R-2597_R-204DE FONSI

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
R-2597/R204D&E Finding of No Significant Impact
March 2014 Page 1 of 2

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

US 221 IMPROVEMENTS
From North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
WBS Nos. 35608.1.1 and 34329.1.1
STIP PROJECTS R-2597 and R-204D&E

The following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit:
 Prior to purchase of project right of way, the NCDOT Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Unit will complete a Revised Traffic Noise Analysis that will
meet all requirements of the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy.
 Prior to permitting, NCDOT will conduct plant surveys for federally listed small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) in the expanded study area near I-40 that contains potential
habitat for the species. Surveys will take place during the blooming season.
 NCDOT will replace any fencing on SR 1321 (Thermal City Road) in the vicinity of the
Albert Weaver Farm Historic Property that is disturbed during construction.
 NCDOT, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the NC State Historic
Preservation Office (NC-HPO) will comply with the provisions of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with regards to the Adverse Effect of the project on the William
Monteith House and the development of a data recovery plan for archaeological site
31MC285/285**. For the William Monteith House, the provisions include
documentation, relocation of the house and outbuildings, and landscaping. For site
31MC285/285** NCDOT will conduct the data recovery and prepare the resulting
archaeological report for submission to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (NC-
HPO) and the NC Office of State Archaeology (OSA) after right of way (ROW) is
acquired. A minimum of nine months will be required to completed data recovery
investigations after ROW is obtained. Any portions of R-2597 that had not been surveyed
due to landowner refusal to grant entry or modification to the Area of Potential Effects
will also be surveyed, as necessary, after ROW acquisition.
Hydraulics Unit
 NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP) to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’s
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
R-2597/R204D&E Finding of No Significant Impact
March 2014 Page 2 of 2

NCDOT Division 13
 NCDOT Division 13 Office will submit sealed as-built construction plans to the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were
built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening

Table of Contents

1.0 TYPE OF ACTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 1
2.1 Summary of Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 1
3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................. 1
3.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Travel Demand Alternative ........................................................................................................ 2
3.3 Mass Transit Alternative ............................................................................................................ 2
3.4 Transportation Systems Management Alternative .................................................................. 2
3.5 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 6
5.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS ........................................................................... 6
5.1 Relocations ................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Farmland ..................................................................................................................................... 8
5.4 Voluntary Agricultural Districts ............................................................................................... 8
5.5 Community Facilities .................................................................................................................. 8
5.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 8
5.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 9
5.8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 12
5.9 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 12
5.10 Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks ....................................................... 12
5.11 Terrestrial Communities .......................................................................................................... 13
5.12 Waters of the United States ...................................................................................................... 13
5.13 Rare and Protected Species ...................................................................................................... 16
5.14 Water Quality and Floodplains ............................................................................................... 16
5.15 Riparian Buffers ........................................................................................................................ 16
5.16 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.17 Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................................. 17
5.18 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................... 17
5.19 Direct Impact Avoidance and Minimization .......................................................................... 17
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening

5.20 Permits ....................................................................................................................................... 17
6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................................................ 18
6.1 Circulation of the SEA .............................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Agency Comments on the SEA ................................................................................................ 18
6.3 Summary of Public Hearing Comments ................................................................................. 22
7.0 ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE SEA ........................................................... 23
7.1 Delineations of Streams and Wetlands .................................................................................... 23
7.2 Rare and Protected Species ...................................................................................................... 23
7.3 ICE Update ................................................................................................................................ 23
7.4 Air Quality Analysis Report ..................................................................................................... 28
7.5 Revised Traffic Noise Analysis ................................................................................................. 29
8.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) .......................... 29
9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 30

Tables
Table 3.1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Segment Alternatives
Table 5.1. Summary of Environmental Impacts for the LEDPA
Table 5.2. Poverty Statistics for the Project Study Area
Table 5.3. Utility Costs for LEDPA
Table 5.4. Summary of Terrestrial Community Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA
Table 5.5. Summary of Stream Impacts (in feet) for the LEDPA
Table 5.6. Summary of Wetland Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA
Table 5.7. Summary of Other Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA on Other Waters of the U.S.
Table 7.1. NCDOT HES Land Use Screening Matrix Results
Table 7.2. NCDOT HES Cumulative ICE Screening Matrix (Part 1)
Table 7.3. NCDOT HES Cumulative ICE Screening Matrix (Part 2)

Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Comments Received on the SEA and During Development of the FONSI
Appendix C. Cultural Resources Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix D. Merger Team Concurrence Forms

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
1 

1.0 TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) administrative action, State
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NCDOT has determined that this project will not
have any significant impact on the human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the
State Environmental Assessment (SEA) signed on June 30, 2011 (NCDOT, 2011a), which
NCDOT evaluated and determined accurately disclosed the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project. This SEA, together with the information contained within this State
FONSI (including responses to comments on the SEA), provides sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
NCDOT proposes to improve a 19-mile section of existing US 221 from north of SR 1366
(Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County. The
proposed improvements are included as two projects in the NCDOT Draft 2012 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), STIP Project R-2597 and STIP Project R-
204D&E. Figure 1 in Appendix A shows the location of the project, as well as the project study
area.
NCDOT prepared a combined SEA for both projects, given their dependent relationship. For
clarity in describing details within this document, the two projects will be referred to as the
“project.” Should discussion on specific details of each STIP project be required, they will be
identified individually.
2.1 Summary of Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve the levels of traffic service by
reducing travel time along the US 221 intrastate corridor and increase safety. The primary need
of the proposed project is that the projected traffic volumes cannot be handled safely with the
existing two lanes of US 221.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A full range of alternatives were considered for this project, including a No-Build Alternative,
Travel Demand Management, Mass Transit, Transportation Systems Management, and Build
Alternatives.
3.1 No-Build Alternative
It was determined that the No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the
project. It would not improve travel time through the corridor, and would not improve safety.
Therefore, the No-Build Alternative was not recommended.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
2 

3.2 Travel Demand Alternative
Travel demand strategies include ridesharing, flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and
“Guaranteed Ride Home,” services. The majority of the jobs in the project area are in the areas
of manufacturing; education, health, and social services; construction; and retail trade. The
demands of these jobs are often incompatible with telecommuting or flexible work schedules;
and the scattered population of Rutherford and McDowell Counties, along with the lack of a
central manufacturing center, would greatly reduce the efficiency of ridesharing or “Guaranteed
Ride Home” services. For these reasons, travel demand options will not significantly reduce
traffic along this section of US 221.
3.3 Mass Transit Alternative
Mass transit alternatives include buses, rail transit, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
These transportation services are limited in the project area. The county provides bus
transportation for several groups of citizens, including children, persons with disabilities, and
elderly persons. There are no public bus or passenger rail services in either county, and there are
no plans for such services. HOV lanes are typically used in settings more urban than those
encountered along the existing facility. Therefore, the mass transit alternative was eliminated
from further study.
3.4 Transportation Systems Management Alternative
Transportation systems management (TSM) improvements involve improving traffic flow of the
roadway within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without
reconstructing or adding additional through lanes to the existing road. TSM improvements alone
will not increase capacity or improve levels of service to the levels required to substantially
reduce congestion in the design year. Therefore, the TSM alternative was eliminated from further
study.
It should be noted, however, that TSM improvements were incorporated into the Build
Alternatives. The project will incorporate the use of median left-overs along the length of the
project. Providing median left-overs will prohibit left turns onto US 221 requiring drivers to
make a right-turn from a side street or driveway and then make a U-turn at the nearest location to
continue in the opposite direction toward their destination. While this would decrease
accessibility to some properties, reducing the number of turning movements allowed on US 221
would reduce the potential for traffic conflicts.
3.5 Build Alternatives
For the Build Alternatives, the project was initially divided into fifteen Segment Alternatives (A
through H) that were evaluated in order to identify those segments to be carried forward.
Potential east side and west side widening alignments were developed and overlain onto land
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
3 

suitability maps. Symmetrical widening was not considered because of potential impacts on
existing residential and commercial development. Each alternative was evaluated based on its
consistency with the purpose and need of the project, as well as its potential impact to the
human, cultural, and natural environments. In addition, public meetings were held in an effort to
seek input from the public and incorporate it into the project planning process. During the
course of several regulatory resource agency meetings, alternatives were eliminated, while
additional alternatives were identified and added. Alternatives were eliminated from further
study because of resulting impacts to the human and/or natural environment. The following
alternatives were carried forward for further study:
 East side widening (Alternatives A1, B1, D1, E1, F1, and G1)
 West side widening (Alternatives B2, B3, F2, and G2)
 Best fit (shifting between east and west side widening) (Alternatives C, D, and H)
 Avoidance alternative to eliminate effects to a property that is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Alternative B3)
Impacts for the proposed build alternatives are shown in Table 3.1. Stream and wetland impacts
shown in Table 3.1 vary from what was presented in the SEA because the SEA impacts were
based on field delineations performed in June 2003. Due to the age of these delineations and
changes in accepted field methodology, NCDOT developed updated information for the FONSI.
Field delineations of Waters of the United States within the project area were conducted from
August 8 through September 27, 2012. Other changes in impacts from that in the SEA are due to
revisions in the project design and updated relocation information.

ST
I
P

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

R
-
2
5
9
7

a
n
d

R
-
20
4

D
&
E

U
S

2
2
1

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

4 

Ta
b
l
e

3
.
1

Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
o
r

t
h
e

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Se
g
m
e
n
t

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

A1

B1

B2

B3

C
D
D1

E1

F1

F2

G1 G2 H
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
i
n

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)

$
6
.
0

$
1
2
.
1

$
1
2
.
6

$
1
2
.
9

$
2
4
.
8

$
8
0
.
3

$
7
4
.
0

$
1
7
.
5

$
1
5
.
5

$
1
5
.
3

$
1
9
.
5

$
1
9
.
3

$
2
2
.
0

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

2

1
3

1
6

2
5

1
1

1
4

1
4

1
8

2

0

0

0

2
0

Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

1

5

9
*

4

0

3

3

7

0

0

2

5

6

Ch
u
r
c
h
e
s

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
d

-
-
-

1

1
#

1
#

--
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

--
-

1

-
-
-

-
-
-

2

Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
--

-
-
-

-
-
-

2

2

-
-
-

-
--

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

Ma
j
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

T
o
w
e
r
s

I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

5

2

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

1

1

-
-
-

NR
H
P
-
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

S
i
t
e
s

Af
f
e
c
t
e
d

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c

A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e

A
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

Ef
f
e
c
t
e
d

-
-
-

1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

Br
i
d
g
e
s

o
v
e
r

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

1

1

1

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

St
r
e
a
m

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

1

3

4

3

7

2
0

2
0

1
1

2

2

1

1

3

Le
n
g
t
h

o
f

Im
p
a
c
t
e
d

St
r
e
a
m
s

(
l
i
n
e
a
r

fe
e
t
)
*
*

Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

1
9
5

5
4
1

6
7
5

8
7
7

2
,
1
2
9

4
,
8
8
2

4
,
7
5
4

3
,
3
1
9

1
,
6
7
6

1
,
8
2
6

9
4
6

9
4
6

1
,
7
9
7

In
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t

3
2

2
4

2
4

2
8

1
9
4

4
2
3

4
0
5

3
7
8

1
8
7

1
8
5

2
9

4
0

3
1

We
t
l
a
n
d

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(a
c
r
e
s
)
*
*

We
t
l
a
n
d
s

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
0

0
.
0
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
9

0
.
2
5

0
.
3
7

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
6

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

Ot
h
e
r

W
a
t
e
r
s

-
-
-

-
-
-

0
.
0
9

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

0
.
0
2

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

Pr
i
m
e

a
n
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

Im
p
a
c
t
s

(
a
c
r
e
s
)

11
.
1

2
0
.
1

1
9
.
8

2
3
.
8

2
8
.
5

1
0
.
8

7
.
7

2
8
.
3

1
7
.
2

1
6
.
2

2
.
4

3
.
2

1
8
.
6

Te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(a
c
r
e
s
)

30

6
6
.
1

6
8
.
5

6
4
.
4

1
3
6
.
1

2
2
7
.
5

2
1
8
.
4

9
0
.
5

4
1
.
4

4
1
.
4

5
0
.
2

5
0
.
2

6
8
.
6

Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

A
r
e
a

I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

(
a
c
r
e
s
)

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

2
.
2
1

7
.
3
3

7
.
0
7

3
.
6
9

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
2

-
-
-

-
-
-

1
.
0
3

No
t
e
s
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
s

(
s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
k
e
s
)
,

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

n
o
t
e
d
.

-
-
-

d
e
n
o
t
e
s

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

d
o
e
s

no
t

o
c
c
u
r

w
i
t
h
i
n

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

*

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

b
u
i
l
d
i
ng
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

G
i
l
k
e
y

L
u
m
b
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
.

*
*

S
t
r
e
a
m

a
n
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

a
n

a
dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

2
5

f
e
e
t

t
o

e
a
c
h

s
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
l
o
p
e
s
t
a
k
e

l
i
m
i
t
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

d
o

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
ud
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

s
t
r
e
a
m

w
i
t
h
i
n

an

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
u
l
v
e
r
t
.

S
t
r
e
a
m

im
p
a
c
t
s

r
o
u
n
d
e
d

t
o

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

f
o
o
t
.

#

C
h
u
r
c
h

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

i
m
p
a
ct
e
d
,

n
o
t

t
h
e

c
h
u
r
c
h

i
t
s
e
l
f

ST
I
P

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

R
-
2
5
9
7

a
n
d

R
-
20
4

D
&
E

U
S

2
2
1

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

5 

Pa
g
e

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

L
e
f
t

B
l
a
n
k

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
6 

4.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on information presented in the SEA, on September 12, 2012, NCDOT and its agency
partners agreed that the following segment alternatives provided the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA):
 A1 (West Side Widening) – The SEA evaluated only one alternative in Segment A; east
side widening was eliminated from further study because it would result in a substantial
number of relocations.
 B1 (West Side Widening) – This alternative was selected to limit impacts to Gilkey
Lumber (a major local employer) and minimize stream and residential impacts.
 C (Best Fit Alignment) – The SEA evaluated only one alternative in Segment C; east and
west side widening were eliminated from further study because of conflicts with utilities.
 D1 (Best Fit Alignment with Second Broad River bridge improved at existing location) –
This alternative was selected because it allows for a shorter bridge over the Second Broad
River; minimizes construction costs and future maintenance issues; had comparable
stream, wetland, and floodplain impacts to Alternative D; and had fewer prime and
important farmland, terrestrial community, and floodplain impacts.
 E1 (West Side Widening) – The SEA evaluated only one alternative in Segment E; east
side widening was eliminated from further study because it would impact more
businesses and a church, as well as result in greater stream impacts.
 F1 (West Side Widening) – This alternative was selected because input from McDowell
County stated a preference for Alternatives F1 and G1 due to reduced business impacts
and avoidance of impacts to a church. These alternatives also have fewer overall stream
impacts.
 G1 (West Side Widening) – This alternative was selected because input from McDowell
County stated a preference for Alternatives F1 and G1 due to reduced business impacts
and avoidance of impacts to a church. These alternatives also have fewer overall stream
impacts.
 H (Best Fit Alignment). – The SEA evaluated only one alternative in Segment H; east
and west side widening were eliminated from further study because of impacts to
adjacent properties.

5.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
The impacts associated with the LEDPA are shown in Table 5.1. The designs for STIP Project
R-2597 are shown in Appendix A, Figure 2. The designs for Project R-204D&E are shown in
Appendix A, Figure 3.

