Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140762 All Versions_Finding of No Significant Impact_20140320Proposed US 221 Widening From US 421 to US 221 Business/NC 88 in Jefferson Watauga and Ashe Counties WBS Element 34518.1.1 Federal Aid Project STP-0221(13) STIP Project No. R-2915 I I rMyreri 1:1-11,11611 11.11111111, 11,111 IV NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) [ .��. /�� � �w /� Date �m ,!�;/23//3 Date Prnico\ Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department ofTransportation ,,,john F. Sullivan 111, U^.|8., Division ' Administrator Federal Highway Administration Proposed US 221 Widening From US 421 to US 221 Business /NC 88 in Jefferson Watauga and Ashe Counties WBS Element 34518. 1.1 Federal Aid Project STP- 0221(13) STIP Project No. R -2915 ADMINISTRATION ACTION Finding of No Significant Impact May 2013 Document prepared by: PARSONS 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 ZH CAq��'.,�,, XO oFESS%p�,!y� ; 4 <� f,, -� �/� �. •QQ. • SEAL - 300 Date Edward S. Robbins, PE Project Manager = �' S11R��,,. For The C AIR �� %i North Carolina Department of Transportat�' 04,* -- t ✓L,�= Z: Q7 SEAL -9 IL 038006 Date Mic el Wray, P Project Plannin Engineer Zv Zvi 3 Date ohn n ti - CONFORTI :z �cn; Pr�j t Ei ieer = REM C) - �`'d 9766 �'�; Proposed US 221 From US 421 to US 221 Busin Watauga and Ash • NCDOT will re- survey the South Fork New River within the footprint of the existing and proposed bridge at that crossing prior to permitting to ensure no individuals of Virginia spiraea have inhabited the area. • The 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). • NCDOT will provide an individual Section 404 permit for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 Water Quality' Certification for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. • NCDOT will design the roadway alignment and profile in front of the Fleetwood Community Center to not impact the underground storage tanks. No permanent right of way will be purchased from the Fleetwood Community Center. Temporary construction easement may be necessary to properly tie the proposed to the existing. TIP Project R -2915 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT COMMITMENTS US 221 Widening Page 1.0 Type of Action ....................................................................... ............................... 1 2.0 Description of Proposed Action .............................................. ............................... 1 3.0 Alternatives Considered ........................................................ ............................... 1 4.0 Preferred Alternative ............................................................. ............................... 4 5.0 Summary of Project Impacts ................................................. ............................... 4 6.0 Comments & Coordination .................................................... ............................... 9 7.0 Additions & Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ..... ............................... 14 8.0 Floodplain Impacts ............................................................. ............................... 15 9.0 Basis for Finding of No Significant Impacts ( FONSI) ............. ............................... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Summary of Potential Impacts from the Functional Design ..........................3 Table 2 - Summary of Direct Project Impacts .............................. ............................... 4 Table 3 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........... ............................... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures 1 -A and 1 -B - Project Location and Study Area Appendix B - Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Correspondence Ashe County School Board Correspondence Environmental Protection Agency Comments National Park Service - Viewshed Correspondence Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Correspondence United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indian Correspondence Appendix C - Concurrence Forms Appendix D - Noise Abatement Review Study Archaeological Consultation Letters Appendix E - Public Hearing map Comments US Army Corps of Engineers Public Comments & Correspondence FONSI i May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 1.0 Type of Action US 221 Widening This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the October 18, 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA), which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately disclose the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA, together with the information contained in this FONSI (including responses to comments on the EA), provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. 2.0 Description of Proposed Action The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four -lane, median- divided facility from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to the US 221 Business /NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length and is shown in Figures 1 -A and 1 -B in Appendix A. 2.1 Summary of Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi- lane facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations, and reduce the rate of traffic crashes. 3.0 Alternatives Considered A full range of alternatives were considered, including a No -Build Alternative, a Public Transportation Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, and improvements to the existing facility. 3.1 No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to the US 221 study corridor. The No -Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need identified for the proposed project. It would not improve the traffic flow or level of service (LOS) of US 221 through the project study area, nor would it address the corridor's higher- than - average crash rates. Therefore, the No -Build Alternative was not recommended. 3.2 Public Transportation Alternative The project study area is not well served by mass transit. Based on the project context, improvements to public transportation would not improve vehicle flow or safety on US 221 and would not eliminate the need for widening FONSI 1 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening the existing facilities and improving the alignment. Therefore, the Public Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this project and was eliminated from further study. 3.3 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 will not increase capacity or improve levels of service to the levels required to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2035 design year. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was eliminated from further study. 3.4 Build Alternatives During the December 16, 2008 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options), the following four widening scenarios were presented: 1. Widening Scenario 1 - Asymmetrical Widening to the East This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the east. 2. Widening Scenario 2 - Asymmetrical Widening to the West This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the west. 3. Widening Scenario 3 - Symmetrical Widening This alternative would widen US 221 symmetrically about the existing centerline of the roadway. 4. Widening Scenario 4 - "Best Fit" Widening Alternative This alternative would widen US 221 at locations that "best fit" the current road location and surrounding land uses. "Best fit" locations were evaluated and selected to improve the existing roadway alignment, minimize impacts, and permit traffic maintenance during construction. The impacts of the four (4) widening scenarios at the functional design level are presented in the following table (Table 1). The impacts shown in this table were slope stakes plus 40 feet. FONSI 2 May 2013 0 a_ N N U) Z) bA m O1 Q O w v 0 w m H •.w i-I v O �-1 W O v H N rn N U N a` a H � w 0 U O W � ° v ti ti ti ti r-I rl r-I r-I 3 � 7J Z. C •3 x v � o 0 0 0 o0 o G 0 0 0 v o � v o ° ti a, w a, w a, N ti ti ti N m N m a, a, a, a, d+ d+ d+ 't Dray x O m o, O W H ,o N a1 a1 rl to m N m N W O W [n L � ,o W 01 �I M 71 v lo lo Om, H H Off, 6 m M H W ll- C� N W N M N O O [� H q O o, In W cn N N O ,O N O W O O cn c7 N 01 N ti ,O a1 N N O W N [n a1 u� Ln N m. Ln c-I In In a1 a1 [n N W O N 11I O N m N N In 01 dl n 4J ''. ,O ti [ri N N N ti W ti ti N N N IIj N N ti ti N dl � O F O, O, O, O, to to to to M 3 v y � w �w" �w" �w" � w � w � w a 0 zx Ln �� o z s N Nz �w E en o o N o 0 0 o o tC bA P° az.G ti�� w O wu, w nu, wcna wN N c•r) d L� TIP Project R -2915 4.0 Preferred Alternative US 221 Widening It was determined at the CP2 and CP2A meetings and reconfirmed at the "Concurrence Point 3 (CP3) - Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LED PA /Preferred Alternative)" meeting held on March 13, 2013 that the "Best Fit" Widening Alternative was the merger team's Preferred Alternate. This alternate was selected because it accomplishes the purpose and need while minimizing the impacts to the surrounding environment and communities (as shown in Table 1). 