacity of the highway facility. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. Acquiring buffer zones would not be practical and/or cost effective for noise mitigation due to the substantial amount of right of way required, and would not be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. In addition, the associated costs to acquire a buffer zone would exceed the NCDOT reasonable abatement cost threshold per benefited receptor. One of the most effective means to prevent future traffic noise impacts is the proper use of land use controls. Local jurisdictions with zoning control should use the information contained in the project design noise report to develop policies and/or ordinances to limit the growth of noise-sensitive land uses located adjacent to the proposed project. However, regulation of land use is not within the authority of NCDOT. Highway noise barriers are primarily constructed as earth berms or solid-mass walls. To be effective, a noise barrier must be long enough and tall enough to shield impacted receptors. Generally, the noise wall length must be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For the proposed bypass, ten noise barriers were evaluated in detail and assessed for feasibility and reasonableness. Of these, five were determined to be feasible and reasonable. These are described below and shown on Figure B5. NWD-1 - Northbound US 221 Bypass near Collett Street and Green Street NWD-2 - Northbound US 221 Bypass north of Green Street NWE-2 - Southbound US 221 Bypass from near Reese Street to US 64 NWH-2 - Northbound US 221 Bypass along SR 1536 (Old US 221) south of SR 1535 (Broyhill Road) NWI-1 - Southbound US 221 Bypass near Cedar Lane and Sassafras Road B-3 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 Property owners and residents of all the noise receptors that would benefit from construction of the five likely noise barriers will be sent ballots to allow them to vote on whether or not they want the noise barrier that will benefit their property or residence. One owner ballot and one resident ballot will be solicited from each benefited receptor. Three points per ballot will be assigned to front row property owners, one point per ballot will be assigned to all other benefited property owners and to all residents. Consideration of the noise barriers will continue unless a simple majority of the distributed points are returned indicating the balloted voters do not want the abatement measure. Summary Based on the traffic noise analysis, traffic noise abatement is recommended at five locations along the proposed bypass. In accordance with the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the federal and state governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development within the noise impact area of the proposed highway for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location and potential noise impacts of this proposed highway project is the approval date of this State t Record of Decision. After this date, iis the responsibility of local governments and private landowners to ensure that noise compatible designs are used for development permitted after the Date of Public Knowledge. B-4 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX C COMMENTS ON THE STATE FEIS EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX C COMMENTS ON THE STATE FEIS The following substantive comments were received on the SFEIS. US Environmental Protection Agency COMMENT: "EPA notes that the impacts from Alternative 3 are different comparing Tables S-1 and S-2. Residential relocations increased from an estimated 99 to 122. Stream impacts decreased from an estimated 12,063 linear feet to 9,889 linear feet. Wetland impacts and business relocations remained unchanged between these two tables. EPA requests that NCDOT identify the reasons for the changes between the two FEIS tables in "Alternative 3, the preferred alternative and LEDPA, is expected to impact 12,063 linear feet of streams. Table 4-7 matches Table S-1 but does not correspond to the impact shown in Table S-2. The NCDOT should provide a detailed explanation for the NCDOT RESPONSE: As stated in the notes below the tables, Tables S-1 and 4-7 of the SFEIS present the impacts of the detailed study alternatives at the time the selected alternative for the project was chosen (November 2010). Changes were made in the design of Alternative 3 following its selection. Tables S-2 and 2-14 of the SFEIS present updated information as of the publication of the SFEIS. Similarly, Table 1 of this document (SROD) presents the impacts of the detailed study alternatives at the time the selected alternative for the project was chosen, while Table A-2 presents the current impacts and costs for Alternative 3. COMMENT: "The proposed facility is being designed as a boulevard type facility with at least 4 travel lanes and a 46-foot median with either partial or limited control of access. NCDOT proposes a 70 miles per hour (MPH) design speed for portions of the project with a 46-foot median. The NCDOT also proposes a 23-foot raised median and curb and gutter section with a ten-foot berm for portions of the bypass along the existing US 74 Alternative facility. EPA recommends that NCDOT consider one typical section for the entire by guidelines, a boulevard facility is typically posted with a 30 to 55 MPH speed limit and NCDOT RESPONSE: Four lanes with a 46-foot median is proposed for the entire project with the selected alternative. The 23-foot median EPA mentions in their comment was proposed for a portion of Alternative US74A, which was not selected for the project. The majority of the new location