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
7 

Table 5.1
Summary of Environmental Impacts for the LEDPA

Segment Alternative Total
A1 B1 C D1 E1 F1 G1 H
Construction Cost (in millions) $6.0 $12.1 $24.8 $74.0 $17.5 $15.5 $19.5 $22.0 $191.4
Residential Relocations 2 13 11 14 18 2 --- 20 80
Businesses Relocations 1 5 --- 3 7 --- 2 6 24
Churches Displaced --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- 2 3
Recreational Facilities Impacted --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- 2
Major Transmission Towers
Impacted --- --- --- 2 --- --- 1 --- 3
NRHP-Eligible Archaeological
Sites Affected --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 1
Historic Architecture Adversely
Effected --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1
Bridges over Streams --- --- 1 1 --- --- --- --- 2
Stream Crossings 1 3 7 20 11 2 1 3 48
Length of
Impacted Streams
(linear feet)**
Perennial 195 541 2,129 4,754 3,319 1,676 946 1,797 15,357
Intermittent 32 24 194 405 378 187 29 31 1,280
Wetland Impacts (acres)** 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.25 0.37 0.02 --- --- 0.81
Other Waters --- --- --- --- 0.02 --- --- --- 0.02
Prime and Important Farmland
Impacts (acres) 11.1 20.1 28.5 7.7 28.3 17.2 2.4 18.6 133.9
Terrestrial Community Impacts
(acres) 30 66.1 136.1 218.4 90.5 41.4 50.2 68.6 701.3
Floodplain Area Impacted
(acres) --- --- 2.21 7.07 3.69 0.13 --- 1.03 14.1
Notes: Estimate of impacts based on construction limits (slope stakes), unless otherwise noted.
--- denotes resource does not occur within segment
* Includes the displacement of several buildings associated with Gilkey Lumber Company.
** Stream and wetland impacts include an additional 25 feet to each side of the slope stake
limit. Stream impacts do not include length of stream within an existing culvert. Stream
impacts rounded to nearest foot.
# Church Property impacted, not the church itself

5.1 Relocations
The project will result in the displacement of approximately 80 homes, 24 businesses, and 3
religious facilities.
5.2 Land Use
Land use in Rutherford and McDowell Counties is largely rural, with some residences, small
businesses, and farms. Unemployment in this area has been consistently higher that the state
average, thus there has been minimal development pressure. It is anticipated that existing trends
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
8 

in land use will continue in these parts of Rutherford and McDowell Counties. The project has
been included in Thoroughfare Plans for Rutherford County since 1976 (NCDOT, 1976), and
widening US 221 was the top priority project in the McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan in
1995 (NCDOT, 1995). The project is also consistent with current local land use plans
(Rutherford County, 2001 and McDowell County, 1993/2010). It is also included in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan for McDowell County, (NCDOT, 2013a).
5.3 Farmland
Farmland Conversion Forms (CPA-106) were completed for each segment of the US 221 project.
In no case did the potential impacts rise to the level that would require mitigation for farmland
impacts (a score of 160 or higher). Segments A, B, C, E, and F exceeded a preliminary (Parts III
and IV) score and were submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for
review. According to NRCS, there are 54,557 acres of farmland in Rutherford County (15
percent of the county area) and 329,807 acres of farmable land in the county. NRCS states that
there are 50,093 acres of farmland in McDowell County (18 percent of the county area) and
205,326 acres of farmable land. As shown in Table 5.1, the project would convert approximately
134 acres of Prime and Important Farmland.
5.4 Voluntary Agricultural Districts
Rutherford and McDowell Counties both have Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD)
Ordinances. Both counties were contacted with regards to potential VAD impacts associated
with the project and neither county responded. They were contacted again during the
development of this FONSI. The McDowell County NRCS stated that there were no VADs
along US 221 through the project area. The Rutherford County Soil and Water Conservation
District stated that several properties along US 221 through the project area were listed in the
Rutherford County Farmland Preservation Program. None of the listed parcels will have direct
impacts from the proposed project and no additional action is required.
5.5 Community Facilities
The project will not directly impact local health services, public safety services, schools,
cemeteries, or community centers.
5.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Subsequent to publication of the SEA, the project was evaluated using the most recent NCDOT
screening tool for potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICEs). The results of this
evaluation (discussed in Section 7.3) indicate that the project has a low potential to induce ICEs.

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
9 

5.7 Environmental Justice
According to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) update to its guidance on carrying
out Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
(USDOT, 2012), a minority and/or low-income population is defined as an environmental justice
community if it meets one or both of the following criteria:
 The Census Block Group (BG) contains 50 percent or more minority persons and/or the
Census BG contains 25 percent or more low-income persons.
 The percentage of minority and/or low-income persons in any Census Block Group is
more than 5 percent greater than the county average.
Table 5.2 shows poverty statistics by census BG. While most of the census BGs within the
project study area are above the threshold level, it should be noted that there are high poverty
rates in both Rutherford and McDowell Counties. The project would not create any
disproportionate effects to low-income populations. In addition, both adverse and beneficial
impacts associated with the project would be experienced equally by all travelers through the
area.
ST
I
P

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

R
-
2
5
9
7

a
n
d

R
-
20
4

D
&
E

U
S

2
2
1

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

10

Ta
b
l
e

5
.
2

Po
v
e
r
t
y

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a

Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n

To
t
a
l

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

U
n
d
e
r

50
%

o
f

P
o
v
e
r
t
y

Le
v
e
l

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

50
%
-
9
9
%

o
f

Po
v
e
r
t
y

L
e
v
e
l

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

10
0
%
-
1
2
4
%

o
f

Po
v
e
r
t
y

L
e
v
e
l

Population Between 125%-150% of Poverty Level Total Population under 150% of Poverty Level
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

Er
r
o
r

Es
t
i
m
a
t
e

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

Er
r
o
r

Es
t
i
m
a
t
e

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

Er
r
o
r

Es
t
i
m
a
t
e

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

Er
r
o
r

Estimate Standard Error
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

9,
1
6
2
,
1
4
7

1
,
6
0
0

63
4
,
8
0
7

1
0
,
6
5
3

8
3
8
,
7
4
9

1
1
,
7
6
9

46
6
,
5
8
9

8
,
4
6
1

4
8
4
,
9
6
0

9
,
7
2
7

2,425,105
Mc
D
o
w
e
l
l

43
,
7
6
1

3
2
6

2
,
9
3
1

6
7
2

5
,
1
6
6

8
7
0

2
,
6
4
9

4
9
2

2
,
9
6
1

6
1
5

1
3
,
7
0
7

Tr
a
c
t

97
0
2

BG
2

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

2
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
2

2
,
4
2
2

4
7
5

1
5
9

1
6
5

1
7
6

1
6
5

8
5

9
0

1
6
1

1
2
4

5
8
1

Tr
a
c
t

97
0
5

BG
1

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

1
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
5

1
,
5
3
9

3
4
2

1
1
3

1
2
1

2
2
1

1
7
5

1
1
5

1
0
5

7
0

9
2

5
1
9

Tr
a
c
t

97
0
9
.
0
1

BG
1

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

1
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
9
.
0
1

1
,
5
3
4

2
9
6

8

1
3

1
1
6

1
1
4

1
4
7

1
2
6

1
6
8

2
0
0

4
3
9

BG
3

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

3
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
9
.
0
1

2
,
1
7
5

4
7
7

4
2

6
2

5
0
1

3
6
2

3
3
2

2
0
1

2
3
6

2
0
4

1
,
1
1
1

BG
4

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

4
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
9
.
0
1

1
,
1
4
1

3
5
7

2
5
7

2
4
5

2
0
7

1
6
1

3
0

4
7

3
2

3
8

5
2
6

Tr
a
c
t

97
0
9
.
0
2

BG
1

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

1
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
9
.
0
2

9
0
7

3
2
7

1
8
8

2
8
7

0

9
8

0

9
8

8
5

8
9

2
7
3

BG
2

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

2
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
7
0
9
.
0
2

1
,
9
6
4

4
3
2

1
0
5

9
1

6
3

7
3

3
9

4
4

1
3
3

1
2
2

3
4
0

Ru
t
h
e
r
f
o
r
d

C
o
u
n
t
y

65
,
5
8
4

3
7
6

4
,
8
5
0

7
8
8

8
,
6
0
2

1
,
2
2
9
4
,
6
1
9

9
0
2

3
,
3
6
4

7
3
6

2
1
,
4
3
5

Tr
a
c
t

96
0
1

BG
1

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

1
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
6
0
1

2
,
6
7
7

6
2
1

2
5
3

1
8
4

4
7
6

3
2
9

1
4
2

1
4
8

2
3
0

2
0
6

1
,
1
0
1

Tr
a
c
t

96
0
2

BG
1

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

1
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
6
0
2

8
4
7

2
0
8

9
6

9
7

4
1

3
8

4
2

6
4

5
0

5
7

2
2
9

BG
2

Bl
o
c
k

G
r
o
u
p

2
,

C
e
n
s
u
s

Tr
a
c
t

9
6
0
2

2
,
4
0
8

4
6
6

8
3

4
9

2
4
6

1
1
1

2
1
1

2
5
1

1
3
0

1
3
4

6
7
0

So
u
r
c
e
:

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
mm
u
n
i
t
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
,

2
0
1
1

ST
I
P

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

R
-
2
5
9
7

a
n
d

R
-
20
4

D
&
E

U
S

2
2
1

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

11

Pa
g
e

I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

L
e
f
t

B
l
a
n
k

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
12 

5.8 Cultural Resources
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the project will result in an Adverse
Effect on the William Monteith House, a property determined eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, the project will impact archaeological site
31Mc285/285**, which has also been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as the lead federal agency for this project, has entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with NCDOT and the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NC-HPO) to mitigate for the effects of the project on the eligible properties.
The MOA and supporting data are included in Appendix C.
5.9 Utilities
NCDOT developed utility cost estimates developed for the project in 2008 and 2009. Costs were
estimated for each segment of R-2597, and for R-204D&E. Based on a request from the City of
Marion, a utility estimate for R-204D was updated by NCDOT on June 18, 2013. It was
estimated that the project utility costs would include $256,000 for power pole relocations,
$25,170,000 for telephone pole relocation, $400,000 for water line construction, $310,500 for
sewer line construction, and $18,665 for miscellaneous sewer item construction. The total utility
cost estimate for R-204 D was $1,010,335. Utility Costs for the LEDPA are summarized in
Table 5.3
Table 5.3
Utility Costs for LEDPA
(in thousand dollars)#
Project R-2597 R-204 D&E
Segment A1* B1* C* D1* E1* D*** E**
Power Poles $84 $620 $871 844 $599 $256 $448
Telephone Poles $0 $9 $0 $6 $2 $25 $0
Water Line $102 $235 $449 $0 $316 $400 $800
Sewer Line $0 $0 $0 $0 $33 $310 $0
Sewer Items $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19 $0
Total $186 862 $1,420 $850 $951 $1,010 $1,248
# - rounded to nearest thousands, differences in total costs due to rounding
* NCDOT estimate, November, 2009
**NCDOT estimate, April, 2008
***NCDOT estimate, June, 2013
5.10 Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks
Field surveys conducted by NCDOT identified six underground storage tank (UST) sites, five
additional sites with the possibility for USTs, and one site with geoenvironmental concern within
the project study area. No hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the
project study area. All of these sites are expected to have a low impact to this project.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
13 

5.11 Terrestrial Communities
The project will impact terrestrial communities in the project study area as result of grading and
paving portions of the project study area. Table 5.4 presents the extent of each terrestrial
community type in the project study area and the anticipated impact to each community type
based on the preliminary roadway design plans.
Table 5.4
Summary of Terrestrial Community Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA
Segment Alternative Community Types Impacted Total
Impact Upland Forest Floodplain Forest Maintained/
Disturbed
A1 19.7 0 10.3 30
B1 24.6 0 41.5 66.1
C 70.9 0.5 64.7 136.1
D1 144.2 13.0 61.2 218.4
E1 18.1 2.3 70.1 90.5
F1 15.3 0.1 32 47.4
G1 21.7 0 26.7 48.4
H 21 0 47.6 68.6
Total 337 22.7 354.9 705.5

5.12 Waters of the United States
The project will result in impacts to jurisdictional streams, wetlands and ponds in the project
area. As noted in Section 3.5, NCDOT conducted updated field delineations of Waters of the
United States within the project area from August 8 through September 27, 2012. Preliminary
delineations from this effort were provided to the Merger team to assist in the determination of
LEDPA. Table 5.5 shows impacts to perennial and intermittent streams for the selected LEDPA,
for the delineated waterbodies as verified by USACE.
Table 5.5
Summary of Stream Impacts (in feet) for the LEDPA
Map ID Stream Name Segment (s) Length Impacted Classification
S2 UT to Mountain Creek A1 153 Perennial
S2a* UT to UT to Mountain Creek A1 42 Perennial
S5 UT to UT to Mountain Creek A1 32 Intermittent
S12 UT to Mountain Creek B1 292 Perennial
S12a UT to UT to Mountain Creek B1 24 Intermittent
S13 UT to Mountain Creek B1 22 Perennial
S16 UT to Mountain Creek B1 228 Perennial
S20* UT to Cathey's Creek C 257 Perennial
S20d UT to UT to Cathey's Creek C 60 Intermittent
S22* UT to Cathey's Creek C 202 Perennial
S22b UT to UT to Cathey's Creek C 26 Perennial
S23 UT to Cathey's Creek C 536 Perennial
S30 UT to Cathey's Creek C 121 Perennial
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
14 

Map ID Stream Name Segment (s) Length Impacted Classification
S34* UT to Second Broad River C 639 Perennial
S36 UT to Second Broad River C 30 Perennial
S37 UT to Second Broad River C 319 Perennial
S37b UT to UT to Second Broad River C 134 Intermittent
S38* Stoney Creek D1 157 Perennial
S42 UT to Second Broad River D1 14 Perennial
S44* Rockhouse Creek D1 170 Perennial
S46 UT to Second Broad River D1 119 Perennial
S46a UT to Second Broad River D1 295 Perennial
S46aa UT to UT to Second Broad River D1 22 Perennial
S47 UT to Second Broad River D1 191 Perennial
S47e UT to UT to Second Broad River D1 65 Intermittent
S48 UT to Second Broad River D1 171 Perennial
S49 UT to Second Broad River D1 88 Perennial
S50 UT to Second Broad River D1 44 Intermittent
S51* Scrub Grass Branch D1 340 Perennial
S51a UT to Scrub Grass Branch D1 28 Perennial
S51b UT to Scrub Grass Branch D1 191 Perennial
S52 UT to Second Broad River D1 181 Perennial
S53 UT to Second Broad River D1 146 Perennial
S53b UT to Second Broad River D1 109 Perennial
S54* UT to Second Broad River D1 117 Perennial
S55* Second Broad River D1 652 Perennial
S57* UT to Second Broad River D1 565 Perennial
S57b UT to UT to Second Broad River D1 296 Intermittent
S58* UT to Second Broad River D1 149 Perennial
S59 UT to Second Broad River D1, E 1052, 247 Perennial
S60 UT to Second Broad River E 217 Perennial
S61 UT to Second Broad River E 127 Intermittent
S62 UT to Stanfords Creek E 234 Perennial
S62a UT to UT to Stanfords Creek E 761 Perennial
S62b UT to UT to Stanfords Creek E 20 Intermittent
S62c UT to UT to Stanfords Creek E 42 Intermittent
S63 UT to Stanfords Creek E 160 Perennial
S63a UT to Stanfords Creek E 114 Intermittent
S63b UT to UT to Stanfords Creek E 43 Intermittent
S63c UT to UT to Stanfords Creek E 210 Perennial
S65* Goose Creek E 211 Perennial
S65a UT to Goose Creek E 33 Intermittent
S65a UT to Goose Creek E 606 Perennial
S66 UT to Goose Creek E 229 Perennial
S68 UT to North Muddy Creek E 209 Perennial
S69* North Muddy Creek E 236 Perennial
S69c North Muddy Creek F1 307 Perennial
S69d North Muddy Creek F1 62 Intermittent
S71 UT to North Muddy Creek F1 841 Perennial
S72 UT to Hicks Branch F1 528 Perennial
S72 UT to Hicks Branch F1, G1 125, 29 Intermittent
S72a* Hicks Branch G1 73 Perennial
S72aa UT to Hicks Branch G1 873 Perennial
S74 UT to Corpening Creek H 299 Perennial
S74a UT to UT to Corpening Creek H 23 Perennial
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
15 

Map ID Stream Name Segment (s) Length Impacted Classification
S75 UT to Corpening Creek H 341 Perennial
S76 UT to Corpening Creek H 529 Perennial
S76a UT to UT to Corpening Creek H 31 Intermittent
S76b UT to UT to Corpening Creek H 256 Perennial
S78* Youngs Fork H 48 Perennial
S78a UT to Youngs Fork H 59 Perennial
S78b UT to Youngs Fork H 242 Perennial
Total 16,644
* - Obvious Perennial (no form completed, data compiled from field notes, where available), segments rounded to nearest foot.
Table 5.5 lists impacts to wetlands for the selected LEDPA.
Table 5.6
Summary of Wetland Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA
Map
ID
NCWAM
Classification
Segment
(s)
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ
Wetland Rating Area
W1 Headwater Forest Wetland B1 Riparian 13 0.02
W1a Seep A1 Riparian 10 0.01
W2 Headwater Forest Wetland C Riparian 68 0.09
W3 Headwater Forest Wetland C Riparian 55 0.03
W5 Headwater Forest Wetland E Riparian 67 0.17
W8 Bottomland Hardwood D1 Riparian 40 0.01
W8a Bottomland Hardwood D1 Riparian 40 0.004
W12 Seep B1 Riparian 33 0.002
W17a Headwater Forest Wetland B1 Riparian 31 0.06
W22b Headwater Forest Wetland C Riparian 36 0.01
W40 Bottomland Hardwood D1 Non-riparian 15 0.08
W40a Freshwater Marsh D1 Non-riparian 22 0.05
W51 Seep D1 Non-riparian 34 0.05
W62a Headwater Forest Wetland E Riparian 27 0.20
W71 Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh F1 Riparian 21 0.02
Total 0.806

Table 5.7 lists the impacts to Other Waters of the U.S. within the US 221 project area.
Table 5.7
Summary of Other Impacts (in acres) for the LEDPA on Other Waters of the U.S.
Map
ID Classification Segment (s) Area Compensatory Mitigation Required
OW65a Pond F1 0.02 No
Total 0.02