5.0 Summary of Project Impacts Descriptions of the anticipated impacts are provided in the following section, and the impacts from the preliminary design are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 - Summary of Direct Project Impacts from the Preliminary Desivyn Feature Anticipated Impacts Project length - miles 16.1 Residential relocations 70 Business relocations 33 Total relocations 103 Major utility crossings 1 Historic Properties (See Note 1) No Adverse Effects - 2 properties Archaeological Sites No sites eligible for National Register of Historic Places will be impacted Cemeteries (See Note 2) 2 Wetland Impacts - acres (See Note 3) 3.7 Stream Impacts - linear feet (See Note 3) 20,804 100 -year floodplain crossings 5 Water supply/ watershed protected areas 0 Hazardous spill basin areas 2 Impacted noise receptors (See Note 4) 22 Federally protected species 11 - No Effect Hazardous Material Sites 13 Voluntary Agricultural District Impacts (acres) 3.0 NniPC' (1) = Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and Barnett Idol House (2) = Gap Creek Cemetery and Baldwin Bethany Cemetery - minor impacts (3) = Shown acreage includes 25 -foot clearing limits outside slope stake lines (4) = Based upon new traffic noise analysis dated September 10, 2012. FONSI 4 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Relocations - The project will result in the displacement of approximately 70 homes, 33 businesses, and two religious facilities. Land Use - Future development within the project study area and its vicinity will most likely follow the current land use patterns. This project is consistent with the Jefferson /West Jefferson Thoroughfare Plan, which calls for the widening of US 221 to a four -lane facility. The 2008 West Jefferson Land Use Plan recommends that the Town collaborate with NCDOT in the implementation of the thoroughfare plan. Farmland - A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects (NRCS- CPA -106) was completed for this project (see Appendix E). Approximately 36,452 acres of land in Ashe County (13.3 %) and 18,192 acres in Watauga County (8.4 %) are farmland in government jurisdiction. The US 221 widening improvements will convert approximately 152 acres of farmland to highway use. The total prime and unique farmland impacted by the project is approximately 37 acres. The total statewide and local important farmland impacted by the project is 54 acres. Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) - NCDOT presented the project to the Ashe County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Board on February 25, 2013 in a special public hearing. The Farmland Preservation Board met on March 5, 2013 to discuss the project and information presented to them. The board determined that NCDOT had met the expectations of Chapter 161:10 of the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program. The Board of Commissioners met on March 18, 2013 and Dale Weinberg, Chairman of the Farmland Preservation Advisory Board presented that information to the Ashe County Board of Commissioners. This project will impact a total of three acres of voluntary agricultural farmland affecting a total of five parcels. This information can be found in Appendix B. Community Facilities - No permanent community facility impacts are associated with the proposed project. Indirect and Cumulative Effects - No notable indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated to result from this project. The project is expected to result in a slight increase in residential development, which will likely take the form of larger -lot, single - family residences. However, the cumulative effect of this project, when considered in the context of other past, present, and future actions, and the resulting impact to notable human and natural features is considered minimal. Environmental Justice - Based on the demographic findings and public comments, environmental justice issues have not been raised on this project. In addition, both adverse and beneficial impacts associated with the projects construction would be experience equally by all travelers through the area. Based on these considerations, the project would not create any disproportionate effects to low- income or minority populations. FONSI 5 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Archaeological and Historic Architectural Resources - Two archaeological surveys have been conducted for this project. The section between Baldwin and Jefferson was surveyed in 1977 (Scheitlin et al. 1979). The section between US 421 in Watauga County and Baldwin in Ashe County was surveyed in 2012 (O'Neal 2013). Neither survey identified any sites recommended eligible for the NRHP. See consultation letters from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office in Appendix D. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office has concurred that the project, as currently designed, will have No Adverse Effect on the Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and the Barnett Idol House. Section 4(fJ and Section 6(fJ Resources - The project study area includes four Section 4(f) resources: Baldwin Bethany Cemetery (National Register eligible), Barnett Idol House (National Register eligible), Fleetwood Community Center, and Foster Tyson Park. The only impact anticipated by this project is to the Fleetwood Community Center, where the driveway will need to be re -tied to US 221 (temporary impact). A letter of de minimis impact from the Ashe County School board regarding the Fleetwood Community Center is included in Appendix B. There are no 6(f) resources within the project study area. Utilities - Construction of the proposed project will require relocation or modifications of existing public utilities. Any adjustments, relocations, or modifications will require coordination with the affected utility company during the final design phase. Hazardous Material Sites /Underground Storage Tanks - Thirteen (13) possible UST facilities were identified within the proposed project corridor. NCDOT anticipates low monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites. No Hazardous waste, landfills, or other geo- environmental concerns were discovered. Terrestrial Communities - Terrestrial communities in the project study area will be impacted by project construction as result of potential grading and paving portions of the project study area. Table 3 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. FONSI 6 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Table 3 - Anticinated Imnacts to Terrestrial Communities Community Coverage (ac) Maintained/ Disturbed Land 152.47 Successional Land 26.08 Pasture Land 31.48 Agricultural Land 3.4 Tree Farm 10.9 Sub Total 224.33 Terrestrial Forests Mixed Hardwood/ White Pine Forest 20.3 White Pine Forest 45.24 Montane Oak - Hickory Forest 98.53 Northern Hardwood Forest 21.23 Sub Total 185.3 Total Terrestrial Communities 409.63 Waters of the United States - Approximately 20,804 linear feet of jurisdictional streams will be impacted as a result of the project. These impacts include 18,139 linear feet of designated trout waters. Approximately 3.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted. The impacts are based on an additional 25 feet of clearing area beyond the slope stake lines. These impacts are based on preliminary design mapping and could change during final project design. Rare and Protected Species - As of January 5, 2012 and September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists eleven (11) federally protected species for Ashe and Watauga Counties, respectively. All 11 species were determined to be "No Effect." Water Quality - Construction of the project will slightly increase the amount of impervious surface within the project study area, which will subsequently increase stormwater runoff. To reduce the potential for stormwater, the NCDOT will 1) include stormwater treatment devices in the proposed roadway's final design; and 2) utilize protective sediment and erosion control best management practices (BMPs) during construction, as detailed in 15A NCAC 4B .0124 (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds). The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated 6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). FONSI 7 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Water resources in the study area are part of the New River Basin (US Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 05050001). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has identified Gap Creek (S1), Little Gap Creek (S37), Old Field Creek (S56), Beaver Creek (5124), Call Creek, and South Beaver Creek as trout waters. Old Field Creek is also designated as ORW. Based on NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters ", a study to determine the best location for construction of hazardous spill basin(s) in the vicinity of Old Field Creek will be completed by the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit during the preparation of the project's hydraulic design plans. Riparian Buffers - The proposed project is located entirely within the New River Basin. The New River Basin does not have NCDWQ river basin buffer rules in effect at this time. Therefore, no streams in the study area are subject to river basin buffer rules. Air Quality - The project is located Ashe and Watauga Counties, which have been determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed project is located in attainment areas; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these attainment areas. Noise - Two noise walls will be further evaluated during final design. The first noise wall will be approximately 800 feet long and 11.5 feet high near Crescent Drive and US 221. The second noise wall will be approximately 2,400 feet long and 12.4 feet high from Long Street to Cherry Drive along US 221. Mineral Resources - The proposed project does not pose any impacts to mining or mineral resources. Direct Impact Avoidance & Minimization - Impacts to wetlands, streams, homes, businesses, churches, and cemeteries 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 can be found on the CP 4A form found in Appendix C. Permits - A list of permits that may be required for this project is provided below: • Section 401 General Water Quality Certification - A NCDWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 NWP. A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification will be required for any activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which the issuance of a federal permit is required. Prior to issuance of the Water Quality Certification, NCDWQ must determine that the project will not result in cumulative impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards. Based on the anticipated wetland (3.7 acres) impacts a 401 Water Quality Certification will be required. FONSI 8 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening • Section 404 (Impacts to "Waters of the United States ") - Impacts to "Waters of the United States" fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Discharges of dredge or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands, streams, or open waters associated with the construction of the bridge or other roadway improvements will require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. The proposed project impacts 3.7 acres of wetlands, which exceeds the NWP permit thresholds for wetland /stream impacts (0.5 -acre cumulative wetland impact). Therefore, an Individual Section 404 permit will likely be required. • State Stormwater Permit - Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). After final designs are completed, NCDOT will coordinate with regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary permits. 