portion of the proposed bypass will be a freeway with full control of access and interchanges. The section of the bypass north of US 64 C-1 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 and other portions of the project which involve widening existing US 221 will be an expressway with partial control of access. COMMENT: -owned. The FEIS identifies a Title VI Evaluation and the assessment includes most information typically performed for an Environmental Justice (EJ) evaluation. However, the FEIS does not identify specific requirements under Executive Order 12898 that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will need to consider this requirement in its permit decision for this state-funded project. The FEIS identifies two potential minority and low-income neighborhoods including Second Street and Laurel Hill. EPA recommends that additional details concerning an EJ analysis be provided for both minority populations and low-income populations consistent with other state-funded projects and presented in NCDOT RESPONSE: As EPA points out in their comment, a Title VI evaluation was conducted for the project and included in the SFEIS. In practice, there is very little difference between an environmental justice evaluation and a Title VI evaluation. NCDOT acknowledges that the Corps of Engineers, as a federal agency, will need to consider Executive Order 12898 in their permit decision for this project. NCDOT can assist the Corps in conducting their evaluation, if needed. COMMENT: e 3 will impact 87 acres under the NRCS criteria for being classified as prime farmlands. Two properties are considered as farmland preservation properties which Rutherford County considers the equivalent of Voluntary Agricultural Districts. The FEIS does not identify any opportunities for avoiding the conversion of these prime farmlands to non-agricultural uses or minimization measures for reducing the potential NCDOT RESPONSE: Due to their location, avoiding areas with prime farmland soils is not possible. The project design has been modified as the project has progressed in an attempt to minimize the overall impacts of the project. Additional design changes may be considered to reduce project impacts on farm operations following coordination with property owners during right of way acquisition. COMMENT: additional information should be incorporated into the ROD regarding any contamination NCDOT RESPONSE: A preliminary site assessment will be performed on the Reeves Brothers property following publication of this document but prior to right of way acquisition. C-2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services COMMENT: "The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services lands to other uses. Due to the importance of agricultural activities in the area, as well as the economy of the entire state, NCDA&CS strongly encourages the project planners to avoid conversion of agricultural land to other uses whenever possible. When avoidance is not possible, all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts to agricultural operations and NCDOT RESPONSE: Impacts to farmland have been considered in the selection of Alternative 3 as the selected corridor for the project. COMMENT: "There is insufficient information to determine whether appropriate consideration has been given to potential impacts to farms and farmland in the project area. In section 4.3.3, Table 4.3 indicates that the selected alternative (3) will impact 362.16 acres of statements is correct. It is also unclear how the selected alternative compares to other alternatives with regard to farmland impacts or whether anticipated impacts to farms and NCDOT RESPONSE: Table 4-3 presents the total amount of prime farmland soils within the 1,000-foot wide study corridor for the detailed study alternatives. Actual right of way for the alternatives will be approximately 300 feet wide. Table 4-3 is intended to provide a comparison between the alternatives. Table 4-3 shows there are 362.16 acres of prime farmland soils within the study corridor for Alternative 3. However, proposed right of way for Alternative 3 will only affect 87 acres of the 362.16 acres of prime farmland in the study corridor. COMMENT: "There is also no indication that NCDOT has solicited comment from the Rutherford County Agricultural Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has responsibility to make recommendations to the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners to -farm development and other negative impacts on properly it would be advisable for NCDOT to solicit comment from this Advisory Board on this NCDOT RESPONSE: NCDOT has not solicited comments from the Rutherford County Agricultural Advisory Board. NCDOT adheres to the public hearing requirement of and requests a public hearing be held by the Agricultural Advisory Board when farmland is being condemned through Imminent Domain from within a Voluntary Agricultural District, not when a taking is negotiated as part of the right of way acquisition process. NCDOT typically requests comments on projects from county boards of commissioners, county managers C-3 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 and county planning departments. These will then often solicit comments from other county agencies. NCDOT has requested comments from the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners and the Rutherford County Planning Department on the project. No concerns regarding project impacts on farmland have been raised by either of these organizations. Natural Heritage Program COMMENT: Threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora locations were