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
16 

5.13 Rare and Protected Species
Field surveys for applicable federally listed threatened and endangered species were conducted
from May 14-May 17, 2013. The NCNHP lists five federally protected species for Rutherford
County and four federally protected species for McDowell County. There have been no changes
in protected species since publication of the SEA. The project was determined to have “No
Effect” on all of these species with the exception of small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides). In the development of final design for Segment R-204D, a design revision would
expand the study area for the project along I-40. NCDOT NES has determined that the area is
potential habitat for the species. Assessment of this area will be made within the blooming
window of the species prior to permitting. At this time, the conclusion for small whorled
pogonia is unresolved. A conclusion was not required for the Bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii), as it is listed as Threatened by Similarity of Appearance.
5.14 Water Quality and Floodplains
The project will slightly increase the amount of impervious surface within the project area,
which will subsequently increase stormwater runoff. The project area includes Water Supply
Watershed class WS-V waters in the Broad River Watershed (the Rutherford County portion of
the study area), as well as Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek), a stream listed as impaired under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, as amended.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the project area were updated in October 2008. This
information was used to determine floodplain impacts associated with the project. The
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated
state agency for administering the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program, to determine status of the project with regard to applicability of
NCDOT’s Memorandum of Agreement with FMP, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map
revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
5.15 Riparian Buffers
The project is located in the Broad River and Catawba River Basins. There are no riparian buffer
regulations in place in these areas.
5.16 Air Quality
The project is located in Rutherford and McDowell Counties, both of which have been
determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FHWA's
Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA,
2012) updated reporting requirements for mobile source air toxics (MSATs). Based on this
update, a Revised Air Quality Analysis was developed. The results of this report are discussed
more fully in Section 7.4.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
17 

5.17 Traffic Noise
Traffic noise effects for the US 221 project will be updated to comply with the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy (NCDOT, 2011b). This update is discussed more fully in Section 7.5.
The results of this analysis are not anticipated to have an effect on the chosen LEDPA.
5.18 Mineral Resources
The project will not directly impact mining or mineral resources. The project will have impacts
to the Lucky Strike Gold Mine and Heather Grove Gold and Gem Panning. It is not anticipated
that these right of way acquisitions would require relocation of these facilities.
5.19 Direct Impact Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to wetlands, streams, homes, businesses, and churches, were minimized by adjusting
alignments, widths, and slopes and by reducing the design footprint in an effort to minimize
impacts. A list of specific avoidance and minimizations were finalized with the agencies during
the Merger Concurrence Point (CP) 4A Meeting, was held on November 13, 2013. The signed
Concurrence Form is included in Appendix D.
5.20 Permits
Due to the placement of fill associated with stream crossings over jurisdictional surface waters
(i.e., wetlands and surface waters), it will be necessary to obtain permits from the USACE and
the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). These permits are required under Sections 404
and 401 of the CWA and are summarized below.
 Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (401 permit) – This permit from
NCDWR is required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Individual Permit. The 401
permit is required for any activity that will result in a discharge into “Waters of the
United States” or for which the issuance of a federal permit is required. The anticipated
impacts to streams (over 600 feet) and wetlands (over 0.1 acre) will require an individual
401 permit to be obtained and mitigation will be required.
 Section 404 (Impacts to “Waters of the United States”) – Impacts to “Waters to the
United States” are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. These impacts will require a
Section 404 permit. As the project will impact over 600 feet of streams and over 0.1 acre
of wetlands, an individual 404 permit must be obtained and mitigation will be required.
 State Stormwater Permit – Effective August 1, 2013, the Stormwater Permitting Program
has been moved to the North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources.
NCDOT will coordinate with regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary permits.

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
18 

6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
The following sections describe public involvement and agency coordination efforts conducted
after publication of the SEA. Additional information is provided in Appendix B.
6.1 Circulation of the SEA
The SEA was circulated to federal, state, and local agencies for review on September 19, 2011.
The SEA and project mapping were also made available for public review. The review period
for the SEA closed in December 2011.
Copies of the SEA and maps displaying the location of the projects were made available for
public review at:
 NCDOT District Engineer’s Office, 3931 NC Highway 226 S, Marion
 NCDOT County Maintenance Yard, 909 Ledbetter Road, Spindale
 Rutherford County Offices Building, 289 North Main Street, Rutherfordton
 County Administration Building, 60 East Court Street, Marion.

6.2 Agency Comments on the SEA
The following federal agencies supplied comments on the SEA:
 USACE
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Comment: USACE, as the federal agency responsible for the Section 106 compliance,
commented on historic resource issues, expressing concern at not having been present during
Section 106 meetings with NC-HPO.
Response: The decision to develop the document as an SEA (rather than a federal
Environmental Assessment) postdated the NC-HPO effects determination. USACE has been
involved throughout the remainder of Section 106 coordination.
Comment: USACE noted that delineations for the project had taken place in 2005 and were no
longer valid.
Response: NCDOT conducted updated stream and wetland delineations in 2012, the results of
which are included in this document.
Comment: USEPA recommended the selection of Alternatives D1 and F1.
Response: The alternatives USEPA recommended were chosen as LEDPA.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
19 

Comment: USEPA recommended using the most stringent BMP stormwater controls for
drainages to Corpening Creek (Youngs Fork), a stream listed as contaminated in 2012 by North
Carolina under 303(d) of the CWA. Finally, USEPA recommended avoidance and minimization
efforts be considered, including slope reductions, median reductions, and the bridging of Cathy’s
Creek.
Response: Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek) is an impaired stream included on the 2012 Final
303(d) list for Ecological/biological integrity Benthos, but it is not classified as High Quality
Waters or sensitive waters. NCDOT has agreed to implement Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds for sedimentation and turbidity, which do not apply to the proposed project.
NCDOT will develop standard stormwater management within the design plans for the proposed
project. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek) for
Ecological/biological integrity.
The following state agencies supplied comments on the SEA:
 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
 NC-HPO
 North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Agricultural
Services (NCDACS)
 North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), now the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR), Transportation Permitting Unit.
Comment: NCNHP stated a preference to avoid or minimize impacts to three Significant
Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) that are within one mile of the US 221 corridor: Rockey Face
Mountain and Cedar Knob (located on the east side of US 221 at the Rutherford/McDowell
County line), Bovender Farm (located west of US 221 north of Painters Gap Road in Rutherford
County), and Montford Cove/ Chestnut Mountain (located on the west side of US 221 south of
Mudcut Road in McDowell County). They also noted that populations of the Bog Turtle
(Glyptemys muhlenbergii), federally listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T/SA), were found within a mile of the project area, as were several plant species that were
listed as either state protected or Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
Response: The project team will work to minimize any impacts to these resources to the extent
practicable. As a T/SA species, field surveys are not required for bog turtle.
Comment: NC-HPO noted that the significance of archaeological site 31RF167 had not been
evaluated and a portion of Segment C had not been surveyed due to landowner refusal to grant
entry.
Response: Archaeological Site 31RF167** will be avoided by the undertaking as the updated
design has shifted the construction limits and Area of Potential Effects (APE) away from the site.
NCDOT will conduct additional archaeological evaluations after right of way is acquired for R-
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
20 

2597 to address any remaining denied access parcels or modification to the APE, in consultation
with NC-HPO / Office of State Archaeology (OSA).
Comment: NCDACS requested avoidance and minimization of any conversion of agricultural
land.
Response: NCDOT will limit impacts to agricultural lands to the extent practicable.
Comment: The NCDWR Transportation Permitting Unit noted that Corpening Creek (Youngs
Fork) is on the North Carolina CWA Section 303(d) list of impacted waters and recommended
that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented in this area in
accordance with Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff.
Response: There are no High Quality Waters or sensitive waters present for the proposed
project (none classified WS-I, WS-II, HQW, ORW, SA, CA, or Tr). There are no aquatic T&E
species issues. There are no Riparian Buffer Rules for any part of the proposed project. One
stream - Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek) - is included on the 2012 Final 303(d) List for
“Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos.” NCDOT has agreed to implement Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds for sediment/sedimentation and turbidity impairments, which do not
apply to the proposed project. Standard Sedimentation and Erosion Control BMPs will be
applied to this project.
Comment: NCDWR noted that the SEA stated the ICE assessment would be updated using
current methodologies, and also suggested expansion of the ICE study area.
Response: Please refer to the updated ICE discussion in Section 7.3, which uses NCDOT’s
current ICE guidelines. The original ICE study area boundaries were set based on
communication with NCDOT, local planners, topographic constraints, the limited potential for
extension of water and sewer services beyond the project corridor, and the limited growth
potential of McDowell and Rutherford Counties (whose population growth ranked 67th and 65th,
respectively, of the 100 North Carolina counties from 2000 to 2010). NCDOT maintains these
boundaries are appropriate.
Comment: NCDWR concluded their comments with a series of requests for minimizing stream
and wetland impacts and controlling stormwater impacts associated with the project.
Response: NCDOT will limit impacts to these resources to the extent practicable.
Two following local agencies supplied comments on the SEA:
 City of Marion
 McDowell County.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
21 

Comment: The City of Marion would prefer a five-lane portion for at least the area from I-40 to
the northern terminus of the project and wishes to have input during the avoidance/minimization
process.
Response: NCDOT currently does not recommend the use of five-lane typical sections.
NCDOT met with officials from Marion and McDowell County to discuss
avoidance/minimization concerns on July 24, 2012, and September 19, 2013. NCDOT is
committed to working with local officials throughout the completion of the project.
Comment: The City of Marion expressed concerns over stormwater impacts to Corpening Creek
(Youngs Fork), a CWA Section 303(d) listed stream; the City (Marion) wishes to separate issues
from their WWPT from impacts associated with runoff from the improved highway.
Response: NCDOT requested data on contaminant hotspots from the City of Marion.
Contamination of Corpening Creek is mainly attributed to the Corpening Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant and non-point source contamination from stormwater.
Comment: The City of Marion stated concerns about potential conflicts with existing water and
sewer lines near I-40.
Response: NCDOT developed updated utility estimates to more fully evaluate conflicts with
water and sewer lines near I-40. The updated impacts are presented in the FONSI.
Comment: The City of Marion inquired as to what the impact of the proposed directional
crossovers would be on school bus travel times.
Response: NCDOT noted that the additional travel to the U-turn bulbs would be offset by the
greater mobility of the improved facility. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
Comment: McDowell County is in the process of updating their Comprehensive Transportation
Plan (CTP) and requested their updates to be reflected in the alternative selection and design
process. For example, existing Southern Railroad right of way in the Clinchfield area has been
acquired to convert to a bike path.
Response: Comment noted. It was not possible to delay alternative selection pending the
update of the CTP. The CTP was reviewed during development of the FONSI and was
determined to be consistent with the selected LEDPA.
Comment: The City of Marion inquired about the NCDOT pedestrian and sidewalk policy,
specifically, if the City can request sidewalks for the entire corridor, or only the area within the
City limits.
Response: NCDOT informed the City that a three-party agreement could be pursued with
NCDOT, the City, and the County to provide sidewalks along the curb and gutter sections of US
221.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
22 

6.3 Summary of Public Hearing Comments
NCDOT certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held, and the social,
economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning goals and
objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of the Preferred
Alternative.
Public Hearings for the project were held on March 12, 2012, at R-S Central High School in
Rutherfordton and March 13, 2012, at the City of Marion Community Building in Marion. The
format of the hearings was an informal open house from 4:30 - 6:30 p.m. with a formal
presentation held at 7:00 p.m. Local Officials Information Meetings were held immediately
beforehand at 2:00 p.m. Displays available for review included the public hearing maps. During
the informal open house, a map request station was set up to allow citizens to request portions of
the public hearing maps in the vicinity of their property. An announcement of the meeting was
placed on the NCDOT website. The meeting was also advertised via a newsletter announcing
the meeting and advertisements in local newspapers. Comments on the SEA were accepted
through April 12, 2012.
All of the written and verbal comments and responses are provided in Appendix B. The most
common comments are summarized below:
Comment: Several comments that there is not enough traffic to support the project.
Response: Traffic data consistently support the need for the project.
Comment: Several comments requesting additional U-turn bulbs because of concerns that the
distance required to travel to the nearest U-turn is too great.
Response: NCDOT will investigate additional U-turn bulbs during final design.
Comment: Several requests related to right in/right out access (in lieu of a cul-de-sac), driveway
access, traffic signals, relocation of U-turn bulbs, and other property-specific design issues.
Response: NCDOT will evaluate these requests during final design.
Comment: Concerns about access to Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation (REMC)
substation.
Response: NCDOT will coordinate with REMC to get specifications for mobile substation to
determine if it is possible to provide access during final design.
Comment: Request to minimize impacts to trees.
Response: NCDOT will attempt to minimize impacts to trees during final design.

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
23 

7.0 ADDITIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE SEA

7.1 Delineations of Streams and Wetlands
USACE and NCDWR consider stream and wetland field delineations to be accurate for a period
of five years after completion. As the delineations used in the SEA were based on field surveys
undertaken in June 2003, it was necessary to update this work. Preliminary stream and wetland
delineations were completed prior to meeting with the Merger Team to assist in the selection of
LEDPA. Preliminary delineation data approved by USACE are shown in this document (See
Section 5.12).
7.2 Rare and Protected Species
There are seven species listed as federally threatened or endangered in Rutherford and
McDowell Counties, four of which lack suitable habitat in the project area. For the SEA,
conclusions on impacts to Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and Dwarf flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) were based on field surveys conducted in May 2004. For the
FONSI, updated field surveys for applicable federally listed threatened and endangered species
(Dwarf-flowered heartleaf, Small whorled pogonia, and White irisette [Sisrinchium
dichotomum]) were conducted from May 14-17, 2013. The project was determined to have “No
Effect” on all of these species.
7.3 ICE Update
In their comments on the SEA, NCDOT Human Environment Section-Community Studies
(HES-CS) noted that the 2006 ICE report was not consistent with current ICE methodology,
specifically inclusion of the quantitative ICE matrix. They also noted that the 2008 recession
may have changed conditions in the project area and that as a result, current demographic data
needed to be considered. Based on this assessment, they requested that the ICE be updated.
This analysis generally confirmed the results of the previous analysis, which indicated that while
changes in land use were possible, even under the high induced growth scenario, only minimal
changes in the amount of impervious cover are expected. While these changes in impervious
cover are unlikely to have an effect at the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) scale, localized
effects are possible.
It should be noted that, mainly because of the large amount of available land and limited
development restrictions within the FLUSA, the score for the ICE matrix indicates somewhat
higher than anticipated ICEs associated with the project. The FLUSA extends for more than 21
miles and includes the entirety of all parcels within a half mile of the project area, resulting in
more than 5,000 acres of potentially developable land. However, much of the FLUSA is located
in hilly to mountainous areas with limited development potential. The area also lacks extensive
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
24 

land use controls. Although zoning controls are not present within the FLUSA, the economy of
the region has been depressed by the loss of mills over the past few decades and the economy for
the region is expected to grow at a lower rate than the state average through at least 2018 (NC
Employment Security Commission, 2013).
The Indirect Land Use Effects Screening Matrix is shown in Table 4. The following discussion
explains how the ratings were derived:
Project Scope - The scope of the project is anticipated to be moderately low,as this is a widening,
not a new location project.
Accessibility Change - The proposed project is expected to reduce travel time through the project
area in the project design year by approximately three minutes. Based on the screening matrix,
time savings of zero to three minutes are ranked moderately low.
Forecasted Population Growth - The annualized population growth is minor (0.23 percent).
Based on the screening matrix, annualized annual population growth of zero to one percent is
considered moderately low.
Forecasted Employment Growth - the annualized employment growth is also low (0.21 percent).
Based on the screening matrix, annualized annual employment growth of zero to one percent is
considered moderately low.
Available Land - The factor most conducive for growth is the amount of available land (over
5,000 acres.). Based on the screening matrix, more than 5,000 acres of available land is
considered to be high concern.
Water/Sewer Availability - The City of Marion has stated that they have limited availability for
the foreseeable future to expand water and sewer services. Currently, water and sewer services
extend south from the City of Marion to Goose Creek Road. Rutherford County has no water or
sewer service north of Roper Loop Road and has no plans on extending those services at this
time. For this reason, this factor is rated moderately low.
Market for Development - The market for development in the FLUSA is poor. Employment in
the project study area is below the average rate in North Carolina. According to County
officials, there has been little development in the project area and the prospect for growth in the
future is limited. For this reason, this factor is rated low.
Public Policy – Growth policy in both Rutherford and McDowell County is based on the
respective counties comprehensive plans. There is zoning in Marion, but there are few
development constraints in the majority of the FLUSA. There are watershed protection
ordinances in both counties within the FLUSA. Also, area topography would tend to increase
the cost of development through much of the FLUSA, as would the lack of water and sewer
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
25 

availability in the area between Roper Loop Road and Goose Creek Road. For these reasons, the
factor is rated neutral.
Notable Environmental Features - Field surveys found no populations of federally protected
species within the US 221 project study area. While the Second Broad River and its tributaries
are considered to be Class WS-V, they have no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater dischargers like other WS classifications. Corpening Creek is
included on the North Carolina 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
However, both counties in the FLUSA have watershed protection ordinances. There are few
other notable features within the FLUSA. For these reasons, the factor is rated low.
The results of the screening process are shown in Table 7.1. The score for this project was 13
out of a possible 46 points, which indicates that a Land Use Scenario Assessment is not likely to
be required. Based on this result, and input from the local communities regarding current and
medium term economic prospects for the area, and the minimal historical and forecasted growth
in the study area, it was concluded that further assessment is not required.