6.0 Comments & Coordination The following sections describe public involvement and agency coordination efforts conducted after publishing the EA. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment - The EA was circulated to federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments on October 18, 2012. The EA and project mapping were also made available for public review. The review period for the EA closed in January 2013. Agency Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment - Comments on the EA were received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and from NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit. These letters are provided in Appendix B. Project- specific comments requiring a detailed response from the EPA are included in the following bullets. • "On pages 19 and 20 of the EA, Table 10 shows a summary of potential impacts at the functional design level for East, West, Symmetrical and Best Fit Alternatives for 7 different sections of the project. Within these sections (e.g. Section 1,4.54 miles), the East Alternative has 4,419.93 linear feet of impact to streams and the Best Fit Alternative has 5,157.11 linear feet of impact (with greater residential and business relocations - 3 & 3 additional). The overall impacts to the human and natural environment (highlighted totals) actually indicate that the West Alternative has lower impacts to streams and residential and business relocations than the recommended Best Fit Alternative. EPA requests that the NCDOT and other Merger Team agencies evaluate each section of the proposed project at or prior to the Concurrence Point 3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDP A) meeting to determine the environmentally preferred alternative for each section of the project. As currently presented in Table 10, the recommended Best Fit Alternative for certain sections of the project may not be the overall LEDPA." FONSI 9 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Response: Segment 1 Segment 1 reflects lower stream impacts due to the interchange at US 421. These impacts were not reflected in the east side widening option in the draft EA. The majority of segment 1 in the Best Fit Alignment is widening on the east side. The difference in impact is approximately 20 linear feet. Segment 3 It appears we are shifting from widening on the west side (avoids relocatees on east side from (Sta. 285 +00 to 290 +00 + / -) to widening on the east side, which impacts the stream on the west side in the transition. The east -side widening option avoids the stream on the west side but impacts the parcels on the east side. This stream impact accounts for the difference. East side widening would add four additional relocatees while saving approximately 260 linear feet of stream impact. Segment 7 The Best Fit Alignment transitions from widening on the west side (Sta. 795 +00 to 800 +00) to matching the east side alignment at the tie in. This transition avoids a stream on the east side in Section 6 but increases the impacts in segment 7. The east -side option impacts the entire stream (approximately 650 linear feet). This transition area is what causes the best fit stream impacts to be slightly higher than those of the other alternatives considered. Note: The corrected stream impacts are shown in Table 1 (page 3). "EPA also requests that the transportation agencies consider substantial avoidance and minimization measures to further reduce impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands of the LEDPA, including the use of retaining walls, steeper side slopes with rock reinforcement, and reduced median widths." Response: NCDOT will investigate further avoidance and minimization measures during the final design phase. "The EA does not address the stream mitigation site at the intersection of US 221 and US 421. The FNSI should address this issue that was discussed at several Merger meetings and NCDOT's re- design efforts to avoid impacts to it." Response: The stream mitigation site that was constructed as part of the US 421 project is no longer impacted by this project. All of the widening along US 421 for this area will take place in the median to avoid this site. FONSI 10 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening • "The EA discusses compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on page 35 of the EA. Compensatory mitigation is proposed to be sought by the transportation agencies through the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). There is no discussion in the EA as to the current stream and wetland assets available through the EEP that would functionally mitigate for the anticipated impacts (including more than 3 miles of impacts to designated trout waters)." Response: The compensatory mitigation for this project will be handled as part of the final design. NCDOT will investigate potential onsite stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). • "EPA notes that the recommended Best Fit Alternative impacts approximately 120 residences and 29 businesses, 2 churches, 1 cemetery, and 1 community facility." Response: The right -of -way (ROW) impacts shown on page S -5 of the EA are from the preliminary design and relocation report. The ROW impacts shown on pages 19 and 20 are from the Functional Design with slope stakes plus an additional 40 feet. • "Terrestrial community impacts are estimated at 410 acres. However, Table 11 on page 28 of the EA includes maintained and disturbed lands, successional land, pasture land and agricultural land totaling approximately 214 acres. Terrestrial forest impacts would be expected to be approximately 196 acres." Response: We have broken out the mature growth forests on page 7 in Table 3 of this report. According to our calculations, a total of 185.3 acres should be considered mature growth forests. • "Noise receptor impacts from the Build alternative are shown on page 63 of the EA, Table 22, as 9 receptors. EPA understands from the noise analysis provided that a number of receptors would be eliminated through relocation of residences from near the existing right of way upon completion of the proposed project." Response: A new noise report is included in Appendix D. FONSI 11 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening • "The EA indicates that Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation for a protected plant (Virginia spiraea) is still ongoing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." Response: After further correspondence with USFWS, it was concluded that this project would have "No Effect" on Virginia spiraea due to the location of the downstream known population being around a bend and after a tributary joins the South Fork New River. In addition, there are no known Virginia spiraea populations on the South Fork New River upstream of the project crossing. Per request from USFWS, NCDOT has committed to an additional survey of the footprint of the existing and proposed bridge over the South Fork New River prior to permitting to ensure no individuals of Virginia spiraea have inhabited the area. • "The EA does not address coordination underway with the National Park Service due to the proximity of the Blue Ridge Parkway (view -shed issue)" Response: Correspondence with the National Parks Service is included in Appendix B. The National Park Service concluded that this project would have minor impacts on the Parkway's viewshed and required no efforts to mitigate the impacts. • "and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians (within the geographical area of both tribes). The transportation agencies should document coordination efforts with these parties during the Merger process and include relevant information in the FNSI." Response: The United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians had "No comment or objections." Correspondence with the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians is included in Appendix B. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians did not respond to our requests as of May 20, 2013. A copy of our correspondence to them is included in Appendix B. Project- specific comments requiring a detailed response from the NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit are included in the following bullets. • "On the Project Commitments Green Sheet, the second commitment concerns the moratorium for the South Fork New River. The same moratorium is discussed in Section V., Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action, A. Natural Resources, 4. Waters of the United States, g. Construction Moratoria, on page 36. This appears to be for smallmouth bass. It is my understanding that for that past few years NCDOT has stopped agreeing to a moratorium for smallmouth bass (and some other FONSI 12 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening `common' species). I would request that this commitment be investigated further and potentially be removed, or an explanation given as to why we are reversing our current policy concerning this type of moratorium." Response: The May 1 through July 15 moratorium has been removed from the project commitments. • "On the Project Commitments Green Sheet, the third commitment includes a list of streams subject to a trout moratorium. Two of the streams are misnamed. Deep Gap Creek should be Gap Creek, and Old Fields Creek should be Old Field Creek." Response: This commitment has been corrected. • "In Section IV. Proposed Improvements, H. Structures, on page 23, the second paragraph states, "The proposed structures for the remaining stream crossings presented in Table 9 of Appendix B ... ". There is no Table 9 in Appendix B. I assume this should be referencing Table B -4. This is the only table in Appendix B with any type of structure information included." Response: The EA should reference Table B -4. • "In Section V., Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action, A. Natural Resources, 3. Water Resources, on page 28, Table 12 provides the BUC, SIN, and description of the named streams in the