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