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
26 

Table 7.1
NCDOT HES Land Use Screening Matrix Results
Rating Project
Scope
Acces-
sibility
Change
Forecasted
Population
Growth
Forecasted
Employment
Growth
Available
Land
Water/
Sewer
Avail-
ability
Market for
Develop-
ment
Public
Policy
Notable
Env.
Features
Results
More
Concern
Major
new
location
> 10
minute
savings
>3%
annual
population
growth
Substantial #
of new jobs
expected
5000+
acres of
land
All
services
existing/
available
Abundant
development
activity
Less
stringent no
growth
management
Targeted or
threatened
resource

X
X

X X X X X Indirect
scenario
assessment
not likely

X X
Less
Concern
Very
limited
scope
No
travel
time
savings
No
population
growth or
decline
No new jobs
or job losses
Limited
land
available
No
service
available
now or
in future
Development
activity
lacking
More
stringent
growth
management
Features
incorporated
in local
protection

Score 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 13
*Matrix Source, NCDOT Human Environment Unit, 2012
The NCDOT Indirect and Cumulative Land Use Effects Screening Matrix also includes tools to
evaluate the past, current, and anticipated future effects of development on notable
environmental features. Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show the results of this assessment. While some past
practices have impacted notable environmental resources in the study area, protections put in
place by Rutherford and McDowell Counties are working to limit the effect of current
development and it is anticipated that they will continue to work to ensure future development
does not contribute to potential cumulative effects. The results of the evaluation (as illustrated in
the matrices shown in Tables 7.2 and 7.3), show that this project has a total score of 8 out of a
possible 88 points. Based on this evaluation, it is considered that the project is not likely to
contribute to cumulative impacts within the FLUSA.
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
27 

Detailed qualitative analysis of the probable development patterns in the FLUSA suggests the
proposed project will have little to no effect on future stormwater runoff or water quality in the
watersheds encompassed by the project. Future ICEs in the project area will be limited by
existing watershed regulations, topographic constraints, the lack of water and sewer services to
unincorporated portions of the FLUSA, and the relatively low current and expected increases in
area populations and employment. Current data suggest that these circumstances will be in place
through the time horizon of the assessment.

Table 7.2
NCDOT HES Cumulative ICE Screening Matrix (Part 1)
Rating Notable Cultural Features Notable Community Features
Past Actions Current
Activities
Future
Development
Past Actions Current
Activities
Future
Development
More
Concern
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique resources
not protected/
recognized

X
X

X X X X
Less
Concern
Features
incorporated in
local planning
and protection
Features
incorporated in
local planning
and protection
Features
incorporated in
local planning
and protection
Features
incorporated in
local planning
and protection
Features
incorporated in
local planning
and protection
Features
incorporated in
local planning and
protection
Score 3 -1 -2 2 -1 -2
*Matrix Source, NCDOT Human Environment Unit, 2012

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
28 

Table 7.3
NCDOT HES Cumulative ICE Screening Matrix (Part 2)
Rating Notable Water Quality Features Notable Habitat Features Results
Past Actions Current
Activities
Future
Development
Past Actions Current
Activities
Future
Development

More
Concern
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized
Unique
resources not
protected/
recognized

X X

X X X Cumulative
impacts not
likely

X
Less
Concern
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection
Features
incorporated
in local
planning and
protection

Score
(Cont.)
4 1 -2 3 1 2 8
*Matrix Source, NCDOT Human Environment Unit, 2012
7.4 Air Quality Analysis Report
The Air Quality Analysis Report (NCDOT, 2013b) was developed to determine the effect on air
quality from the US 221 project. Based on this analysis, it was determined that, due to the
anticipated design year AADT, this project is considered to be a project with low potential for
MSAT effects. For this reason, a qualitative assessment was determined to be applicable.
For the preferred alternative in this air quality analysis, the amount of MSAT emitted would be
proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as other variables such as fleet mix are
anticipated to be the same. Because the VMT for the Build Alternative is estimated to be the
same as the No-Build Alternative, higher levels of MSAT are not expected from the Build
Alternative compared to the No Build. Regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will
likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA’s national control
programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent from 2010 to
STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
29 

2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and
turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the
USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT
emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations.
For the Build and No-Build Alternative, there are no localized areas where VMT would increase
or decrease. Therefore, there are no possible localized increases or decreases in MSAT
emissions. Regardless, even if increases were to occur, they too will be substantially reduced in
the future due to implementation of USEPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations.
7.5 Revised Traffic Noise Analysis
A Revised Traffic Noise Analysis is currently under development. The analysis will apply the
most recent FHWA and NCDOT requirements for traffic noise impact assessment. In particular,
the supplemental report will detail impacts to specific noise receptors from the project LEDPA.
It is not anticipated that the major findings of the original noise reports or the recommendations
regarding mitigation will change. The revised analysis will be made available to the public as a
post-FONSI Technical memo.
8.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
This FONSI, in conjunction with the SEA (which is incorporated by reference), have been
evaluated by NCDOT and determined to accurately discuss the Purpose and Need of this project,
the effects to the human and natural environment, the impacts of the project and the appropriate
mitigation measures. No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological, cultural, economic or
scenic resources are anticipated. The proposed project is consistent with local plans, and the
project has been coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies. Based on this evaluation,
responses to the SEA, and public involvement, it has been determined that a FONSI is applicable
to this project. Neither an EIS nor further environmental analysis is required. NCDOT takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the SEA and the FONSI.
Additional information according to this proposal and documentation can be obtained by
contacting:
Richard W. Hancock, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone – [phone]

STIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E US 221 Widening
30 

9.0 REFERENCES
American Community Survey, 2011. Download of five-year estimates of poverty statistics for
North Carolina, Rutherford County, NC, and McDowell County, NC and selected census
block groups.
Federal Highway Administration, 2012. Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents. Website viewed on October, 30, 2013:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/aqintg
uidmem.cfm
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), 1976, Updated 1997. Rutherford
Urban Corridor Thoroughfare Plan. NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch, Small Urban
Planning Unit. Raleigh NC. September 1976.
-- 1995. Thoroughfare Plan for McDowell County. NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch,
Small Urban Planning Unit. Raleigh NC. December 1995.
-- 2011a. US 221 Improvements from North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford
County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County US 221 State Environmental
Assessment.
-- 2011b. Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. Policy adopted on July 13, 2011. Website cited
October 30, 2013:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20P
rocedures/2011%20NCDOT%20Traffic%20Noise%20Abatement%20Policy.pdf
-- 2012. Human Environment Section (HES) ICE Screening Matrix.
-- 2013a. Comprehensive Transportation Plan for McDowell County. Website cited
October 15, 2013:
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p16062coll9/id/25362/rec/6
-- 2013b. Air Quality Analysis Report for Project R-2597 and R-204 D&E. Developed by
Michael Baker Engineering
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Population estimates for North Carolina, Rutherford County,
McDowell County, and selected census block groups.

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

?
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Seco
n
d

B
r
o
a
d

R
i
v
e
r
Mill Cr
e
e
k
£¤64
£¤64
§¨¦40
226
£¤221
£¤221BUS
£¤221£¤221
£¤64
Cath
e
y
s

C
r
e
e
k
B
o
x

C
r
e
e
k
Rock Cre
e
k
Harr
i
s

C
r
e
e
k
Ston
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Lewis

C
r
e
e
k
Che
r
r
y

C
r
e
e
k
B
a
k
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
No
r
t
h

M
u
d
d
y

C
r
e
e
k
Rock
h
o
u
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Camp Branch
H
u
n
t
s
v
i
l
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
Calif
o
r
n
i
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Hicks Branch
Cob
b

B
r
a
n
c
h
Scr
u
b

G
r
a
s
s

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sec
o
n
d

B
r
o
a
d

R
i
v
e
r
RUTHERFORD CO.McDOWELL CO.
SR

1
1
5
3
(G
o
o
s
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
d
)
SR
1
5
3
6
(Ol
d

H
w
y

2
2
1
)
Rutherford
County
Airport
CSX R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
Gilkey
ThermalCity
Glenwood
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
Abandone
d

R
a
i
l

L
i
n
e
³
Project Location
McDOWELL CO
RUTHERFORD CO
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map and Project Study Area
BeginProject R-2597 EndProject R-204 D&E
Vein Mountain
R-204 D&E Project Study Area
R-2597 Project Study Area
End Project R-2597Begin Project R-204 D&E
MarionRutherfordton
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
?Cell Tower
Interstate
US
NC
Roads
Railroads
County BoundaryHydro - Rivers/Streams
Hydro -Water Bodies
Unnamed Tributaries
SR

1
3
6
6
(R
o
p
e
r

L
o
o
p

R
d
)

APPENDIX B

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SEA AND
DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE FONSI

Federal Comments

1
Gilland, Ken
From:Qubain, Joseph <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:49 PM
To:Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
Cc:Hart, Teresa A
Subject:RE: SEA for US 221 (STIP R-2597/R-204 D & E) and USACE requirements
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Good Afternoon, 

As agreed we will handle this by email, and not in the FONSI. 

1) You are right that this is a State EA and a state funded project.  But it has been our experience that funding sources 
change, and in an effort to be ready if this becomes funded by the FHWA, we have had them involved and aware of the 
project.  An argument can be made not to have them sign the forms, but if at the last minute this becomes federally 
funded, then "all our ducks are in a row" and we can proceed with the project with hardly any change or effort in our 
NEPA process. 

2) In the EA we have not included a preferred alternative.  That will be determined in CP3 and after our Public Hearing.  
You are right that in has be done both ways, but our thinking is to get the stakeholders input and share it with the 
Merger Team prior to the selection that will be done in CP3.  In my personal experience I have found that the EPA will 
not sign off on CP3 without a published document. 

3) Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the EA in my new office, but if memory serves me, this is a site which we were 
not given access to by the owner. This was discussed with our Human Environment Unit and they indicated that this is 
not a problem.  According to their present process, they usually survey these sites after CP3. Unfortunately this project, 
because on the alignment issue at the bridge, was sort on hold for a few years, and our process has changed. 

As for the other comments in your email, as you mentioned in our phone call, these do not pertain to the EA and you 
had discussed them with Carla. 

If you have any further questions, I will be more than glad to answer them. 

Until another Project Manager is assigned, I will continue to help were I can. 

Although I check the voice mail on my PDEA phone, I can be also reached at 919 ‐ 733 ‐2520. 

Have a nice evening, 

Joseph 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:10 PM 
To: Qubain, Joseph 
Subject: FW: SEA for US 221 (STIP R‐2597/R‐204 D & E) and USACE requirements (UNCLASSIFIED) 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

Joseph, 
2

As we discussed, here are the comments/questions on US 221 (#1‐3).  We can probably handle these by phone or e‐
mail. 

Thanks, 

Lori 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Beckwith, Loretta A SAW 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:33 PM 
To: '[e-mail]' 
Cc: 'Dagnino, Carla S'; Jones, Scott SAW; McLendon, Scott C SAW 
Subject: SEA for US 221 (STIP R‐2597/R‐204 D & E) and USACE requirements 
(UNCLASSIFIED) 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

Hello Teresa, 

This message concerns comments on the SEA for US 221 widening (STIP 
R‐2597/R‐204 D & E).  I'm sending this e‐mail to you because I understand that Joseph is no longer the project manager.  
If this is not correct, please let me know and/or forward this to the correct project manager. 

I reviewed the document and have the following comments/questions.  Please let me know if you need me to explain 
any of my comments. 

1.  I understood that this is a state project and the USACE is the lead federal agency ‐ this is correct, right?  If so, please 
detail why the FHWA signed the CP forms and the concurrence form for properties not eligible for the NHRP (Appendix 
E) and why the USACE didn't sign the properties not eligible form. 

2.   I may have overlooked it, but which set of segments (for those segments 
with multiple options) comprise DOT's preferred alternative?  If not in the EA, will the preferred alternative be identified 
in the FONSI?  I've seen it done both ways (in the EA and in the FONSI) ‐ which way is the norm? 

3.   On page 76 of the SEA, what are the predicted effects on 31MC285/285** 
if it cannot be avoided?  I don't see if referenced in the June 26, 2007, letter from the SHPO (Appendix E).  Did the SHPO 
send any correspondence about this site? 

Carla asked me to review the document and comment on how/if it addresses USACE requirements (404(b)(1) guidelines 
and the public interest review PIR)); these requirements are in addition to our NEPA requirements and we must 
complete these analyses in order to make a permit decision. 

The following comments concerning required information for our guidelines and PIR analysis do not need to be 
addressed in this SEA ‐ I'm simply providing this information to Carla, as requested, but please be aware that we will 
need this information in order to evaluate your project and determine if it can be authorized ‐ the following information 
for this project can be submitted with the application, during the public comment period, etc. 
Again, for future projects, you may want to discuss (internally) if/how you want to package/provide all of this 
information and then engage Scott McLendon (USACE Team Leader for DOT) for input from the USACE. 

3
Details of the Public Interest Review ‐ we are required to determine if a permit can be issued based on an evaluation of 
the probable impact(s), including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public 
interest.  Evaluation of the probable impact(s) which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a 
careful weighing of all those factors which are relevant in each particular case.  All factors which may be relevant to the 
proposal must be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, 
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, 
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretions, recreation, water supply and conservation, water 
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in 
general, the needs and welfare of the people. 

Most of these resource areas (both baseline and expected effects) were examined in the SEA for this project with the 
following exceptions: 
conservation, aesthetics (although topography was discussed), floodplain values (had baseline but no anticipated 
impacts), water supply (for HWYs need info re impervious surfaces, anticipated effects of recharge, etc.), and energy 
needs. 

For the guidelines, the categories are physical substrate; water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity; suspended 
particulate/turbidity; contaminant availability; aquatic ecosystem effects; proposed disposal site; cumulative effects, 
and; secondary effects. 

Carla, descriptions/explanations for the PIR and guidelines are in the template documents that I've sent you (the old 
format and the new one). 

Also, please ensure that all alternatives examined, to include avoidance, minimization of impacts (modified project 
designs, all minimization effects, 
etc.) are described in detail and explain why each alternative was or wasn't chosen as the preferred alternative. 

As noted in the SEA, please note that the delineation for waters of the U.S. 
was last verified in March 2005 and verifications are valid for 5 years only. 

I've provided the information above in an effort to explain the information I'll need, specific to this project.  For all future 
programmatic (vs. 
project specific) issues/questions, such as the information we need for every project, possible formats for providing this 
information, etc., please contact Scott McLendon. 

Thank you, 

Lori Beckwith 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

4
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE 

________________________________ 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third 
parties. 

State Comments

Q'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water uality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H.Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 26, 2011
i MEMORANDUM
IITo:Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovemmental
Affairs
IFrom: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Comments on the State Environmental Assessment related to proposed improvements to
US 221 from existing north of SR 1366(Roper Loop Road)to existing US 22l-NC 226
in Rutherford and McDowell Counties, State Project Nos. 6.899002T and 6.879005T,
T[P Project Nos. R-2597 and R-204 D&E, State Clearinghouse Project No.12-0077.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated June 30, 201 L The NC Division of Water
Quality(NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
IProject SpeciTic Comments:
L This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. Corpening Creek is class C; 303(d)waters of the State. Corpening Creek is on the 303(d) list for
impaired use of ecologicaUbiological integrity for benthos. NCDWQ is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDWQ recommends that the
most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented in accordance with Design
Standmds in Sensrtive Watersheds to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Corpening Creek.
NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment ofthe storm water runoffthrough best
management practices as detailed in the most recent version ofNCDWQ's Stormwater Best
Management Practices.
3. In Section V.H. [ndirect and Cumulative Effects,the documents states that the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Assessment will be updated using current methodologies. NCDWQ requests
that the ICE study area be expanded. The document states that the study area was determined by
drawing a perimeter 'h mile off of the project bowidaries. This seems to be a very arbilrary way to
determine an [CE study area boundary. Several 303(d)watersheds are located adjacent orjust
downstream lium the wrrent study area. In addition, several other large transportation projects are
being planned/constructedjust outside ofthe current study area. Potential effects to these 303(d)
watersheds as well as the ePfecis ofthe other transportation pro.jccts should be adequately assessed
in this study.
Transpotlatio P.rminin,Unit T,T Il[ y f 1
155. Mail Servia:Cen c Ralei;;h,NoAh Ca.lina 2.-i99-i(SU 1 v 01;.IluJill 011IIll
Loc:tior 2321 Crabtree lvtl.,I:aleigh,Nodh Carolh a 2%6i A 9 qtl.//'p4 e;i9-i"3-17861hNX'.u,-•';-6P';V S db`
I:::.a: http.ii2o.encsf te;,c.:= :wetlendsl
4.:ue Jppem.i:iity'n,M,rna6:o,..::c•EmPln;er
4. The document is organized by presenting the narrative of the document first and providing the
figures associated with the nartative in a separate Appendix at the end of the document. This makes
it difficult to review the narrative while referring to the figures referenced in the narrative. Please
insert the figures in appropriate locations within the nartative to facilitate reviewing the document.
General Comments:
5. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by ]SA NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)mitigation plan
with the emironmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
6. Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the stortn water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
7. .After the selection of the preferted altemative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands(and streams)to the maximum extent practicaL In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
8. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commissiods Rules {I SA NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than I50 lineaz feet to any single
stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
9. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application,should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with cortesponding
mapping.
10. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
I 1. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April ]0, 2004.
12. NCDOT is respectfulh reminded that all impacts, including but not limited tq bridging, fill,
exc-ivation and clearirg, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers nee!I to
be inclu?ed in the fin l im_act eale:latiens. ''.'hcse im.acts. in addition t am con;truction imp.,cts,
temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application.
13. Where streams must be crossed, NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, NCDOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek,to the
maximum extent practicable.
14. Whenever possible,NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall aflow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the strucwre. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shal(
not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents)shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
l5. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stortnwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means(grassed swales, pre-Fortned scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
i
16. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
17. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicaL [mpacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
18. The 40l Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stortnwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
19. Based on the information presented in the document,the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality CeRification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be
contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical,the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
20. [f concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
21. If temporary access roads or de[ours are conshucted,the site shall be raded to its preconstruction
contours and eleval ions. llisturbed arcas shall be seeded or mulched to stnbilize [he soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary strucwres the area shall
h• clear;d but not g ubbed. Cle..ring rhe area wi[h chain saws; mowc:s, bush-ho;s, or cther
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturalfy and minimizes soil disturbance.
22. Placement of culverts and other shuctures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches,to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other strucwres
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of weNands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by NCD WQ. [f this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please wntact the NCDWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
23. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain benches, and/or
sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall be avoided. Stream
channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typicaily decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
24. f foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
25. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
26. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock bertns, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
27. While the use ofNational Wetland Inventory(NW[) maps,NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance(NGCREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools,their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
28. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
29. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel a placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be. properly designed,
sizcd and installed.
30. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall he preserved to the maximwn extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits ofthe project by the end of
the growii:g season folluwin,,co r.pletion of construction.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Shall you have any questions
or require any additional infortnation, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-807-6365.
cc: Lori Beckwith, US Army Corps of Engineers,Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency(electronic copy only)
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service(electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy

Comments from City of Marion and McDowell
County

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT/PE/
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

DATE: July 26, 2012

SUBJECT: Minutes for July 24, 2012 Local Officials Informational Meeting for
Improvements to US 221, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 DE, Rutherford
and McDowell Counties, WBS Numbers 35608 and 34329

PARTICIPANTS: Juanita Doggett Marion City Council
Scott Spratt Marion Police Department
Heather Cotton Marion Planning and Development
Brant Sikes Marion Public Works
Bob Boyette Marion City Manager
Chuck Abernathy McDowell County Manager
Rod Birdsong McDowell County Chamber
Carol B. Price McDowell County Tourism
Josh King Isothermal RPO
Lloyd Cuthbertson Marion City Council
Brenda Moore, PE NCDOT Roadway Design
Konchata Noland NCDOT Roadway Design
Linh Nguyen, PE NCDOT Transportation Planning
Rick Tipton, PE, PLS NCDOT Highway Division 13
Mike Reese, PE NCDOT Congestion Management
Undrea Major NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Jamille Robbins NCDOT PD&EA Branch
John Conforti, REM NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Dave Wilver, PE Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, PG Michael Baker Engineering

A Local Officials Informational Meeting was held at the Marion Community Building on July 24,
2012 at 1 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to receive input from the community prior to decisions
on preferred alternatives for the subject project.
Jamille Robbins began with introductions followed by a brief presentation by Mike Reese on the
differences between four-lane, median divided and five-lane roadways in terms of safety and
maintenance of traffic. The presentation was followed by an extended question and answer session.
The conversation is summarized below.
Question: Would it be possible to have a five-lane section for a portion of the proposed
improvements? This might allow a reduction of the project footprint and improve business access.
The most recent improvements in McDowell County (US 221 north of Marion and Sugar Hill Road)
have a five-lane typical.
Answer: The Department feels, based on studies in North Carolina and elsewhere, that the four-lane,
median divided facility is safer, in that it reduces head-on collisions and fatalities. These studies took
place after the improvements of US 221 north of Marion were designed. Since US 221, unlike Sugar
Hill Road, is a strategic highway corridor, it is being designed to accommodate that function. If the
portion of US 221 north of Marion needs future improvements, it is likely that a five-lane typical
would be implemented. Based on this information and current Department policy, a five-lane typical

section is not being considered for this project. The four-lane, median divided facility is
approximately 15 feet wider than the five-lane typical in most cases.
Question: The City and County are concerned about right of way (ROW) and access impacts to local
businesses. McDowell and Marion have limited tax bases, and every job counts. They are concerned
also because area topography limits the potential of businesses to relocate and 28 percent of the land
in the County is owned by state or federal entities, which places further limits on the tax base in this
county with low property values and high unemployment.
Answer: Anecdotal information from recent projects using a four-lane median divided typical section
indicated that while businesses had some loss of revenue during construction, their customer base
returned or grew after construction. In terms of ROW acquisition, the Department will make every
practicable effort to reduce impacts to homes and businesses. Based on the preliminary designs, the
Department feels there will be an opportunity to reduce impacts to businesses north of the intersection
of US 221 and NC 226/US 221 Business. The Department will examine the use of retaining walls and
other minimization measures to reduce impacts throughout the corridor during the 25% designs, which
are currently under development.
Question: The City is concerned about the cost of utility relocations. The City extended water and
sewer service for six miles along US 221 in an attempt to develop the area for business use. The first
set of water and sewer lines were installed in 1995 to Glenwood School, and the last extension was in
2003. There is a 12-inch water line extending to Goose Creek Road. The City has conducted a
preliminary assessment that indicated relocation of the utilities (which they would be responsible for
due to the size of the City) would cost as much as $5 million. This cost would bankrupt the City.
Answer: The Department asked the City to provide digital files showing the location of the existing
water and sewer lines, as the determination has not yet been made on a preferred alternative for
Sections F (Goose Creek Road to just south of I-40) and G (the I-40 interchange) of the project. The
Department will explore all practicable measures to minimize water and sewer impacts.
Question: The City is trying to encourage retirees to settle in the area. The project has the potential
to impact three of the four largest hotels used by visitors to the area.
Answer: The Department will take all practicable steps, including the use of retaining walls, to
minimize and avoid impacts to hotels in the project area.
Question: What is the timeframe for the project?
Answer: A determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
will be made by the end of 2012. This determination will be made by the Department and the Merger
Team, which includes regulators. ROW purchase is scheduled for 2014 and construction in 2015 for
the portion of the project from I-40 to the Marion Bypass.
Question: If the impacts to the local economy are too severe, can we delay the project?
Answer: The Department hopes to work with the community to ensure the project is delivered in a
timely fashion and the schedule is maintained. However, if strong local opposition persists, the project
could be delayed. Given the Department’s financial limitations, if a project is delayed, funding could
be applied to other projects, so it would be difficult to estimate when the project could be re-started.
Question: When could NCDOT share more information on potential impacts?
Answer: The Department will have more definitive impact information when the 25% designs area
available, which should be during the first quarter of 2013. The design will include the preferred
alternative and will be based on updated survey work, so the impacts can be estimated with greater
precision and accuracy. The Department will share this information with the City and work with them

to limit impacts to businesses, water and sewer lines, and residences. The Department will continue to
coordinate with the City, County, and local landowners through the process.
Question: What is the RPO role in this process?
Answer: The Isothermal Rural Planning Organization (RPO) has a seat at the Merger Team.
Members of the Isothermal RPO are taking Merger Team training in October and at that time will be
able to act as a signatory for the project. The RPO is also responsible for developing the Long-Range
Transportation Plan, the Small Area Transportation Plan for Marion, and reviewing proposed TIP
projects.
In addition to these issues, the City stated that they would be pursuing outside funds to relocate
utilities, if necessary. Currently the only water and sewer client south of I-40 is the Glenwood School.
The City agreed to provide digital information on utilities to NCDOT in the next two weeks.
If you have any questions, please contact Undrea Major at 919-707-6028.

cc: Meeting Participants

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N. C. 27699 - 1501 ANTHONY J. TATA
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC Department of Transportation FAX: [phone] Transportation Building
Rail Division 1 S. Wilmington Street

Sttssssssssss
1553 Mail Service Center WEBSITE: WWW.BYTRAIN.ORG Raleigh, NC 27601
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553

September 23, 2013

MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants

FROM: Undrea Major
NCDOT
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit

SUBJECT: Summary of the project meeting with the City of Marion and McDowell
County officials, US 221 from SR 1366 in Rutherford County to US 221-
NC 226 in McDowell County, TIP Projects R 2597 and R-204 D&E

A meeting was held on Thursday, September 19th, 2013, at 1:30 PM at the Marion Historic Depot,
located at 58 Depot Street in Marion, NC. The following people were in attendance:

Steve Little Mayor, City of Marion [e-mail]
Bob Boyette Manager, City of Marion [e-mail]
Brant Sikes Public Works Dir. City of Marion [e-mail]
Lloyd Cuthbertson Mayor Pro Tem [e-mail]
Billy Martin Marion City Council [e-mail]
Juanita Doggett Marion City Council [e-mail]
Don Ramsey Marion City Council [e-mail]
Everette Clark Marion City Council [e-mail]
Chuck Abernathy Manager, McDowell County [e-mail]
Ashley R. Wooten Assist. Manager, McDowell County [e-mail]
Joe Kaylor County Commissioner, McDowell County
David Walker McDowell County Commissioner [e-mail]
Randy Hollifield McDowell County Commissioner [e-mail]
Karyl Fuller Isothermal RPO [e-mail]
Edith Vance Citizen 828-659-8613
Rick Tipton NCDOT Div. 13, Div. Engineer [e-mail]
Kristina Solberg NCDOT Div. 13 [e-mail]
Doug McNeal NCDOT Div. 13 [e-mail]
Brenda Moore NCDOT – Roadway Design [e-mail]
Andrew Young NCDOT – Roadway Design [e-mail]
Carl Barclay NCDOT – Utilities Unit [e-mail]
James Swinson NCDOT – Utilities Unit [e-mail]
Undrea “Dre” Major NCDOT – PDEA Unit [e-mail]

Stephen C. Trexler Cardno NC, Inc. [e-mail]
Craig Young Baker Engineering [e-mail]

During the meeting, the following topics were discussed:

Introductions
Mayor Little welcomed everyone and thanked NCDOT for coordinating the meeting. After the Mayor’s
welcoming comments, meeting participants introduced themselves.

Utility Relocation Costs for R-204D&E
Mayor Little began the project specific discussion by clearly stating that the City of Marion could not
afford the estimated cost for relocating the impacted utilities within their jurisdiction (from I-40, north to
the US 221 Bypass in Marion), as required under G.S.136-27.3. Current estimates for utility relocation
range from approximately $1.2M (NCDOT estimate) to $2.2M (City of Marion estimate).

Mayor Little presented the following two options for moving forward with the R-2597/R-204D&E
project:

1. NCDOT absorbs all costs associated with utility relocation work for the section of US 221
starting just south of the I-40/US 221 interchange and extending north to the intersection of US
221 and the US 221 Bypass.

2. Acknowledge that the cost of widening US 221, from south of the I-40 interchange to the US 221
Bypass, and its associated impacts, outweighs the benefit recognized by the City of Marion;
therefore, NCDOT should stop the US 221 widening project south of the I-40 interchange and
leave the portion north of that as-is.

Former Mayor, Everette Clark, added that the City of Marion previously extended water and sewer
service south along US 221 during his term as Mayor and in anticipation of the R-2597 project
beginning the planning process back in the early/mid 1990’s. Mr. Clark stated that the City of Marion
should not have to pay for the relocation of these utilities since the City previously paid for the initial
extension along US 221.

Brant Sikes asked if NCDOT utility staff would be willing to coordinate on a review of the recent utility
relocation cost estimates, since there is a sizeable difference between the estimate prepared by NCDOT
($1.2M) and the City ($2.2M). James Swinson stated that he would be happy to coordinate with the
City on the review and refinement of the utility cost estimates.

Chuck Abernathy, McDowell County Manager, mentioned that the US 221 widening project would
provide a benefit to the County, not just the City of Marion, and as such, the County would be willing to
look at a possible “cost sharing” agreement for the utility relocation expenses. In addition, Mr.
Abernathy suggested that possible legislative changes could be explored (e.g., a change in G.S.136-
27.3), as well as possible design changes that could reduce the cost burden on the City (e.g., not
widening US 221 north of the I-40 interchange).

Schedule
Ricky Tipton stated that the current schedule for R-204D has NCDOT letting the project for
construction in November 2015. With the recent changes in NCDOT’s project prioritization process, the
equity formula has been replaced with the Strategic Mobility Formula process
(http://ncdot.org/strategictransportationinvestments/). As part of this new prioritization process, all
projects funded for construction before July 1, 2015 will proceed as scheduled; projects slated for after
that time will be ranked and programmed according to the new formula.

Mayor Little reiterated the City’s desire to delay or eliminated the R-204D project, especially in light of
the new prioritization information that Ricky Tipton shared, and instead, would prefer NCDOT to focus
on the R-2507 project. If the R-204D project is still planned to be built, then delaying the project could
allow the City additional time to develop possible funding options for raising the necessary funds to
cover the utility relocation costs. Bob Boyette supported Mayor Little’s request to delay the R-204D
project and agreed that this would allow the City time to explore other funding options. Mr. Boyette
stated that the City understands that delaying R-204D may also lead to the reprioritization of the overall
R-2597/R-204D&E project and that the City is willing to accept the possible schedule change. He also
stated that the City will not recognize any economic benefits from the US 221 widening until after the
entire project (R-2597 and R-204D&E sections) is completed so “fast tracking” the R-204D project does
not make sense to the City.

Funding
Everette Clark inquired about the funding source for R-2597/R-204D&E, specifically, how much of the
total project cost is funded by the Federal government. Ricky Tipton responded that the project is
funded entirely with State transportation funds and that no Federal Highway funding is being used for
this project. Mr. Clark stated that preliminary estimates developed by the City show that for every $0.01
increase in the current tax rate yields approximately $35,000 in additional yearly revenue. Assuming the
City needs $1M to fund the utility relocation costs for the R-204D project, they City would need to
increase their tax rate roughly $0.06 in order to raise the needed $200,000/year required to cover the
utility costs (assume $200K/yr for the 5-year period between now and when the project is complete).
Representatives from the City Council, as well as the current and former mayor, all stated that passing
such a tax increase is not feasible.

Designs
Bob Boyette stated that the City was impressed with the minimization and overall designs for US 221,
south of the I-40 interchange. He stated that the City still has some concerns with the designs north of I-
40 and the associated impacts to the businesses located along US 221 through that section. He asked
that NCDOT try and minimize these impacts, to the extent practicable. Brenda Moore said that NCDOT
is continuing to review and revise the designs in order to minimize impacts to properties, where
possible.

A City representative asked what the proposed width was for the US 221 widening project. Ricky
Tipton responded that NCDOT proposes to widen US 221 to a 4-lane divided roadway with a 46’
grassed median. This is similar to the widening currently being done for US 221 south of
Rutherfordton. Ricky also stated that NCDOT has moved away from building 5-lane undivided
roadways due to operational and safety concerns with that type of typical section. He added that the
preliminary plans for R-2597/R-204D&E show a “worst-case” width for the proposed widening and that

NCDOT will look to minimize the necessary roadway right of way and construction limits during the
final design phase of the project.

Concerned Citizen
Ms. Edith Vance was in attendance at the meeting and asked the Mayor if she could say a few words
about the project. Ms. Vance was given the floor and she proceed to state the following concerns:

 She is opposed to the US 221 widening project (R-2597/R-204D&E)
 She believes that we have enough pavement and concrete in this state and that by adding more,
we are increasing our potential for disastrous flooding and erosion, similar to the recent flooding
events in Colorado
 She is concerned that with the widening of US 221, travel speeds will increase, resulting in
more accidents along the route

Mayor Little thanked Ms. Vance for her comments and for her continued interest in the US 221
widening project.

Summary and Next Steps
Mayor Little, Ricky Tipton, and Dre Major summarized the meeting discussions as follows:

 The new NCDOT prioritization initiative will dictate the order and schedule of the R-2597 and
R-204D&E projects
 MPO/RPO input on project priorities carries substantial weight in the process and can influence
the priority decision
 The greatest utility relocation costs are associated with the proposed interchange design changes
for the I-40/US 221 interchange
 The City is requesting that NCDOT delay or eliminate the R-204D project from the
Transportation Improvement Program, instead, focusing their efforts on constructing the R-2597
project south of the I-40/US 221 interchange
 The next Project Merger Meeting is scheduled for October 23rd, 2013 in Raleigh, NC and will
review and discussion issues related to “minimization and mitigation” for impacts related to
water resources; otherwise referred to as “Concurrence Point 4a”
 The final environmental document, a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI), is in progress
and NCDOT anticipates finalizing it after the October Merger Meeting

With no other items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 2:54 PM.

UJM/cmy

Cc: [add anyone?]

Public Hearing and Citizen Comments

SUMMARY OF VERBAL COMMENTS BY HEARING SPEAKERS
ON MARCH 12, 2012, AND NCDOT RESPONSE

Thomas Gerth 2231 North 221, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comment: Resides in the Monteith House; Segment B3 would impact several of his neighbors.
Doesn’t want to lose the lumber yard or another business behind him to save his house, especially
since he has land behind his current house that he can build on, if needed. Estimates about 17
homes would be acquired to save his house. Requests that NCDOT take his house.

Moderator: Thank you Mr. Gerth.

Comment: A number of neighbors already spoke to him. Doesn’t want to take the blame for
neighbors losing their house.