project study area. The SIN for Little Gap Creek is incorrect. It should be [10- 1- 23 -1], not [20- 1 -23 -1] (`20' would put it in the White Oak River Basin on the coast). This same SIN is also show incorrectly in Appendix B, Table B -1." Response: Noted. • "In this same section (V.A.3.), on page 29 the paragraph following Table 12 states, "Little Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2010 Final 303(d) list ... ". As of August 10, 2012, we should be referring to the 2012 Final 303(d) list. The streams should be reevaluated with the 2012 Final 303(d) list and this section of the document revised as needed." FONSI 13 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening Response: The 303(d) classifications have not changed from the 2010 to the 2012 list. No new streams within the project area have been added. Here is the most current language: Little Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2012 Final 303(d) list as impaired due to ecological/ biological integrity for benthos. Summary of Public Hearing Comments - In accordance with 23 USC 128, the North Carolina Department of Transportation certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held, and the social, economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning goals and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. A Public Hearing was held on December 4, 2012 at the Ashe County Public High School. The meeting was advertised via a newsletter that announced the meeting, on the NCDOT website, and via a press release to local media. The Informal Public Hearing was held from 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM with a drop -in format, and a formal presentation and hearing were held from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Displays available for review included the public hearing maps. All of the written and verbal comments and responses are provided in Appendix E. Comments from Public Notice by US Army Corps of Engineers - The US Army Corps of Engineers issued a Public Notice on January 15, 2013 to solicit comments from the public on possible alternatives and issues to consider. We have included a summary/ response to these comments and the original letter in Appendix E. 7.0 Additions & Revisions to the Environmental Assessment Archaeological Survey - The proposed improvements to U.S. 221 from US 421 in Deep Gap, Watauga County, to US 221 Business /NC 88 in Jefferson, Ashe County is a Federally- funded project. Therefore the project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires the lead Federal agency (the NCDOT on behalf of the Federal Highways Administration [FHWA]) to consult with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO [on behalf of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation]) regarding the project's potential to impact archaeological resources eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Consultation with HPO began in 1977 when personnel with the Archaeology Section of the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, conducted an archaeological survey of the section of proposed US 221 between Baldwin and Jefferson (Scheitlin et al. 1979). The survey identified 26 archaeological sites, all of which were recommended ineligible for the NRHP. HPO concurred with these recommendations, and the section was later FONSI 14 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening constructed as a two -lane road. Updated scoping information was submitted to HPO on April 7, 2006. On May 24, 2006, HPO recommended that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. In May 2012, the NCDOT sponsored an archaeological survey of the Area of Potential Effects {A.P.E.} of the section between Deep Gap in Watauga County and Baldwin in Ashe County. The survey identified five archaeological sites, all of which were recommended ineligible for the NRHP. The NCDOT submitted the archaeological survey report to HPO on January 24, 2013. On March 5, 2013 HPO concurred with the report's findings and recommended no further archaeological work for the project. Scheitliln, Thomas E., Mark A. Mathis, Jerry 1. Cross, Thomas H. Hargrove, John W. Clauser, Jr., Michael T. Southern, Dolores A. Halt Linda H. Pinkerton, Dale W. Reavis, and Thomas D. Burke 1979 North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 11. Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. O'Neal, Michael Keith 2013 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the Proposed US 221 Improvement from Deep Gap to Baldwin, Watauga and Ashe Counties, North Carolina. { NCDOT TIP R- 2915; Federal Aid No. STP- 125[1]; ER 06- 1023.} Report submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, North Carolina. Noise Abatement Review - A new noise abatement review has been completed; as discussed above, there are now two proposed noise wall locations. These areas will be studied further as part of the final design process. A copy of this report is provided in Appendix D. 8.0 Floodplain Impacts The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with federal, state, and local governments, has developed floodway boundaries and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for Ashe and Watauga Counties. A considerable portion of the project study area is within the floodplains. These areas are primarily designated as Zone AE floodways and floodplains, which correspond to a statistical 1% annual chance of flooding (i.e., 100 -year flood) (NFIP, 1980). The Zone AE floodplains are flanked by "Zone X" flood areas, which are those areas having a 0.2 percent annual chance flood (i.e., 500 -year flood). FONSI 15 May 2013 TIP Project R -2915 US 221 Widening The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated 6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA - regulated stream(s). 9.0 Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) This FONSI, in conjunction with the EA (incorporated by reference), have been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological, cultural, economic, or scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans, and the project has been coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies. In view of this evaluation and based on responses to the EA and subsequent public involvement, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an EIS nor further environmental analysis is required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA and this FONSI. Additional information concerning this proposal and document can be obtained by contacting the following individuals: John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 856 -4346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NC Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548 Telephone: (919) 707 -6000 FONSI 16 May 2013 Appendix A Figures 1 -A and 1 -B — Project Location and Study Area 1 r r' Johnson 70 �V 22.1 Avery Ashe Smyth �w _ M, r. -VIA NORTH CAROLINA I► r 1 Fleetwood , Watauga Deep Crap yr` Caldwell Miles 0 5 10 Grayson 58 221 AI@eghany Wilkes '4 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND �Q ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH I . t 221 d 19 o Mount Jefferson 1 Statye, Natural AreaPYOfeCt Northern }}s �) ��rtti�irRirttiat )rttirtmttirttgttgtRE °s 221 o m 221 $ B -B a-vefCTeek a o rSR 7 Pa eke she County Bo 9S Bald 111 SR "1272 F q r0O Roten Rtli C R720p 9B4 J ;Qn kFdWa � �a 1J/ 0 19 m o c G aM �a ls� are a G�e� `Na�ot Z� Todd SR w Fleetwood (SR f �s ail a 2� Ga Ra. a HeminC tberry vp3l o h R� � 5 \aEl a a \ems )2 21 °� \ oSR�2ssl �SEti1O 3a� sra�s a .L S�ampRe � , m P70 anerry Spry, 5R111�lq4e Blue Watauga County` Mo e� Fa N I)ee p Gap p az1 Ra t1 Southern Wilkes County „:Four �I��Il11NIE, ](tp(tp(tp (t0(tp1� Legend ® Ashe County Courthouse - NRHP gft Fleetwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue, Inc. Public Schools Parks 0 1 2 3 Project Location North Carolina Department of Transportation Environmental Study US 221 - NCDOT Project # R -2915 Ashe and Watauga Counties, NC Y 4 Figure 1 -B: Study Area i Miles Appendix B Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Correspondence Ashe County School Board Correspondence Environmental Protection Agency Comments National Park Service — Viewshed Correspondence Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Correspondence United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indian Correspondence County of Ashe 150 Government Circle, Suite 2500 Jefferson, North Carolina 2 640 March 19, 2013 Michael Wray Project Planning Engineer Western Unit DOT / 221 Highway Project RE: Voluntae-y Agriculture District Report and Public Hearing Dear Mr. Wray: County Manager Dr. Palriciai Mildlell, CT (fl (Ahcc 336-816,1101 p)3Ililrlid 100; I'd 1ccolI Ill � "got`x oll1 Attached you will find the report from the A,she County Volunteer Agriculture District Board that was presented to the Board of Commissioners on March 18, 2013. Also attached is the Agenda of the meeting in which the Public Hearing was held. If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerel , r jt Dr. Patricia Mitchell, CEcD County Manager & Economic Developer ASHE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA r3larch l8, 2013 TIME BUSINESS I.00P.isr. L Mid -Year Budget Review & Work Session in the Second Floor Conference Room 3:30 11. Meeting Called to Order at the Ashe County Courthouse Opening Prayer and Pledge gf'Allegiance Approval cif Minutes - March 4, 2013 Regular Session March 4, 2013 Executive Session Adoption of Agenda 3:35 Ill. Public Hearing - Planning Director Adam Sturnb - Proposed Amendment to the Ashe Count, lVatershed Map 3:50 I[ : Dale Weinberg, Chairman, Farmland Preservation Advisor= Board- Findings & Recommendations from the Voluntag Agricultural District (VAD) Public Hearing regarding the Highway 221 fVidening Project 4:05 V Stephanie Crcmen & Pegg), Bailey - "{reek afthe Young Child„ Proclamation 4:15 H. Tire Administrator Keith Little - Monthly Tax Report 4:25 VIL County Manager Dr. Patricia Mitchell & Assistant Director of Economic Development Cory Osborne - Presentation of Ashe County Photos 4:40 V11I. Public Comment GENERAL SESSION Airport Advisoi }, Board Appointrrierrt - First Pi,eserrtatiori Economic Development Commission Appointment - First Presentation Commissioner Comments Announcements Ashe