identified in 2005, and the area encircled in black is the Davenport ve Alternative 3 would bisect this natural area, with the likely route of the bypass going between the two populations of the rare plant within the site. However, recent aerial photos show that the site is already fragmented in the center, with fields and a few houses. Thus, the rare plant site likely has already been fragmented, and probably should be re-drawn into two separate sites by our Program. Likely, the route al additional populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf occur alongside existing US 221, in the southern part of the project area. One or two of these smaller populations could be impacted by the widening of US 221. Because there are a number of populations of this species in Rutherford County and in adjacent counties, we agree with jeopardize the continued existence of the species. However, we also support their recommendations on Page 4-19 for taking conservation measures for the species in the NCDOT RESPONSE: Comment noted. NC Division of Water Quality COMMENT: "In Section 4.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects, the document references a more detailed qualitative land use assessment for indirect impacts. This assessment should be included in the FSEIS for review. In addition, the discussion of potential indirect and cumulative effects does not discuss the presence of two streams, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek, in the project study area that are on the 2010 303(d) Impaired Waters list. These streams should be included in the discussion and considered in the Indirect NCDOT RESPONSE: As with many technical reports, the SFEIS merely presented the results of the detailed qualitative analysis rather than including the entire report. As discussed in Section 4.6 of the SFEIS, the detailed qualitative analysis indicates the project will have little to no effect on future storm water runoff or water quality in the watersheds the C-4 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 project passes through. A copy of the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening and Land Use Scenario Assessment Report can be provided upon request. C-5 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 NC Wildlife Resources Commission COMMENT: "Our previous comments on the State Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project, dated November 20, 2008, were included in Appendix D of the subject document. We are disappointed that the main issues and concerns we raised in our previous comments wer "Neither state listed species, nor NC Wildlife Action Plan Priority Species were protect state-listed species in the construction of transportation facilities throughout the state and we request their assistance in protecting these animals. NCDOT RESPONSE: There is no legal requirement for NCDOT to survey for state-listed species or species identified as Action Priority Species by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. NCDOT biologists often will note the presence of state-listed species and will notify the Natural Heritage Program, but this is not something that is legally required. COMMENT: rect and cumulative impacts of the project were also not provided. The FEIS anticipated accelerated growth from the project, but limited by current economic conditions and development trends. We continue to recommend that NCDOT and local officials work together to develop and implement strategies that will minimize negative impacts to water quality and the local NCDOT RESPONSE: As discussed in Section 4.6 of the SFEIS, Indirect and cumulative effects of the project are expected to be minimal. This area has lost a number of jobs and is not growing as fast as the rest of the State. Development in the area is expected to continue at a slow pace both with and without the project. Detailed qualitative analysis of the probable development patterns in the future land use study area suggest the project will have little to no effect on future storm water runoff or water quality in the watersheds the project passes through. C-6 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-7 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-8 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-9 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-10 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-11 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-12 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-13 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-14 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-15 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-16 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-17 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-18 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-19 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-20 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-21 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-22 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 C-23 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 APPENDIX D SECTION 106 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-1 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-2 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-3 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-4 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-5 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-6 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-7 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-8 EpdvTjho!Fowfmpqf!JE;!B4F5:D18.BF:C.55E1.CBB2.5BC5:EBC9B69 D-9