Moderator: Thank you sir.

SUMMARY OF VERBAL COMMENTS BY HEARING SPEAKERS
ON MARCH 13, 2012, AND NCDOT RESPONSE

(Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a direct response required by NCDOT.)

Rod Birdsong Executive Director of the Chamber of Commence
369 Hidden View Loop, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Supports the widening of US 221, as well as the project. Concerned about the
number of business relocations, specifically, the last 2.5 miles of the project have 31 of the 66
business relocations, about 47%. Depending on the alignment, Super 8, Days Inn, frontage of
Hampton Inn, Open Flame restaurant, Wild Ridges structure, Talladega Machine, Marathon gas
station, country store, among others could be relocated. Concerned that the economic impact of
acquiring businesses is too great. Concerned about safety at the I-40 and US 221 intersection,
specifically the off ramp from I-40 eastbound where vehicles pull out in front of on-coming
traffic. Concerned whether the last 2.5 miles of the project has a higher incident of crashes than
the statewide average. Requests that there be some flexibility in NCDOT’s determination about
the width of the right of way, the design and access points, particularly in the 2.5 mile section
south of Marion. Concerned about the impact to the City’s economy and for the businesses in the
Marion area.

Moderator: Thank you sir for your comments.

Bob Boyette City Manager, City of Marion

Comments: Supports the widening of US 221 concept. The City, with a limited tax base,
limited jobs, limited development opportunities in the community, does not want to lose prime
commercial areas around the interstate and can’t afford to have numerous commercial buildings
demolished. Requests that NCDOT reduce the right of way to avoid the business relocations or
put in retaining walls that would preserve some of the business locations and avoid those jobs and
tax base being lost. Requests the more developed 2.5 mile area south of Marion be treated
differently and therefore, requests a five-lane section in this area. The five-lane section in nearby
communities has worked well. Requests consideration for the type of access associated with a
five-lane section to preserve the business locations, as well as jobs and tax base being lost.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Boyette.

Chuck Abernathy McDowell County Manager / Economic Development Director

Comments: Doesn’t need to reiterate what Mr. Birdsong and Mr. Boyette have said, but
received assurance from NCDOT that this is the beginning of the process and encourages public
to give their input. Comments that citizens are interested in project impacts to businesses and
residences as a result of the design alternatives and associated right of way.

Moderator: Thank you Mr. Abernathy.

Terrill Hoffman 833 Miracle Valley Way

Comments: Would like more discussion of the project impacts on the people that live along the
highway. Is not interested in driving on a four-lane highway every time he wants to go to
Marion. Concerned that the proposed design will require him to drive two miles past his home to
make a U-turn to get to his home, adding 50% more time to his drive from his house to Marion.
Doesn’t think the median U-turns make the highway safer when an individual has to travel twice
as far to get home. Concerned that the environmental studies in the document are 20 years old
and decisions are being made using old data. Concerned about driving on a highway that is under
construction for 10 years. Against the project because it’s a waste of money and won’t benefit
anyone in the community.

Moderator: Thank you sir for your comments. If you’re having to drive two miles out of the
way, one thing I would like to say is please let us know where you live, because we may be able
to look at putting a U-turn access closer; so, you don’t have to drive that far out of the way.

Comments: I live on that map (Segment D).

Moderator: Right, but again, all of the U-turn accesses haven’t been put on the map and public
comments will help us make those decisions, because we don’t want you to have to drive two
miles out of the way. You’ve let us know and given us your address. Those are things we’ll look
at.

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AND NCDOT RESPONSE

(Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a direct response required by NCDOT.)

Teresa Adkins 4395 Goose Creek Road, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Concerned that the US 221 North/South highway noise would be very loud after the
West Court business is relocated. Requests that trees be planted between her driveway and the
new highway to help reduce traffic noise. She believes the trees would provide a safety factor for
her kids. Requests that instead of extending her driveway with “partial paving on one end,” as
was mentioned, she requests the driveway needs to be completely paved.

Response: Comments noted. Efforts will be made to minimize impacts to the existing tree zone
during the final design process.

Edward Burgin 418 Cliff Logan Drive, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comment: Prefers Segment B3 and doesn’t mind that his properties along Sorrels Road would
be acquired. “The sawmill is a great asset to the community” and he doesn’t want to lose area
jobs in a weak economy.

Response: Comment noted.

* Bill Byers Manager, Young’s Creek, LLC (North State Gas)
P.O. Box 1122, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: “As currently designed, the US 221 TIP R-204D proposal will relocate the business
at 2211 Rutherford Road in Marion, NC. Young’s Creek, LLC, completed the new office and
operations center there in 2008. The construction was done on a very minimum-sized parcel.
The proposed reduction in the size of this property would ruin its current utility and eliminate the
value to the owner.” They were never informed during the purchase of their property “that there
was any danger of right-of-way condemnation,” despite their coordination with the City of
Marion Town Planner, City of Marion Town Council (in a re-zoning hearing) and their realtor.
They have “invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing this site” and the NCDOT’s
February 2012 bulletin announcing the public review of the State EA “was our first indication
that our business was in jeopardy from the US 221 improvements plan.” They request that the
SEA include the impact the proposed improvements north of the US 221/NC 226 intersection
would have on their business. They feel that “all of our efforts and investments may be negated
without prior warning.” They also request that NCDOT “consider scaling back its improvements
north of the 221/226 intersection in such a way as to permit our current business operations to
continue there.” Requests to be informed in writing of the outcome of their request so they know
whether they would be relocated or whether current operations would continue.

Response: Comments noted. Citizens Information Workshops were held for the project in
September 2003. At that time, a newsletter was mailed to individuals within the 1,000-foot
project corridor. The design of the proposed roadway was then developed within the project
corridor. Efforts will be made to minimize impacts during final design. However, it should be
noted that there are several design constraints in this area (e.g., the need to provide turn lanes,
tying into existing US 221).

Warren Cable 394 Ashworth Loop, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: In an email dated 3/14/12, a representative of Redeemed Free Will Baptist Church
inquired about the broken dotted lines ---F---F---F--- on the map he received at the meeting.

Response: Mr. Robbins responded via email that those are portions of the roadway that need
additional dirt to elevate the roadway or maintain a consistent grade.

Comment: In a subsequent email, he inquires about the chain link fence he was told would be in
front of the Church. He adds that there is not a fence currently along US 221 North where the
road was previously widened and he feels the fence would “hinder and deface our property.”

Response: Mr. Robbins responded via email explaining the partial control of access along the
proposed roadway and offers a “black-coated vinyl fence as an option for your property instead
of the normal style fence.” Mr. Robbins adds that “anything above that would involve the
property owner contributing the additional cost for the preferred style of fencing. This is
something that will be addressed during the right-of-way phase of the project.”

* Chapel Hill Baptist Church 109 Chapel Hill Church Loop, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: The Pastor believes “this project is vital to the future economic development of our
county;” however, he is not convinced that the proposed plan is the best for the Church. He
thinks a five-lane road is a better option rather than a four-lane divided with directional crossover
with median U-turns. He is concerned that with the proposed project, one end of Chapel Hill
Church Loop would be closed and no longer accessible to US 221. This would require 70 to 90
vehicles on a given Sunday to exit the church parking lot the same way. He is concerned that all
vehicles would be making a right-turn onto US 221 and then a U-turn to go northbound. The
Pastor considers “this to be a safety hazard.” He believes traffic would be backed up at the
US 221/Chapel Hill Church Loop intersection, as well as at the U-turn on Sunday mornings as
most churches dismiss from their services. He believes a five-lane section would alleviate this
problem; this type of roadway has worked well on US 221 north of Marion. Alternatively, the
Pastor suggests installing a traffic signal at the Chapel Hill Church Loop/3 Point Road/US 221
intersection. While this option is not as ideal as a five-lane section, the needs of the church
would be served. The Pastor would be “open to discussing this project in person.”

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). A signal warrant study for the Chapel Hill Church Loop/US 221
intersection will be completed during final design.

Chapel Hill Baptist Church Members

Comments: Petition submitted with signatures from members of the Church reiterating the
Pastors comments that while they agree that US 221 needs to be widened, they are not n
agreement with the present plan. The Church members would prefer a five-lane roadway in the
vicinity of the Church. They believe that a five-lane roadway would prove more beneficial and
would be readily accepted by the Church and community.

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). A traffic signal for Chapel Hill Church Loop will be investigated during
final design.

Bob Boyette City Manager, City of Marion
P.O. Drawer 700, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Although the “City has supported for 20 years the concept of widening US 221 to
multiple lanes,” they have design concerns. The City is concerned that the “minimum 250-foot
right-of-way width is excessive and will lead to unneeded impacts to established commercial
buildings from the northern end of the project just north of the US 221/NC 226 intersection in
Marion to Goose Creek Road south of Marion.” The impacts to numerous commercial buildings
would “certainly lead to the loss of jobs and property tax base for the City of Marion and
McDowell County, something that our Tier 1 County cannot afford.” The City reiterates that
since at least 2003, they have requested that a five-lane section be considered from the northern
end of the project to Goose Creek Road. They request the five-lane roadway should include the
“narrowest right of way possible and the installation of design features such as retaining walls
wherever possible, to avoid the loss of any commercial buildings.” The City is concerned that
“the divided highway design will not provide for adequate access to commercial, industrial, and
residential properties in the developed area” north of Goose Creek Road. The City is concerned
that motorists will choose to bypass a business rather than make a U-turn to access the business.
“The City believes that a five-lane section is the only design that will provide for adequate access
to commercial, industrial, and residential property in the area noted above.” The City appreciates
NCDOT staff’s willingness “to modify the final design so that it works for the community.” The
City requests that NCDOT work with the City, as well as McDowell County, McDowell Chamber
of Commerce, McDowell Tourism Development Authority, and the Marion Business Association
to address their concerns. The City offers to arrange small group meetings to begin looking at
final design options north of Goose Creek Road.

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided typical section is also consistent with the
development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway Corridor (see
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize property
impacts during final design. A meeting with the City will be held prior to the next Merger Team
meeting.

Hicks Conner Jr. 126 Antler Trail, Union Mills, NC 28167

Comment: Wanted to make NCDOT aware that some of the right-of-way at 117 Antler (Grace
Tabernacle Church) has a cemetery on top of the hill.

Response: Comment noted.

Eric Connor McDowell Food Systems Inc.
4231 US 221, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Concerned that Segment F2/G2 shows the right of way across part of their building
and no access is shown to their property. Unsure whether the whole parcel is a take or if access
would be given.

Response: In an email dated 3/27/12, Mr. Robbins explained that under the east side widening
scenario, the building would be acquired and no access would be provided to the property.
Mr. Robbins goes on to say that if the remaining portion of the property is deemed an
uneconomic remnant, NCDOT would offer to buy the entire property. However, if the remaining

property still has value and the company decided to rebuild, it would be up to the company to
provide access to the property as long as it is outside the NCDOT’s control of access. The Right
of Way Agents name, Mr. Bob Haskett, and number, 828.274.8435 was provided for additional
information.

Comment: Requests how long the company has to notify NCDOT of their decision.

Response: Mr. Robbins states that the comment period for this stage of the project development
process ends April 13th.

Comment: In email correspondence dated 4/12/12, McDowell Food Systems indicated that they
prefer east side widening (Segments F2/G2).

Response: Mr. Robbins responded confirming that the property owner prefers east side widening
which would result in the purchase of the buildings on McDowell Food Systems property instead
of west side widening which would preserve the business and provide access via a new driveway.

Comment: Representative confirms that they prefer east side widening.

Sherman and Louise Davis 7475 Hwy 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Appreciates that the meetings were well organized. She is concerned about the
relocation of businesses at the US 221/I-40 interchange and suggests that R-2597 be constructed
first while R-204 design is being reworked at the interstate. Recommends constructing a new
road behind the businesses (Dollar General and the motels), providing a new bridge over I-40
reconnecting at Wilson Valley Drive on US 221 South, leaving existing US 221 South section at
the motels and Dodge Rockwell Business Park as a service road.

Response: Comments noted. According to the State Transportation Improvement Program,
Project R-204D, which includes the I-40 interchange, is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition
and construction in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2016, respectively. Based on this schedule, design
revisions at the US 221/I-40 interchange would not cause a delay in the estimated project
schedule. Due to the limited spacing between the existing businesses on the east side of US 221
and the Duke Power easement, constructing a new road behind the existing businesses would
impact the Duke Power easement. The Duke Power easement runs on both sides of I-40 in this
area; therefore, a new road east of US 221 would cross the easement twice, substantially
increasing the cost of the project due to the increased number of transmission tower impacts.
Additionally, the NCDOT prefers that roadways intersect as close to a 90 degree angle as possible
in order to minimize the bridge length and cost, as well as provide adequate sight distance for the
ramp terminals. A new road east of US 221 would cross over I-40 nearly parallel making the new
bridge extremely long and making it difficult to tie in with existing US 221 South.

Charles Dicks 3578 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Understands that Segment H, which he lives along, is a best fit widening scenario,
but thinks the existing right of way on the east side of US 221 should be utilized before any land
on the west side is acquired. He doesn’t see the need to maintain a wide stretch of wasted land.
He comments that the roadbed in front of his property is lower than either end of the street and
raising it five feet would eliminate much of his property being acquired. He also comments that
the Hampton Inn, north of his property, needs all of their present parking.

Response: Comments noted. The existing right of way on the east side of US 221 is associated
with I-40. Construction of the proposed US 221 project may not encroach upon the I-40 right of
way. Therefore, existing US 221 in the I-40 area would be widened to the west.

Mark Earley Baldor Electric Company, Industrial Park
510 Rockwell Drive, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Requests that NCDOT “review alternatives to provide a safe left turn alternative
when exiting Rockwell Drive onto the proposed four-lane highway.” ABB-Baldor has
approximately 75 vehicles exiting the plant three times per day and 78% of its employees travel
north on US 221 to go home. Additionally, “there are two other manufacturing locations in the
Industrial Park along with significant truck traffic.”

Response: Comments noted. Other alternatives were investigated, but were not possible to
accommodate due to the constraints in this area presented by the proximity to the I-40 ramps. It
should be noted that there are other options to travel north on US 221 other than direct access
from Rockwell Drive, including taking I-40 east one exit to Exit 86 and traveling westbound on
NC 226 back to US 221.

Dean Elliott 3574 Hwy 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Requests that the grade in the Hampton Inn area be reviewed. Suggests raising the
grade 4 to 5 feet above existing in this area which would allow a better driveway tie-in to his
property, as well as others.

Response: Comment noted. Raising the grade of US 221 in this location would create more
property impacts than what it shown on the hearing maps due to the fill slopes.

* Bennett Finkler 333 Chapel Hill Church Loop, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Concerned about the widening of US 221 near its intersection with I-40 and the
effect on the businesses and homes in that area. He stated that the 23 to 46-foot median seems
“unnecessarily wide for some sections of the highway” affecting “more homes and businesses
than necessary.” He comments that the US 221 Bypass around Marion includes four lanes and
“appears to have a median of only 13 feet or about equal to the width of a (travel) lane.” He adds
that the 13-foot raised concrete barrier median along the bypass is half of the proposed median
width and “has not posed any problems for accidents that I am aware of and has had much less
impact on the surrounding buildings than the new construction would.” Requests that a 13-foot
median be considered in the densely populated areas near I-40. The proposed construction in this
area would take a large part of his land, including his well and septic field, and “would likely
necessitate that my house be condemned, unless city services are available.” Requests an
explanation why the 13-foot median is not a viable option for the heavily populated areas.
Alternatively, he suggests a five-lane highway “might be a good option in the business area,

though I can see how that might be more likely to cause accidents.” He awaits NCDOT’s
response. He also requests a copy of the Right of Way pamphlet.

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The median width is necessary to provide median crossovers and turn lanes.
Although there are length of the project between the crossovers and turn lanes, it is important to
keep the median width consistent because of driver expectations.

Hubert and Faye Flynn 208 Nanneytown Road, Union Mills, NC 28167

Comment: Concerned about the existing “major erosion problems” caused by runoff from
US 221 between the Hudlow Road/US 221 and Nanneytown Road/US 221 intersections. He
comments that wherever “a drainage pipe is under the road, the runoff has caused erosion.” He
adds that “the side ditches of the old road that crosses Hugh Simpson property onto Hubert
Flynn’s are so large you would think you are visiting the Grand Canyon. These gullies will only
get bigger and larger with the new 221 four lane.” Requests that plans to improve this erosion
problem need to be included in the R-2597 project.

Response: Comment noted. The runoff problem will be investigated during final design.

Paige Gibson P.O. Box 1882, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Writes on behalf of her brother, two sisters, and herself that own a 30+ acre farm
along US 221 South, located where TIP R-2597C ends and TIP R-204E begins, where her father
currently resides (#5752). Concerned that “every trip into town, which is currently a left hand
turn, will require a right hand turn and an approximate 1 mile round trip, out of the way to go
north. This would involve going past Goose Creek to the proposed crossover U-turn.” She adds
that almost every trip from this driveway is a northbound trip. She adds that the same thing
occurs if the property is accessed from the south. From the south, “you must go past Ashworth
Road, make a U-turn to return south.” She requests one of the following options: 1) Consider a
five-lane highway from Goose Creek Road into Marion, which would allow right or left turns
from each driveway and reduce the speed. 2) Place additional pavement in the median and across
from each driveway to allow access for each driveway either northbound or southbound. This
would be similar to the construction of US 221 North where the highway is divided near Baxter.
3) Include additional directional crossover with median U-turns closer to their driveway to reduce
the one mile of additional travel. Several good locations exist along this stretch of highway.