County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Board Public Hearing — February 25, 2013 — 6:00 p.m. Ashe County Courthouse Attending; Dale Sheets, Ryan Ha f nan, Trathen Cheek, Martin McVey, Martin Weaver, Thelma Duvall, Carolyn Carter- Trent, Betty Carter Corrilrer; Tian Goins, Rd Robbins, Courtney Wait, Judy Bare, Pat Mitchell, Cory Osborne, Carolyn ,Shepherd, Dean Witherspoon, Mary M, Witherspoon, Glen Hentschel Department of Transportation Staff Janille Robbins, Public Involvement Officer for eight years uvith North Carolina Department ofPublic Transportation, Graduate of North Carolina State University; Martha Hodge — Community Planner Will North Carolina Department of Transportation for 4.5 years, Graduate of University ofNodh Carolina; Kristen Webb, John Con fortie, Michael Wray Martini Weaver called the meeting to order— Hearing for US 221 Widening Project. Janille Robbins with the Department of Transportation spoke -- • level of service on 221 explained • explained how they are planing the road for the future • explained the design of the road and why it is designed that way • talked about how the road will impact fannland and landowners • stated that Farmland Preservation Board had 30 days to submit information and questions to the Department of Transportation regarding the road The road is split into five sections — • A — Right of Way = Jiily 2013; Consttuct�ciri = 201 • B -- Right of Way — July 2013; Construction - 2015 • C -- Right of Way --• April 2014; Construction - 2017 • D — Right of Way — September 2013; Construction -- 2017 • 4 of 5 sections have funding • 103 relocations (30 commercial; 70 homes) Explained snap of projected road -- • 1 access road per parcel • Talked about U turn areas on road • Funding is 80% federal and 20% state • Said Miller farm is only farm affected on new road • Any property takes are based oil property appraisal from state USDA says approximately 152 acres of farmland will be affected Will tractor and trailers be able to make turns at U turn spots or will they have to drive to Jefferson to come back to Railroad Grade Road (question not ansuvered) N Martin Weaver asked will inedian be opened at entrance of Fleetwood Fire Department. Janille stated that emergency openings will exist. Some roads will have left turn access. If your property sloes not have an access point you will not have one, however if you do have access you will receive at least one access to your property Submitted by: Ryan Huffman & Trathen Cheek 2/25/2013 2 ►she County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Board Regarding Public Hearing — February 25,E 2013 Follow Up Board Meeting March S 2013 — 6:00 p.m. — Agriculture Service Center The Ashe County VoluntaryFanilland Preservation Board hold a special tailed ineeting on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 6.00 p.m, at the Agriculture Sorvice Center. The purpose of the meeting was to review inforination learned from the February 25h, 2013 Public Hearing by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as to how property in the Ashe County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program will be affcctcd by the Highway 221 road construction project and to prepare a written report for the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Ashe County Commissioners to meet the expectations of Chapter 161:10 in the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program. The minutes from the March 5, 2013 are as follows: Attending — Ryan Ha ffrnan, Judy Bare, Dale Sheets, Dale Whieberg, Martin McVey, Trathen Cheek, Glen Hentschel, Carolyn Shepherd —Ashe County Extension Director 1) Of Chapter 161.to — has the need for the project requiring the condemnation been satisfactorily shown by the agency requesting the action? Yes, there was a detailed ntap f -oin start to finish displayed at the heating, and statistics were given why the toad sltoidd be ir,ldenetl. Also the high iolirnte of tr(tffic acid lervel of set,i ice it�et e (lisotfssed crud flie road is being planted for the fattt(re. 2) Of Chapter 161.to — has the financial impact analysis been conducted by the agency seeping the action? There has been a cost esfintate in reference to the highway, however we are unclear if a financial impact has been declared to the land owner. 3) Of Chapter t6t.f o — have alternatives been considered to the proposed action that are less disruptive to the agricultural activities and farmland base of the voluntary agricultural district within which the proposed action is to tahe place? Yes, alternatives have been considered, however to go a different route storefarintand would be affected, than the existing route planed. Vickie Moore Subject: FW: Feb. 28 Hearing in Ashe From: Carolyn Shepherd Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9 :56 AM To: 'Wray, Michael G' Cc: Carolyn Shepherd; Judy Bare; Dale Sheets; Dale Wineberg; 'Ryan Huffman'; Martin McVey; 'Martin Weaver'; Trathen Cheek; Vickie Moore Subject: Feb, 25 Hearing In Ashe Good Morning Michael, The Farmland Preservation Board met last night to complete the report that will be submitted to DOT and reported to the County Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting of March 18`h. Board members had the following questions and they asked that I forward them to DOT for clarification. As you were my Initial DOT contact, I am sending them to you. Parcel # 19227 —180 of 4.7 acres Parcel # 19227 —144 of 21.6 acres _ both of these in the name of Thelma Duvall Parcel # 19227 — 364 of 5.52 acres — In the name of Judy Bare and Dean Witherspoon Each of these are in the VAD(Farmland Preservation). Graphics from the picture map presented and discussed at the meeting showed that an additional 5 -6 feet will be taken for right of way along these properties that will adjoin the road. However, these parcels were not shown to be in the VAD on the map. The committee doubled checked on these parcels and they are in the VAD; The committee is concerned that there may be - in addition to these, other properties unidentified as VAD properties and that total acreage may be affected (Le the report given was that 1'/: acres of VAD property would be affected by the project), but this may not be the total affected as the 3 parcels mentioned above were not in the 1 %: acres mentioned to be affected. In addition, the committee questioned the compensation to land in VAD that would be taken for the road project. The committee is concerned about the formula used In the compensation process for farmland. What is the financial analysis and how will you determine the valuation of farmland on the impact of land taken on farmers(as a 1 time payoff when the farmer will have lost an annual income over numerous years ?) In the statute, the wording says "Has a financial impact analysis been conducted by the agency seeking the action ". The committee wants clarification on this statement -- does this refer to the cost of the road, the financial Impact to the landowners, or both? Thank Michael for your help in answering these questions. All of these questions will be referenced in the presentation the Commissloners on March 18 when the FP Chair presents the report, Thanks for your help in clarifying the above. Carolyn Carolyn Shepherd County Extension Director North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina Cooperative Extension, Ashe Comity Ctr, 134 Government Circle, Suite 242 .Jefferson, NC 28640 (336) 846 -5850 (336) 846 -5882 (fax) C rol She herd n su.edu Robbins, Ed Subject: FW: R -2915 US 221 Widening: Farmland Preservation Importance: High From: Wray, Michael G Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:47 AM To: Carolyn Shepherd ( CarolynShepherd @ashecountygov.com) Cc: 'Vickie Moore' Subject: R -2915 US 221 Widening: Farmland Preservation Importance: High Carolyn, NCDOT and Parsons have done further investigation into the questions you had prior to tonight's meeting. Below are the findings, as reported by Parsons: We have used the latest information shown on Ashe County GIS Website ( http:// ashegis .ashecountygov.com /webgis /) to update our Farmland Preservation information. The following table summarizes our preliminary design's impact to your members properties (these areas should be considered preliminary and not used for negotiation purposes): Location Total Property Acreage Acreage to be Acquired Owners Name 1 20.4 0.6 Kermit Lee & Jane B Miller 2 13.6 1.2 Clayton & Ruth H Lemly 3 1.4 0.4 Barry K & Sandra T Liddle 4 25.1 0.4 Thelma W Duvall 5 5.2 0.4 Gary & Judy Bare Trustee Totals 65.7 3.0 Upon receiving your current role of members, we will re- verify this information and alert you to any additional properties that are affected. Below are the answers to your other concerns: "In addition, the committee questioned the compensation to land in VAD that would be taken for the road project. The committee is concerned about the formula used in the compensation process for farmland. What is the financial analysis and how will you determine the valuation of farmland on the impact of land taken on farmers(as a 1 time payoff when the farmer will have lost an annual income over numerous years ?)" The Right of Way appraiser will determine the highest and best use of the property and then use a sales comparison approach to determine the value. This is the same approached used for all of NCDOT's property acquisitions. "In the statute, the wording says "Has a financial impact analysis been conducted by the agency seeking the action ". The committee wants clarification on this statement— does this refer to the cost of the road, the financial impact to the landowners, or both ?" A Right of Way estimate was performed by NCDOT for the project by section (R -2915 is divided into A through E sections). This project is still at a very preliminary design stage and NCDOT does not like making individual property evaluations at this point in the project process. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to give Michael Wray, (919)707 -6050, or myself a call. Thanks, Ed Robbins, P.E. PARSONS 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, NC 27606 T: (919) 854 -1347 C: (919) 539 -7765 F: (919) 851 -2103 Ed.Robbins aParsons.com www.Parsons.com Email corresEcrr,.lence to and from this senc:l c is srthjed to the N.C. Prihlic Recorc:is Law and may he cEisclose {:I to thirc:l parties. ASHE COUNTY Chall yn me ,s &sonar. Donnie R. Johnson, Superintendent - Charles L. King, Chairman * Charles B. Jones, Jr., Vice- Chairman Dr. Lee Beckworth * Polly Jones ® Terry Williams May 1, 2013 Tim D. Goins, PE Parsons Engineering 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Dear Mr. Goins: The Ashe County School Board concurs that the NCDOT widening of US 221 (Project R -2915) will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the Fleetwood Community Center for protection under Section 4(f) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act. Should you need any additional information in order to complete the preliminary phase of this project, please contact my office. Thank you, /� rfl_'_Q_ OP, � Donnie R. Johnson Superintendent PO Box 604 9 320 South Street * Jefferson, NC 28640 * 336.246.7175 9 336.246-.7609 fax e Courier No. 15-65-01 Yv A W e O $ a�2Tq< PROA�-' January 10, 2013 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 -8960 Dr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D. Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -1548 ItiOl 4. t' SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment, US 221 Widening, Watauga and Ashe Counties, TIP No.: R -2915 Dear Dr. Thorpe: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the subject document and is providing comments in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Envirommental Policy Act (NEPA). The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to widen US 221 to a 4 -lane, median divided facility for approximately 16.1 miles between US 421 to US 221 Business/NC 88 in Watauga and Ashe Counties. The proposed project is included in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger process. EPA concurred with the purpose and need, Concurrence Point 1, on January 22, 2008, detailed study alternatives (DSAs) on December 16, 2008, and Concurrence Point 2A, bridging decisions on July 25, 2012. EPA's detailed technical review comments on the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) are attached to this letter (See Attachment A). EPA requests that the environmental concerns identified in the attachment be addressed through the NEPA /Section 404 Merger process and prior to the issuance of the Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI). We appreciate the opportunity to review the EA and request a copy of the FONSI when it becomes available. Please feel free to contact Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff should you have any questions concerning these comments at 404 - 562 -9512. Sincerely, o Heinz J. Mueller, Chief NEPA Program Office w /Attachment A- 7 JAN 14 2013 Pre construction Project Development and t nental Analysis Bran Internet Address (URL) o http: / /www.epa.gov Recycled /Recyclable ® Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) Attachment A Eum. MIN= 12M, Watauga and Ashe Counties Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts The proposed recommended alternative ( "Best Fit ") is anticipated to impact 20,804 linear feet of jurisdictional streams and 6.84 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed project entails 24 stream crossings and five (5) 100 -year floodplain crossings. Designated trout waters have been identified as Gap Creek, Little Gap Creek, Old Field Creek, Beaver Creek, Call Creek and South Beaver Creek. Of the 20,804 linear feet of stream impacts, NCDOT estimates that 18,139 linear feet to designated trout waters. Old Field Creek from Call Creek to the South Fork of the New River has been designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Portions of the South Fork of the New River have been designated as Water Supply V, High Quality Waters (WS -V; HQW). Little Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2010 Final 303(d) list as impaired waters for aquatic life due to impaired ecological/biological integrity. On pages 19 and 20 of the EA, Table 10 shows a summary of potential impacts at the functional design level for East, West, Symmetrical and Best Fit Alternatives for 7 different sections of the project. Within these sections (e.g. Section 1, 4.54 miles), the East Alternative has 4,419.93 linear feet of impact to stripams and the Best Fit Alternative has 5,157.11 linear feet of impact (with greater residential and business relocations — 3 & 3 additional). The overall impacts to the human and natural environment (highlighted totals) actually indicate that the West Alternative has lower impacts to streams and residential and business relocations than the recommended Best Fit Alternative. EPA requests that the NCDOT and other Merger Team agencies evaluate each section of the proposed project at or prior to the Concurrence Point 3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) meeting to determine the environmentally preferred alternative for each section of the project. As currently presented in Table 10, the recommended Best Fit Alternative for certain sections of the project may not be the overall LEDPA. EPA also requests that the transportation agencies consider substantial avoidance and minimization measures to further reduce impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands of the LEDPA, including the use of retaining walls, steeper side slopes with rock reinforcement, and reduced median widths. The EA does not address the stream mitigation site at the intersection of US 221 and US 421. The FNSI should address this issue that was discussed at several Merger meetings and NCDOT's re- design efforts to avoid impacts to it. The EA discusses compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on page 35 of the EA. Compensatory mitigation is proposed to be sought by the transportation agencies through the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). There is no discussion in the EA as to the current stream and wetland assets available through the EEP that would functionally mitigate for the anticipated impacts (including more than 3 miles of impacts to designated trout waters). Other Impacts and Issues EPA notes that the recommended Best Fit Alternative impacts approximately 120 residences and 29 businesses, 2 churches, 1 cemetery, and 1 community facility. Terrestrial community impacts are estimated at 410 acres. However, Table 11 on page 28 of the EA includes maintained and disturbed lands, successional land, pasture land and agricultural land totaling approximately 214 acres. Terrestrial forest impacts would be expected to be approximately 196 acres. Noise receptor impacts from the Build alternative are shown on page 63 of the EA, Table 22, as 9 receptors. EPA understands from the noise analysis provided that a number of receptors would be eliminated through relocation of residences from near the existing right of way upon completion of the proposed project. The EA indicates that Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation for a protected plant (Virginia spiraea) is still ongoing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EA does not address coordination underway with the National Park Service due to the proximity of the Blue Ridge Parkway (view -shed issue) and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians (within the geographical area of both tribes). The transportation agencies should document coordination efforts with these parties during the Merger process and include relevant information in the FNSI. FW FW R -2915 Widening of us 221 in the Deep Gap Area.txt subject: FW: Fw: R -2915 Widening of us 221 in the Deep Gap Area -- Original Message---- - From: Phil_Francis @nps.gov [mailto:Phi1_Francis @nps.gov] sent: Wednesday, 7anuary 07, 2009 11:39 AM To: Gary_W_7ohnson @nps.gov Cc: Vick, Franklin; jqubain @ncdot.gov subject: Re: Fw: R -2915 Widening of us 221 in the Deep Gap Area Thanks Gary. Please take the lead in working w/ NCDOT on this. Phil From: Gary W Johnson sent: 12/16/2008 10:00 To: Phil Francis Cc: jqubain @ncdot.gov,Franklin.vick @parsons.com subject Re: Fw: R -2915 widening of us 221 in the Deep Gap Area(Document link: Phil Francis) Phil, I have reviewed the attached power point slides provided to us by Mr. Qubain as well as checking areial photography and our vista inventory. The improvement of us 221 in the Deep Gap area where it intersects with us 441 will have a minor impact on the Parkway's viewshed. The Parkway motor road follows a long sweeping curved alignment where it is closest to us 221. This alignment would focus both north and southbound vehicle occupants' attention towards us 221 if there were roadside vista cuts on the outside of the curving alignment, but there are not. After this curve the motor road heading north moves away from us 221 where the Parkway is running perpendicular to us 221 for about 3/4 of a mile and then the motor road runs more or less parallel to us 221 for about a mile and the two roadways are about 1 1/4 miles apart from each other. while there are roadside vistas along parkway right the impacts of improving us 221 would be some 1 1/4 miles in the distance. The improvement of us 221 with associated widening of right -of -way with additional lanes will increase its footprint and thus Take it more visible but this, I would think will only have minor to moderate Impacts on the Parkway views. Again the distance helps diminish the visual impact. The improvement of roads is usually followed by changes in land use so this may have more of an affect on the visual quality of the Parkway views than the road itself depending upon the scale of land use changes in the future. Based upon the information provided, us 221 is being improved along relative flat rolling terrain, rather than on a mountain side, so the visibility of new cut and fill slopes should be minimal. My conclusion is that the improvement of us 221 may have minor impacts on Parkway views, while future land use changes facilitated by the road improvement may have moderate affect on visual quality of the Parkway views. I believe the above short analysis should provide NCDOT and Parsons with an understanding of our impact finding. If they would like some additional thoughts from us, I am happy to provide that for them. I have no mitigations to offer that would reduce the minor impacts that may result from this improvement project. I have taken the liberty to copy Mr. Quabain and Mr. Vick on this email to facilitate our response given the noncontroversial nature of our response and Page 1 FW Fw R -2915 Widening of us 221 in the Deep Gap Area.txt minimal concern over this project. Let me know what else you may need. Thanks, Gary Gary W. Johnson chief RPPS Division Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road Asheville, Nc 28803 Phone: 828.271.4744 ext. 210 Fax: 828.271.4119 Page 2 Robbins, Ed From: Robbins, Ed Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:00 PM To: 'russtown @nc- cherokee.com' Subject: US 221 Widening in NC: Archaeological Survey Attachments: R -2915 Archaeological Survey.pdf; R -2915 Archaeological Survey Townsend.doc Dear Mr. Townsend: The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four -lane, median - divided facility from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to the US 221 Business /NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County, North Carolina. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length Please find attached a copy of the revised archaeological report describing the results of the archaeological survey for the proposed improvements. If you have any comment or concerns about this project, please contact me at (919) 854 -1347, or by email at ed.robbins cY.parsons.com. If you have no comments or concerns, a quick email stating so would be appreciated. Sincerely, Ed Robbins, P.E. PARSONS 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, NC 27606 T: (919) 854 -1347 C: (919) 539 -7765 F: (919) 851 -2103 Ed.Robbins cY.Parsons.com www.Parsons.com PARSONS 5540 Centerview^ Drive - Baits 297 - Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 - (999) 854-1345 - wrw^ xv ,parsonsxorn April 16, 2013 Mr. Russell Townsend Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians PO Box 455 Cherokee, NC 28719 RE: US 221 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, T.I.P. I.D. NO. R -2915 Archaeological Survey Dear Mr. Townsend: The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four -lane, median - divided facility from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to the US 221 Business /NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County, North Carolina. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length Please find attached a copy of the revised archaeological report describing the results of the archaeological survey for the proposed improvements. If you have any comment or concerns about this project, please contact me at (919) 854 -1347, or by email at ed.robbins(a;parsons.com. If you have no comments or concerns, a quick email stating so would be appreciated. Sincerely, PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. Ed Robbins, PE Project Manager Attachments (1) Robbins, Ed From: Lisa LaRue -Baker - UKB THPO [ukbthpo- larue @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:50 AM To: Robbins, Ed Cc: Istapleton @unitedkeetoowahband.org Subject: Re: US 221 Widening in NC: Archaeological Survey The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma has reviewed your project under Section 106 of the NHPA and at this time, have no comments or objections. However, should there be any inadvertent discovery of human remains, please cease all work and contact us immediately. Lisa C. Baker Acting THPO United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma PO Box 746 Tahlequah, OK 74465 c 918.822.1952 ukbthpo -larue cY.yahoo.com Please FOLLOW our historic preservation page and LIKE us on FACEBOOK - -- On Tue, 4/16/13, Robbins, Ed <EcI.Robbins(apnrsons.coni> wrote: From: Robbins, Ed <Ed.Robbinsaparsons.com> Subject: US 221 Widening in NC: Archaeological Survey To: "ukbthpo- larueawyahoo.com" <ukbthpo -larue c,yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 11:56 AM Dear Ms. LaRue - Baker: The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four -lane, median - divided facility from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County, North Carolina. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length Please find attached a copy of the revised archaeological report describing the results of the archaeological survey for the proposed improvements. If you have any comment or concerns about this project, please contact me at (919) 854 -1347, or by email at ed.robbins, d ,parsons. com. If y-ou have no comments or concerns, a quick email stating so would be appreciated. Sincerely, Ed Robbins, P.E. 5540 Centeiview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, NC 27606 T: (919) 854 -1347 C: (919) 539 -7765 F: (919) 851 -2103 Ed.Robbins, d �Parsons.com wwwYarsons.com Appendix C Concurrence Forms 11B I US 221 from ITS 421 to NC 83 / US 221 Business, Watauga and Ashe Counties TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 221 to a multi -lane facility, from US 421 near Deep Gap to NC 88 / US 221 Business in Jefferson. The proposed action involves approximately 16.1 miles of existing US 221 with a majority of the roadway located in Ashe County and just over a mile located in Watauga County. Purpose and Need: The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi -lane facility, so as to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations and reduce traffic accidents,. The needs to be address by this project include: Improve Traffic Flow for Highway system ® Existing US 221 currently experiences capacity deficiency and operates at levels of service D. E and F. Additional Considerations Above Average Crash Rates Existing crash rates and accident severity are relatively high along portions of the project and will likely worsen if no improvements are made. The Merger Team met on January 22, 2008 and concurs with the Purpose and Need/ Study Area Defined for the proposed widening improvements of US 221 to a multi-lane facility in !Watauga and Ashe Counties. The Study Area Defined is as shown in Exhibit 3 of the meeting handout, with the clarification that the View Shed for the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Mount Jefferson State Park is considered as part of the study area. FHWA Jake ' . '" Date _; USACE M me Matthews Date USEP Chris Zcle, ate e USFW rella Buncick Date NCDOT �°- Joseph Qubain Date NCDWQ 1 �a ate CIy c' U/t1�/iwr�.J SHPO Renee Gledhill- Early e NCWRC ! � ��� �� �IZZ�e Marla Chambers Date Oft !''1 !"1 511 �111� , US 221 from US 421 to NC 88 / US 221 Business, Watauga and Ashe Counties NCDOT TIP Project No.: R -2915 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 221 to a multi -lane facility, from US 421 near Deep Gap to NC 88 I 'CIS 221 Business in Jefferson. The proposed action involves approximately 16.1 miles of existing US 221 with a majority of the roadway located in Ashe County and just over a mile located in Watauga County. Alternatives to Study in Detail: Best -fit widening r G >�pyt 3 7laiJ��� gyes 0 N Typical Section l:Four -lane divided with 23 -foot raised median anct shou , er ®i'es ❑ No STA. 10 + 00 TO STA. 670 + 00 W Ga40i � e Ar �" M Typical Section 2: Four -lane divided with 36 -foot depress ed me f ian and shoulder VYes ❑ No STA. 670 + 00 TO STA. 825 + 00 Typical Section 3.Project Tie -in Five -lane divided (one left lane) with shoulder 2d Yes El No STA. 825 + 00 TO STA. 845 + 00 The Merger Team met on December 16, 2€108 and concurs with the alternatives to be carried forward for the proposed project as indicated above, 1~HWA ,..& USFWS t NCDOT r, - NCDWQ SHPO NCWRC .� SECTION 404 � NEPA MERGER )i"ROC);+ C C;UIaRl�+NCE AGREEMENT CONCURRENCE POYNT 2a Bridge Decisions US 221 from US 42; to WAR / US 221 Business, Watauga tlrid Asfte Counties NCDOT TYP Pi -oject No.. R-2915 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 221 to a multi -Earle facility, Rom US 421 near Deep Gap to NC 88 ! U4 221 Business in Jefferson. The proposed action involves approximately 16.1 miles of existing US 221 with. a majority of the roadway located in Aslta County and just over a mile located in Watauga County. Bridging Decisiolis :. 11c Merger Process Team inet on April 12, 2012 and May 24, 2012 to discuss 111e preliminary hydraulics design for the existing major drainage structures along the "Best Fit" Alternative for R- 2915. .Based upon the current preliminary design infonnation, the Merger Tean) concurs with proposed box - culvert and bridging decisions for the US 221 widening improvements, as presented in the Concurrence Point 2a meeting. 'rlle major crossings are listed below: Site No. 1 Proposed Hydraulic Structure(Additiorml L New 3(dj 8' x 8' RC13C (135 11) Sift No. 10 Proposed Hy =draulic Structure _ _(A[lditiOnaE �Cli�flt} New Dual Structures 1B New _I a 12' x 8' RCBC (3046) I I. Lxtend t a ,1E x 5' RCBC (120 ft 2 Extend ICa) b' x 4' RCBC (67 ft) 12 Extend 1 t, T x 8' RCBC (185 ft 3 Extend 2 rt; 9' x Y RC13C (79 ft) 13 New Bottotnless Culvert (28211 4 Extend 2 - 42" RCP(70 ft) 14 Extend 1 84" CMP (8 ft) 5 Extend 2 - 42" RCP (12 11) 16 Fxtend 2 - 84" CMP 80 ft E3 Ne�v 1 ai6' x 4' Rf 13C 64 ft �_ 17 Extend *y 10'x 8' RCBC (65 f[} 1 New Culvert (249 ft) 18 Extend 2 - 60" CMP (55 tl) 8 New Bridge. 0 30 fl) 9 Retain Add New Structure The Merger Process Team met on March 13, 2013 And concurs with the proposed hydraulic structures associated with the improvements of US 221 to a four -lane median divided facility in Watauga and Ashe Counties Michael Battrz €eli Date USACE Al L — �13re 1\1 ant Matthews Date, USE}�a`�'� "IQ — � — 1-115 Christopher Militscher Date USFW Ma 1la 13u€lcicic _ Da� High County David GralTa:n – TDale Cd ✓ NcDO% r " 3/43 ichael L r I Bale NCDWQ��.! 