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be investigated
during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections with other
roadways and not only at the directional crossovers.

Gilkey Lumber Company, Inc. (Tim Parton, President)
2250 Hwy 221 North, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: Supports Segment B1 as the best option for the Gilkey Lumber Company. Adds
that Segment B2 would put Gilkey Lumber out of business and Segment B3 would be more
damaging to the environment. Comments that the turnaround north of Lawing Mill Road (SR
1529) is too far north making it difficult for transfer trucks carrying 80,000 lbs to turn south on

the hill and slope of the highway. Adds that Gilkey Lumber services from 40 to 60 trucks a day
and employs 55 - 60 persons.

Response: Comments noted. The additional lane on US 221 provided by the project should
alleviate this difficulty. As necessary, trucks can travel to the next directional crossover to make
their U-turn. Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will also be investigated during
final design.

William Hague

Comments: Opposes the proposed improvements and feels there is little benefit for the cost of
the project, which is over $100 million. He adds that US 221 has a maximum 2010 annual
average daily traffic of 7,800 vehicles and a minimum of 2,900; far below the current capacity of
the facility. He believes making US 221 multi-lane is unnecessary and comments that the level of
service along US 221 decreases due to traffic queuing behind slower traffic, as well as the mixing
of local traffic with regional traffic. He states that with the low traffic volumes along the existing
roadway, constructing a multi-lane, divided facility with high right of way and construction costs
is unnecessary. He suggests constructing turn lanes at intersections and instead of widening the
entire facility, construct passing lanes every few miles. “The passing lanes can alternate between
northbound and southbound, making the facility only three lanes wide, reducing the amount of
right of way needed and reducing construction costs. This could potentially provide many of the
same benefits of a multi-lane highway, with a lower cost and less impact.” He hopes that
NCDOT will take these comments into consideration before proceeding with the proposed
improvements.

Response: Comments noted. The purpose and need for the improvements to US 221 are
described in the SEA and include mobility improvements and reductions in crashes.

Haldex Brake Products Corporation 5334 US 221 South, PO Box 1129, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Concerned about the right-turn only exit from their facility and concerned that the
turnaround provided south of their entrance requiring employees to cross traffic and make a
U-turn before merging with traffic in order to travel north is extremely dangerous for their 100
employees and “will put our employees at risk.” They are concerned about their freight carriers
performing this maneuver, as well. Adds that there are two other larger manufacturing facilities
in the area that will “encounter the same problems with a large number of employees leaving at
the same time and having to perform these dangerous crossover and U-turns.” Requests that
NCDOT reconsider the proposed divided highway and possibly construct an undivided five lane
highway in the vicinity of their business.

Response: Comments noted. During final design, NCDOT will investigate moving the U-turn
bulb location. In addition, NCDOT will investigate the possibility of providing driveway access
to Ashworth Road. If design changes cannot be accommodated, the trucks can use the next
directional crossover further south on US 221.

Ronnie Hendrix 160 Sorrels Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comment: Recommends relocating the William Monteith House on existing property (Lot 227).

Response: Comment noted. NCDOT will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office
and the historic resource property owner regarding impacts to the William Monteith House.

Terrill Hoffman 833 Miracle Valley Way

Mr. Hoffman’s comments were noted under the speaker section. However, responses to
Mr. Hoffman’s comments that were not addressed in the executive summary are included below.

Comments: Concerned that environmental studies prepared for the EA are 20 years old. Would
like more discussion of the project impacts on the people that live along the highway. Concerned
about driving on a highway that is under construction for 10 years.

Response: Natural systems surveys are currently being updated for the project. Section V.E
Social Effects in the SEA includes a discussion of the potential residential and business relocation
impacts based on the preliminary engineering designs. However, additional information
regarding residential and business relocation impacts will be included in the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) published Fall 2012. Your property is located within TIP Project R-
2597B, between Nanneytown Road and the Polly Spout Road northern intersection. According
to the NCDOT 2009 – 2015 TIP, construction is anticipated to occur post year, after Fiscal Year
2020, and is currently unfunded. The construction dates for the various sections of R-2597 and
R-204 begin as early as Fiscal Year 2016. In general, each section of TIP Project R-2597 and R-
204 may take anywhere from three to five years to be constructed. However, with some sections
of the project not currently funded, it is likely that there may be a several year span where there is
no construction occurring along US 221.

Claude & Ellen Hollifield 5052 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Agrees that existing US 221 needs to be widened; but does not approve of the
four-lane divided facility with an access fence. He adds that as a main road into Marion,
traveling over I-40 with no access to property from both directions is not desired. He states that
there are five-lane roads in the county that are operating well.

Response: Comment noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be investigated
during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections with other
roadways and not only at the directional crossovers.

Jennifer Jarrett 3440 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Comments that the proposed right of way for TIP R-204D will take her septic field
in front of her home (Map 8, Segment H, #836). She adds that according to local environmental
health inspectors, there is no other option for a new septic field on her property. She inquires
1) whether her home would be purchased by NCDOT and 2) would she be able to sell her
property to NCDOT prior to right of way acquisition.

Response: An impacted property owner may request to be purchased sooner through NCDOT’s
Hardship Acquisition process. Hardship acquisition is initiated by the property owner because of

particular financial or health-related hardship. Decisions regarding whether a property will be
acquired sooner than the right-of-way date included in the NCDOT’s TIP are evaluated on a case
by case basis. Advanced acquisition can also be discussed with the Right-of-Way Agent. For
information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program, the NCDOT Right-of-Way
Agent / Area Negotiator can be contacted at [phone]. As the project progresses through
final design, additional minimization measures will be taken which may, in some areas, reduce
the potential impacts from those shown at the public hearing. For homeowners who must relocate
because of the project, the NCDOT has several programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement
housing payments. A relocation officer is assigned to each project and can provide additional
information regarding these programs. The relocation officer also assists homeowners in
searching for and moving to replacement property. Appendix G in the SEA includes additional
information regarding NCDOT’s Relocation Assistance Program.

Benson Jones 320 Wildwood Terrace, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Inquires whether the curve just past Wildwood Terrace would be straightened out
under this project and requests a map that shows the property acquired on the west side of the
road between Chapel Hill Loop Road and the Hampton Inn. He looks forward to this much
needed project.

Response: An information packet was emailed on March 15 to provide additional information.

Michael Jones (Woodrow W. Jones Property) 303 Sorrels Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: Supports Segment B1, taking the historic property, sparing “all of Sorrels Road and
not wiping out Gilkey.” Segment B1 would acquire less of his farm and not split his farm in half,
leaving a portion isolated with no access. Concerned that the proposed project would acquire
three of his properties: Michael’s Market (Segment A1) near Thompson Road; his lot along
US 221 near Mountain Creek Road; and his farm along US 221 near Darlington Road.

Response: Comments noted. As the project progresses through final design, additional
minimization measures will be taken which may, in some areas, reduce the potential impacts from
those shown at the public hearing. For homeowners who must relocate because of the project, the
NCDOT has several programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance,
relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement housing payments. A relocation officer
is assigned to each project and can provide additional information regarding these programs. For
information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program, the NCDOT Right-of-Way
Agent / Area Negotiator can be contacted at [phone]. The relocation officer also assists
homeowners in searching for and moving to replacement property. Appendix G in the SEA
includes additional information regarding NCDOT’s Relocation Assistance Program.

Richard Liebeck General Manager, Hampton Inn
3560 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Does not believe there is enough traffic to support the project. Concerned about
losing a large portion of the Hampton Inn parking lot, as well as losing “tens of thousands of
dollars due to lost revenue with a large construction project in front of the hotel. The economic
impact will be devastating to the community if we lose the Super 8 and Days Inn, also.”

Response: Comments noted. The Hampton Inn is located within TIP Project R-204D, between
I-40 and the US 221/NC 226 intersection. According to the NCDOT 2009 – 2015 TIP,

construction is anticipated to occur in Fiscal Year 2016. In general, each section of TIP Project
R-2597 and R-204 may take anywhere from three to five years to be constructed.

Wendell Mast 147 Sorrels Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comment: Supports Segment B3.

Response: Comment noted.

Joseph McCall 4897 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Believes the “widening project is overkill to correct problems in certain areas, such
as the westbound exit ramp at US 221.” The crossovers in the vicinity of his property are two to
three hundred feet from his driveway and “neither of these are of any value to me.” He must
travel approximately a mile out of his way based on the locations of the crossovers. Requests
whether the west side crossover could be shifted north 500 feet and the east side crossover be
shifted south 500 feet. States that his farm is covered by a land use tax deferment (GS #105-296)
and that sale of the property with this deferment to a non-family person is subject to substantial
penalty for the affected part, three years back taxes plus interest. Inquires whether the State of
NC would “pay this penalty over and above the ‘fair market value’ of the land.”

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be investigated
during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections with other
roadways and not only at the directional crossovers. For example, a U-turn would be permitted at
the intersection with existing US 221 near this property.

NCDOT’s purchase of land from this property would be exempt from the tax deferment statute
penalties. If additional information is needed, a relocation officer is assigned to each project and
can provide information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program. The NCDOT
Right-of-Way Agent / Area Negotiator can be contacted at [phone].

Ronell McCall 4897 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Agrees that existing US 221 needs “some upgrade;” however, she feels that a four
lane facility is “totally unnecessary and a waste of money” and suggests a three lane facility with
“some passing zones.”

Response: Comment noted. The four-lane median-divided section was determined to best meet
the purpose and need for the project (i.e., enhance mobility and reduce crashes).

* Joyce McCloskey Owner, Cranberry’s and Lace
2245 Rutherford Road, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Requests advanced acquisition. Last year she was in the process of negotiating the
sale of her business, when she found out that it would be acquired under the proposed project.
She confirmed that with Mr. Tipton, as well as a local realtor, and was told that she could not sell
her property. Her husband is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and Dementia and she is
interested in selling her home and moving to Morganton, closer to her husband’s doctors and her
relocated business. She discusses her financial situation and the need to have her business
acquired sooner rather than later. She adds that she “would be ever so grateful” if NCDOT would
consider “moving up the timeline to acquire her property.”

Response: Comment noted. An impacted property owner may request to be purchased sooner
through NCDOT’s Hardship Acquisition process. Hardship acquisition is initiated by the
property owner because of particular financial or health-related hardship. Decisions regarding
whether a property will be acquired sooner than the right-of-way date included in the NCDOT’s
TIP are evaluated on a case by case basis. Advanced acquisition can also be discussed with the
Right-of-Way Agent. For information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program, the
NCDOT Right-of-Way Agent / Area Negotiator can be contacted at [phone]. As the
project progresses through final design, additional minimization measures will be taken which
may, in some areas, reduce the potential impacts from those shown at the public hearing. For
homeowners who must relocate because of the project, the NCDOT has several programs to
minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments,
and relocation replacement housing payments. A relocation officer is assigned to each project
and can provide additional information regarding these programs. The relocation officer also
assists homeowners in searching for and moving to replacement property. Appendix G in the
SEA includes additional information regarding NCDOT’s Relocation Assistance Program.

McDowell County (Charles Abernathy, County Manager) 60 East Court Street,
Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Concerned that the minimum 250-foot right of way is “excessive and will have
adverse impacts on established commercial businesses and industry,” especially in the section
from Goose Creek Road to US 221/NC 226. He adds that the buildings proposed to be impacted,
“would lead to job loss and loss of property tax base in McDowell County.” He feels “as a Tier 1
county it is hard to absorb such losses.” He states that “McDowell County supports the project,
but feels that the design between the northern end of the project north of the US 221/NC 226
intersection southward to Goose Creek Road should be revised to allow for a five lane section,
with the smallest right of way possible and installation of design features such as retaining walls
wherever possible.” Concerned about the divided highway not providing adequate access to
commercial, industrial or residential properties in this area. There are four manufacturing
facilities located between Goose Creek Road and the US 221/NC 226 intersection that employ
approximately 460 employees. “In many cases employees of these industrial facilities will have
to cross two lanes of traffic, complete a U-turn, and merge in order to reach their destination.
This will also pose a great danger for freight carriers trying to access the businesses and
industries.” The County offers to arrange small group meetings to begin looking at options for
the final design of the project.

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided typical section is also consistent with the
development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway Corridor (see

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize property
impacts during final design. Also, additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be
investigated during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections
with other roadways and not only at the directional crossovers. If trucks cannot safely accelerate
to cross traffic to complete a U-turn, they should travel to the next median crossover. NCDOT
will meet with McDowell County officials prior to the next Merger Team meeting.

McDowell County Chamber of Commerce (Rod Birdsong) 1170 West Tate Street,
Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Although initially in support of the strategic corridor concept for US 221, concerned
about the “project’s design for portions of US 221 in McDowell County.” Concerned that the
minimum 250-foot right of way width is “excessive and will lead to unneeded impacts on
established commercial buildings from the northern end of the project in Marion to Goose Creek
Road.” Requests that NCDOT “give close attention to McDowell County’s Tier 1 status, one
factor in which is our current unemployment rate of near 13 percent.” States that “31 of the 66
business dislocations occur in the last three miles of the project. In other words, 47% of the
project’s economic impact on tax base, jobs, and lodging facilities occurs in the Marion area.”
Recommends that this section of the project be “re-designed as a five-lane section, with the
narrowest right of way possible and the installation of retaining walls wherever possible.”
Concerned that the superstreet design will “prevent adequate access to commercial, industrial and
residential properties in the final three-mile section.” Concerned that the inconvenience to
tourists, in addition to the industrial park employees, of having to drive past a business and turn
around to access the business would cause tourists to “avoid the nuisance of traveling well out of
their way to access these facilities, resulting in the loss of income for the affected businesses and
the eventual loss of jobs.”

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided typical section is also consistent with the
development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway Corridor (see
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize property
impacts during final design. Also, additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be
investigated during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections
with other roadways and not only at the directional crossovers.

McDowell County Citizens Marion, Old Fort, Nebo, NC

Comments: Twenty-four citizens signed a letter stating their support for the project and
concerns that the proposed 250-foot right of way would lead to “unneeded property impacts”
between Goose Creek Road and the US 221/NC 226 intersection. Concerned that “the divided
highway design will not provide for adequate access to commercial, industrial and residential
properties in the developed area from just north of the US 221 Bypass southward to Goose Creek
Road.” Reiterated concerns that motorist would have to drive past a business and turn around to
access that business. Recommends that the US 221 design “between the northern end of the
project southward to Goose Creek Road be revised to allow for a five-lane section, with the
narrowest right of way possible and the installation of design features such as retaining walls
wherever possible, to avoid the loss of any commercial buildings, unless absolutely necessary.”

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided typical section is also consistent with the

development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway Corridor (see
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize property
impacts during final design. Also, additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be
investigated during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections
with other roadways and not only at the directional crossovers.

McDowell County Tourism Development Authority (Carol Price)

Comments: Would support the project once their concerns are addressed: 1) “Extremely
concerned over the minimum 250-foot right-of-way width and the resulting impact on existing
businesses from the northern end of the project just north of Marion’s US 221/NC 226
intersection to Goose Creek Road south of Marion.” Particularly concerned about the potential
loss of three of the city’s four hotels located in this section, resulting in “a significant loss of
jobs.” Stated that “by increasing the section to three or four lanes, allowing for passing lanes and
avoiding property loss, improvements would result in fewer lost jobs. However, should NCDOT
choose to increase this section by expanding to five lanes, we request the narrowest right of way
possible and installation of design features such as retaining walls be used wherever possible,
thus avoiding the loss of any commercial buildings.” She feels that “the divided highway design
offered in the developed area from north of the US 221 bypass southward to Goose Creek Road
creates the most significant, negative economic impact,” specifically in the I-40 area. She states
that “we would respectfully request that NCDOT work with the City and our partner agencies,
including McDowell County, the McDowell Chamber of Commerce and the Marion Business
Association to satisfactorily address the points made above, while preserving as many local jobs
and businesses as possible.”

Response: Comments noted. The four-lane median-divided section meets the purpose and need
for the project to a greater degree than a five-lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility
and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided typical section is also consistent with the
development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway Corridor (see
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize property
impacts during final design. Also, additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be
investigated during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections
with other roadways and not only at the directional crossovers. NCDOT will meet with
McDowell County officials prior to the next Merger Team meeting.

Janice McNeil P.O. Box 1316, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Inquires where the projected traffic is coming from and concerned whether a traffic
study has been performed recently. Inquires who will pay for this project and whether her taxes
would increase. Comments that residences and businesses would be affected and inquires
whether streams or wetlands would be impacted. Inquires how many people from the area would
be employed for the short term and long term.

Response: Comments noted. The project is currently state funded, primarily by the Highway
Trust Fund. In 2000, the Highway Trust Fund provided $880 million generated from highway
use taxes, gasoline taxes, and the State Treasurer’s investments. Impacts to wetlands and streams
as a result of the proposed project are included in Section V.A.2 Waters of the United States of
the SEA. The stream and wetland impacts are quantified for each stream within each segment
along the project. As discussed in Section V.F Economic Effects in the SEA, the US 221 project
can have both positive and negative impacts on the economy of an area. The analysis of the
potential economic impacts of the project is related to the expected growth in the industrial and
commercial sectors that could result from improved access to the industrial development near the

I-40 interchange and other similar types of properties in the area. In addition, it is anticipated that
increased state and local tax revenues would be generated in the project area during the
construction phase of the proposed project, thereby providing additional financial support for
public programs that aid low-income persons.

Sandra Norton 2747 South Creek Road, Nebo, NC 28761

Comments: Opposes the widening of existing US 221 and does not feel there is enough traffic to
justify widening the highway. She believes the design of the road is “excessive at the very least
and suicidal at best.” Concerned that “travelers have to go past their destination and make an
extra turn, increasing travel time and gas consumption.” She does not believe there is a safety
benefit to this design and feels if the road must be widened, “a five or three lane highway would
be far more practical.” Concerned that as the small community of Glenwood has begun to grow,
the businesses in that area that would be affected have been in business less than five years and
may not be able to rebuild or recover from being relocated. Does not believe fair market value in
a down economy is really fair. Concerned for those losing their homes or land, or those “living
on the edge of a four lane mega highway.” Concerned that instead of helping the community, this
project would hurt the community. Believes her tax dollars could be better spent.

Response: Comments noted. Traffic data support the need for the project. The four-lane
median-divided section meets the purpose and need for the project to a greater degree than a five-
lane section (e.g., it would better enhance mobility and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-
divided typical section is also consistent with the development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway
Corridor (see http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/). Efforts will be made to minimize
property impacts during final design.

Rita O’Brien

Comment: Requests the internet address for the US 221 hearing maps.

Response: Link to the hearing maps provided to her in March 14 email.

Terry Dale Padgett 7477 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comment: Concerned because the hearing map shows full control of access for the turnaround
bulb across his existing driveway (Segment E1, Parcel 619). This private driveway is the only
access to the house and other structures on the property, which lie outside the proposed right of
way. Inquires whether the design will be revised to provide access to his home and property.
The structures and driveway have been there since 1969.

Response: Comment noted. The driveway will be relocated during final design to provide
access to the property.

* Kaustubh Patel 6259 US 221 South, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Feels that the public meeting was effective; but has specific questions about his
property: 1) Will his property be acquired? 2) If yes, how much. What is the timeframe for right-
of-way acquisition? Will the NCDOT “spare” vacant land (on his property) for him to relocate
since septic and well is outside right of way? Would appreciate an answer to his questions.

Response: Comments noted. According to Map 6 (Segment E1) shown at the public hearing, the
structures on your property (Parcel 692) would be acquired by the proposed project. The
proposed right of way would take approximately 40 feet of additional land from your property,
measured from the existing US 221 right of way. Your property is located within TIP Project R-
2597C, between the Polly Spout Road northern intersection and Goose Creek Road. According
to the NCDOT 2009 – 2015 TIP, right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to occur in Fiscal Year
2018. As the project progresses through final design, additional minimization measures will be
taken which may, in some areas, reduce the potential impacts from those shown at the public
hearing. For businesses that must relocate because of the project, the NCDOT has several
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving
payments, and relocation replacement payments. A relocation officer is assigned to each project
and can provide additional information regarding these programs. The relocation officer also
assists business owners in searching for and moving to replacement property. For information
regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program, the NCDOT Right-of-Way Agent / Area
Negotiator can be contacted at [phone]. Appendix G in the State Environmental
Assessment (SEA) includes additional information regarding the NCDOT’s Relocation
Assistance Program. Regarding whether land will be spared for you to relocate on your property,
the NCDOT is not in the business of purchasing property that is not needed for the project right-
of-way. However, if property is purchased and then all of it is not needed, the property owner
would be given the opportunity to buy that portion back from the State.

Walter Poteat 88 Walter Drive, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Concerned because the maps show Wildwood Terrace being relocated through his
property. Believes the better alignment “would be to come straight down to US 221 at Hollands
Storage buildings,” tie-in the old Wildwood Terrace below the first house on the left, keeping the
present width on the top of the hill, and providing him an entrance to US 221 where it is.

Response: Comment noted. This design request was investigated, but could not be
accommodated. It was noted that existing Wildwood Terrace runs parallel to existing US 221
along a steep vertical slope. The cut slope for the proposed widening of US 221 would
undermine the road and a retaining wall could not save the existing location of Wildwood
Terrace. Due to the large grade difference between Wildwood Terrace and US 221, other options
would have impacts to other properties and, in some cases, more buildings would be impacted.
The current design minimizes property impacts, which is why it was presented in the EA.

Bennie & Dixie Proctor 1998 US 221 Highway North, Rutherfordton, NC 28139
(Property listed as Margaret & Orland Elms)

Comment: After looking at real estate for three years, they bought their well-built home. They
are in their 60’s and would prefer to enjoy their retirement there rather than relocate. In favor of
widening existing US 221, but do not want to lost their home, Gilkey Lumber, or the historic
property. Based on the potential impacts, they prefer Segment B3.

Response: Comment noted.

Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation (REMC) P.O. Box 1569, Forest City, NC 28043
Judson Wortman, Construction Engineer

Comments: REMC owns a substation between Segment C (Sta. 226+56.36) and Segment D
(Sta. 33+14.85) - access needs to be provided for driveway to substation and to transmission line
(steel tower) right of way adjacent to driveway. REMC has a 100-foot right of way for a 100 kV
transmission line (concrete poles) in Segment C (Sta. 226+56.36). Special concern should be
given to this transmission line - access should be provided to this right of way. Comments that
according to the plans, it appears one concrete pole structure may be impacted - cost to move this
structure will be between $150,000 - $200,000. From the substation driveway, located at 4734
Hwy 221 North, REMC has a triple-circuit distribution line that will cost approximately
$130,000/mile to relocate. A crossover through the median should be provided to allow REMC’s
mobile substation access to the property during extreme power restoration activities. The mobile
substation is an over-weight/over-width superload - U-turns are not possible with this piece of
equipment. There are multiple locations on all segments where REMC distribution lines will be
affected. REMC expects all access to facilities to be provided as currently exists. REMC expects
full compensation for any relocations that are needed.

Response: Comments noted. The NCDOT will work with REMC during final design to
determine access to their property.

Rutherford County Commissioners (Julius Owens, Chairman) 289 N. Main Street
Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: 1) Supports Segment B1 in the Gilkey area. “We strongly encourage the DOT to
find a means of honoring the wishes of the owner of the Historic Monteith House. The owner
wishes that his house be torn down rather than the road re-routed to save it.” 2) Recommends
that NCDOT look closely at safety issues for truck traffic near Gilkey Lumber and Hudlow Road.
They add that “fully loaded 18-wheel trucks needing to go south on 221 will be required to travel
north first and then do a U-turn and come uphill to go south creating a safety concern of very
slow moving trucks.” He states that “a significant amount of truck traffic travels between Gilkey
Lumber and a chip mill operation on Centennial Road.” 3) Concerned that the proposed cul-de-
sac on one end of Roper Loop Road would increase response time for emergency vehicles. “We
propose an access road be built either for local use or limited to emergency vehicle use.” 4)
Examine the area of Gilkey School Road, Lawing Mill Road, and Painters Gap Road for safety
and consider a potential realignment to make these roads a T-intersection. 5) Identify Bechtler
Mint Historic Site on the maps and “any appropriate accommodations for access to the site be
considered.” 6) Identify the Thermal Belt Rail Trail on the maps as a public trail. Access to the
trail’s beginning point at Oak Springs Road needs to be accommodated - map currently shows
“Abandoned Railroad” - trail continues to Oakland Road in Spindale. 7) Concerned about the
safety to cyclists needing to cross the highway. Concerned that as cyclists ride on the main
highway, they must make a U-turn to “legally” cross the highway.

Response: Comments noted. NCDOT will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation
Office and the historic resource property owner regarding impacts to the William Monteith
House.

The additional lane on US 221 provided by the project should alleviate the difficulty noted near
the Gilkey Lumber Company. As necessary, trucks can travel to the next directional crossover to
make their U-turn. Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will also be investigated
during final design

A right in/right out access (in lieu of cul-de-sac) will be provided to Roper Loop Road during
final design to accommodate the emergency vehicle access concerns.

Coordination was performed with NCDOT regarding the location of the Bechtler Mint Historic
Site and whether it needed to be included on project maps. The beginning project limit for TIP
Project R-2597 is north of Roper Loop Road, although some widening would occur along US 221
immediately south of Roper Loop Road. However, improvements to US 221 between Thompson
Road and Roper Loop Road are predominantly included in TIP Project R-2233, the Rutherfordton
Bypass project. With construction anticipated to begin in Fiscal Year 2020, the Rutherfordton
Bypass project would be constructed prior to the TIP Project R-2597A project, which is currently
unfunded and scheduled for construction post year (i.e., after Fiscal Year 2020). Therefore, any
accommodations for access to the site were considered under TIP Project R-2233.

The project mapping will be updated to include the Thermal Belt Rail Trail.

NCDOT is currently researching bicycle movements on divided highways with median
crossovers. If recommendations are developed based on the research, they will be investigated
for this project.

Donald Spratt 204 Sorrels Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: Does not see a need to widen US 221 and does not agree with the typical section
proposed. Opposed to Segment B3 that takes Sorrels Road and many homes, including his home.
Suggests that some land be taken on either side of existing US 221 through Gilkey and that the
median width be decreased. Recommends realigning US 221 out of the Gilkey area; building it ½
mile on the east or west side of existing US 221. He reiterates that he is against using Sorrels
Road for any US 221 improvements.

Response: Comments noted. The alternatives through Gilkey were designed such that they
widened predominantly on the east side or on the west side of existing US 221. If land had been
taken from both sides of existing US 221, the Gilkey Lumber Company and the William
Monteith Historic House would have both been impacted instead of only one or the other. In
addition, the median width through Segment B (Gilkey) was decreased to 23 feet to minimize
property impacts through this area. Realigning US 221 out of the Gilkey area and constructing it
a half mile east or west of existing US 221 would situate the new roadway too far from the
existing road. Locating a new road this far from existing US 221 would make it difficult to get to
and drivers would more than likely choose not to use the new road.

* Kenneth Suttles, PLS Suttles Survey, 40 South Main Street, Suite 200, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Requests a copy of the centerline data after final design in the area of Copper Road
(SR 1256) north along US 221; 1,500 feet along the Howard and Frances Randolph Property.

Response: Comment noted. After the final design process is complete, the plans will be made
available to the public upon request. Please resubmit your request at that time.

* Margie Trinks 145 Caravan Drive
Owns 212 Caravan Drive, as well

Comments: Could not attend the meeting, but received information from neighbors that her
house would be impacted. Inquires how soon she will know the “definite plan,” when will the

final route be made public, and when will she be told how much of her property will be acquired.
She has numerous right of way questions, such as the timing of a financial offer, can she live in
the home after it is purchased, for a certain amount of time, and if she moves her heirloom
outdoor plants, will her house value be affected. She was going to make some improvements to
her home and isn’t sure if she should go ahead with these plans (and receive more for her home
with the improvements) or stop the improvements. Does not feel that this project is a wise use of
state funds. Inquires about surveys for rare wildflowers on her property or in McDowell County
and how that effects the widening decision. Mentions that the property at 212 Caravan Drive is
solely owned by her and inquires if the mapping will be updated. Inquires how the project affects
that property.

Response: Comments noted. The NCDOT anticipates holding a Merger Team Meeting with
environmental agencies, as well as other interested parties, to discuss and select a Preferred
Alternative in Fall 2012. After selection of a Preferred Alternative for each section of the project,
a newsletter will be mailed to property owners informing them of the decision. As the project
progresses through final design, additional minimization measures will be taken which may, in
some areas, reduce the potential impacts from those shown at the public hearing. For
homeowners who must relocate because of the project, the NCDOT has several programs to
minimize the inconvenience of relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments,
and relocation replacement housing payments. A relocation officer is assigned to each project
and can provide additional information regarding these programs. The relocation officer also
assists homeowners in searching for and moving to replacement property. Appendix G in the
SEA includes additional information regarding NCDOT’s Relocation Assistance Program. For
information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program, the NCDOT Right-of-Way
Agent / Area Negotiator can be contacted at [phone]. Section V.A.3 Rare and Protected
Species in the SEA includes a discussion of the plants and animals in Rutherford and McDowell
Counties with a classification of endangered, threatened, proposed endangered, and proposed
threatened that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. A survey of the project area was
performed to determine if any protected plant or animal species were present. The survey
revealed that habitat for these species is not present in the project area and no impacts to these
species are anticipated during project construction. The property owner information included on
the maps was obtained several years ago during the development of the mapping. During final
design of the project, updated mapping would be requested, including the most recent property
owner information. According to Map 4 (Segments D&D1) shown at the public hearing, the
house located at 212 Caravan Drive would be impacted by the proposed project. However, the
house located at 145 Caravan, which is situated a further from US 221 would not be impacted.

Perry Ward, Jr. 9 Cross Mountain Drive, Marion, NC 28752

Comments: Maps show that there is no U-turn located immediately south of his property, which
is located at R-2597B & R-2497C break. He states that “per design,” there should be a U-turn
800 feet to 1,000 feet south of Polly Spout Road. Comments that the nearest U-turn north of his
property is three miles north and because he owns property on both sides of the road, he would
have to drive about 6 miles to get to his property across the road from his house. Requests
NCDOT review the locations of the U-turns. His property east of US 221 is accessed by a deeded
right of way through the Paul & Lynda Cartwright property and along the abandoned railroad.
Requests that access to this driveway be provided at a suitable location. It ties in to existing US
221 north of the proposed bridge in Segment D.

Response: Comments noted. Additional directional crossovers with U-turn bulbs will be
investigated during final design. It should also be noted that U-turns can be made at intersections

with other roadways and not only at the directional crossovers. For example, a U-turn would be
permitted at the intersection with existing US 221 south of this property.

Driveway access will be investigated during final design.

David Yelton 265 Amber Oaks Drive, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comments: Concerned that the project as proposed is not needed. Feels that the addition of
passing lanes “would alleviate most of the minor inconveniences that exist.” Concerned about
Gilboa United Methodist Church and cemetery and “would appreciate full consideration of
protecting our location and the avoidance of leaving our access at the end of a road (i.e. cul-de-
sac).”

Response: Comment noted. The four-lane median-divided section best meets the purpose and
need for the project (e.g., enhance mobility and reduce crashes). The four-lane median-divided
typical section is also consistent with the development of US 221 as a Strategic Highway
Corridor (see http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/).

In the vicinity of Gilboa United Methodist Church, the widening of US 221 takes place
predominantly on the west side of US 221, avoiding impacts to the church and cemetery. The
Church’s access along Gilboa Church Road would remain unchanged, with the exception of the
minor realignment of Gilboa Church Road at the Gilboa Church Road/US 221 intersection.

Rocky Yelton 120 Sorrels Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139

Comment: Supports Segment B3. Adds that the other two alternatives would either impact the
Lumber Company or would be a traffic hazard with large trucks entering/exiting proposed
US 221 in close proximity to the Lumber Company. Comments that several individuals along
Sorrels Road are willing to sell and relocate.

Response: Comment noted.

APPENDIX C

CULTURAL RESOURCES MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT

February 12, 2014

Scott McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343

Ref: Proposed Improvements to US 221 from North of SR 1366 to NC 226
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, North Carolina

Dear Mr. McLendon:

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has received the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) for the above referenced project. In accordance with Section 800.6(b)(1)(iv) of the ACHP’s
regulations, the ACHP acknowledges receipt of the MOA. The filing of the MOA, and execution of its
terms, completes the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
ACHP’s regulations.

We appreciate your providing us with a copy of the MOA and will retain it for inclusion in our records
regarding this project. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance, please contact
Anthony Guy Lopez at [phone] or [e-mail].

Sincerely,

LaShavio Johnson
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Federal Agency Programs




APPENDIX D

MERGER TEAM
CONCURRENCE FORMS

J
j
1
i
j
j
Section 404/NEP A Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3 -Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) ·
Project No.mP NoJName/Description;
Federal Aid Project Number:
WBS Element:
State Project No.:
TIP Number:
TIP Description:
NIA
35608.l.l & 34329.1.1
6.899002T & 6.879005T
R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Improvements to US 221 from North ofSR 1366 (Roper Loop
Road) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell
County
Least Environmentally Damaging PracticaJ!Ie Alternative (LEDPA):
After review of the anticipated project impacts. the following alternatives are recommended As
LEDPA for the subject project: .
SegmentAl (West Side Widening)
. Segment B I (West Side Widening)
Segment C (Best Fit)
Segment Dl (West Side Widening)
Segment El (West Side Widening)
Segment Fl (West Side Widening)
Segment Gl (West Side Widening)
Segment H (Best Fit)
On this date of November 2, 2012, the Project Team has concurred with the bridging
decisions as stated above. i
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ---+--l#-'-' / ....... "-=ft"-~--', _;;___~~~~-=----
U. S. Enviroameotal Protection Agency
U.S. Fislt and WlldJife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources (HPO)
N.C. DENR-DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation .
Isothermal Rural Planaing Organization