1r A ly 'Hiss Date NCDCR LIL Renee Gledhill -Early 1) t 1 NCN'VRC _� 313 3 Marla Chambers D to US 221 SECTION 404 / NEPA M- ERGER. PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT CONCURRENCE POINT 3: LEDPA SELL' CTION UPS 221 front US 421 to NC 88 / US 221 Business, Watauga and Ashe Counties NCDOT TIP ]Project No.: R -2915 TIP Description: T3ic North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 221 to a multi -lane facility, fioni US 421 near Deep Cap to NC 88 / US 221 Business in Jefferson. The proposed action involves approximately 10.1 miles of existing US 221 with a Majority of tine roadway located in Ashe County and just over a mile located in Watauga County. LEDPA Selection:. Widen existing US 221 using the Best Fit Alternative The Merger Process Team met on March 13, 2013 and coneurs with the proposed Best Fit Alternative associated with the improvements of US 221 to a four -lane median divided facility in Watauga and Ashe Counties. FHWA Mich��el t3atiszirlr �� Date USACF �a thews Date Monte , t Christopher Militscher Date lla ella t Date I -lip ("Ountt) " R. �� w David Graham Date NJCDOT ivti rael t l Date r�. NCDWQ Array cl, rss ate NCDCR Renee Gledhill -Early 3a'e NCWRC Marla Climbers Date US 221 SECTION 404 / NEPA XTERGER PROCESS CONCUIZ11ENCE AGRFENTENT CONCURRENCE POINT 4A: AVOIDANCE AND Ill NUMIZATION US 221 from US 421 to NC 88 / US 221 Business, Watauga and Ashe Counties NCDOT TIP Project No.: IZ-2915 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen US 221 to a multi-lane facility, from US 421 near Deep Gap to NC 88 /CC'S 221 Business in Jefferson, The proposed action involves approximately I & 1 miles o r existing U, S 221 with a majority of the roadway located in Ashe County and just over a mile located in Watauga County. The Nlferger Process Team met on March 13, 2013 and concurs with the following Avoidance and Minimization measures for the LEDPA (best fit alignment) of the US 221 widening Project: Various measures were employed to avoid and minimize the impacts to streams and wetlands utilizing the best fit alignment as well. Streams were crossed perpendicultvly and/or at their narrowest points, as feasible. Design modifications Dave been made at several points in the study to avoid/minimize stream and wetlands involvement. Several potential stream and wetland avoidance/minimization opportunities were identified during the Concurrence Point T'r12A meetings held with resource agencies in April and May-, 2012. Two different. interchange desigrs were originally studied with the current ;interchange design (interchange 1) being preferred by the merger team, Interchange I was preferred due to interchange 2 impacts to a pristine ecosystem previously not impacted. Interchange I stream impacts were previously impacted in the widening of US 4221, A new bridge is proposed at Site 8, dual structures are proposed at Site 10. and a new bottomless culvert is proposed at Site 11 Minimize LFIDPAinipacts further based on25'slope stakes or less. Site I will allow for appropriately sized barrels to accommodate the entire stream througli one barrel, including alternating baffles for fish passage. In the vicinity of Site 1. efforts,�vill be trade to re-cstabiish a riparian buffer to shade trout streams as MLICIIM POSSible Design of US 421 was changed to irisiAe widening to avoid mitigation site Additional Minimization: Design of sediment and erosion control measures will adhere to Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds- A retaining wall is proposed along Gap Creels Cemetery to minimize impacts to grave sites. The SHPO rendered the following decision regarding the Best Fit Alternative for tlae Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and the Barnett Idol House : No Effect for both properties, since there will be no constmetion within the historic, boundary and no changes to elements that make it eligible. The Merger Process Tearn met on March 13, 2013 and concurs with avoidance and minimization rucasures as stated above: rwWA ✓`' E Michael Bdturicli- r ,j� Date USACE Mont Matthews Date Michael %Via V bate NCDWQ v�- 4..��._ 1311 1.� 1'Y ]s Date NCDCR C Christopher Militscher Date Renee Clledhiii -Early Date USi.'Ws N`.�._ -- `..�''i %NGIVRC g t!�L_ t.1ri2��_� Mee la Bu sick Date Maria Chambers High Cotnrtry luo David Graham Date Appendix D Noise Abatement Review Study Archaeological Consultation Letters a�,a STATFy STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: September 10, 2012 Mitch Batuzich, P.E. FHWA Area Engineer Zph R- A. Rauseo Senior Traffic Noise Engineer Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. SECRETARY SUBJECT: Noise Abatement Review US 221 Widening — Watauga and Ashe Counties; F.A. Proj. # STP- 0221(13); WBS # 34518.1.1; TIP # R -2915 The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy effective July 13, 2011 stipulates that "Projects let for construction on or after July 13, 2011 shall be reviewed under the criteria of this policy..." To maintain compliance with the effective policy, the Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group reviewed the Traffic Noise Analysis (TNA) dated September 6, 2000 for the subject project, and has the following comments: 1. The TNA determination that traffic noise abatement is not feasible was based upon preliminary design available at the time of the initial analysis. 2. Based upon present project design and the effective policy, traffic noise abatement will be feasible and reasonable for the predicted traffic noise impacts on Crescent Drive, as well as for Long Street and Cherry Drive. Our recommendation is that two noise walls, NW1 and NW2, be added to the US 221 Widening Project (TIP #: R -2915) in the vicinity of Crescent Drive and Long Street /Cherry Drive, respectively. MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HUMAN ENVIRONMENT SECTION 1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC, 27699 -1598 TELEPHONE: 919- 707 -6000 FAX: 919 - 212 -5785 WEBSITE: WWW. NCDOT ORG LOCATION: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH - CENTURY CENTER BUILDING B 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE RALEIGH NC, 27610 Noise Abatement Review - US 221 Widening - TIP #: R -2915 Noise Wall NWI Noise wall "NWI" is recommended to be 806 feet in length, and 9,249 square feet in above - ground area. NWI is recommended to be an average of 11.5 feet in height, ranging between 6.0 feet and 16.0 feet as necessary to meet the acoustic profile. The recommended noise wall NWI will provide at least a 7 dB(A) noise level reduction to 4 first -row receptors, and at least a 5 dB(A) noise level reduction benefit to a total of 10 noise sensitive receptors. The 925 square feet average noise wall area per benefited receptor is less than the maximum allowable 2,710 square feet. Table 1: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NWI Performance Without- Barrier and With- Barrier Noise Levels Predicted Noise Levels, Receptors L,y(h) (dB(A)) ID# Use NAC D.U.s Address Build' Bah NLR R -044 Res B 1 242 Crescent Drive 58 58 0 R -045 Res B 1 310 Crescent Drive 57 55 2 R -046 Res B 1 320 Crescent Drive 62 58 4 R -047 Res B 1 279 Crescent Drive 51 50 0 R -048 Res B 1 211 Crescent Drive 52 50 1 R -049 Res B 1 311B Crescent Drive 54 53 1 R -050 Res B 1 311A Crescent Drive 55 51 4 R -051 Res B 1 320 Crescent Drive 56 52 4 R -052 Res B 1 329 Crescent Drive 58 52 R -053 Res B 1 351 Crescent Drive 60 53 R -054 Res B 1 357 Crescent Drive 62 54 R -055 Res B 1 361 Crescent Drive 64 55 R -056 Res B 1 387 Crescent Drive 56 R -057 Res B 1 421 Crescent Drive d 56 R -058 Res B 1 341 Crescent Drive 60 53 R -059 Res B 1 387A Crescent Drive 58 R -060 Res B 1 455 Crescent Drive ! 61 R -061 Res B 1 433 Crescent DrlvL__JL 62 1 57 Predicted `Build - Condition" With - Barrier Benefits: 10,3 1. Predicted traffic noise level impacts to 4 receptors due to approaching or exceeding NAC. Predicted impacts to 0 receptors are due to a predicted "substantial increase" in noise levels. 2. The optimized US 221 noise barrier -NWI- is predicted to provide at least 5 decibels (5 dB(A)) in noise level reduction (NLR) to 10 receptors. 3. The predicted NLR for several benefited receptors is greater than 7 dB(A) to facilitate breaking line -of -sight between impacted receptors and US 221 traffic. 2 Noise Abatement Review - US 221 Widening Project - TIP #: R -2915 Table 2: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NWI (TIP #: R -2915) — Noise Wall Analysis Table 3: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NW2 Performance Without- Barrier and Noise Start End Length Area Height (ft.) Wall (ft.) (sq. ft.) (Min. / Avg. / Max.) Receptors -NW1- Sta. 10 +00.00 -NW1- Sta. 18 +06.04 NWI ' -L- Sta. 681 +11.47 -L- Sta. 689 +31.80 806 9,249 6.0 11.5 16.0 100.57' LT 90.54'LT I. The newly recommended traffic noise abatement noise wall design meets the feasibility and reasonableness criteria of the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. Noise Wall NW2 Noise wall "NW2" is recommended to be 2,430 feet in length, and 30,230 square feet in above- ground area. NW2 is recommended to be an average of 12.4 feet in height, ranging between 8.0 feet and 14.1 feet as necessary to meet the acoustic profile. The recommended noise wall NW2 will provide at least a 7 dB(A) noise level reduction to 2 first -row receptors, and at least a 5 dB(A) noise level reduction benefit to a total of 12 noise sensitive receptors. The 2,519 square feet average noise wall area per benefited receptor is less than the maximum allowable 2,570 square feet. 3 Table 3: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NW2 Performance Without- Barrier and With- Barrier Noise Levels Predicted Noise Levels, L,y(h) Receptors (dB(A)) ID# Use NAC D.U.s Address Build' Bah NLR R -062 Res B 1 327 Long Street 6 ® 61 R -063 Res B 1 341 Long Street 6 61 R -064 Res B 1 401 Long Street 62 R -065 Res B 1 409 Long Street 6 ` 61- R -066 Res B 1 417 Long Street 65 60 R -067 Res B 1 433 Long Street 62 57 R -068 Res B 1 114 Cherry Drive 62 57 R -069 Res B 1 314 Long Street 65 62 3 R -070 Res B 1 342 Long Street 63 60 3 R -071 Res B 1 406 Long Street 61 59 2 3 Noise Abatement Review - US 221 Widening - TIP #: R -2915 Table 3: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NW2 Performance Without- Barrier and With- Barrier Noise Levels Receptors Predicted Noise Levels, L,y(h) (dB(A)) ID# Use NAC D.U.s Address Build' Bah NLR R -072 Res B 1 418 Long Street 61 58 3 R -073 Res B 1 430 Long Street 59 56 3 R -074 Res B 1 101 Stone Street 62 59 3 R -075 Res B 1 105 Cherry Drive 62 56 R -076 Res B 1 125 Cherry Drive 60 54 R -077 Res B 1 135 Cherry Drive 59 54 R -078 Res B 1 224 Cherry Drive f® 58 1 R -079 Res B 1 110 Oak Grove Circle 60 55 R -080 Res I B 1 1 314 Cherry Drive 64 62 2 Predicted `Build - Condition" With - Barrier Benefits :2 122 1. Predicted traffic noise level impacts to 4 receptors due to approaching or exceeding NAC. Predicted impacts to 0 receptors are due to a predicted "substantial increase" in noise levels. 2. The optimized US 221 noise barrier -NW2- is predicted to provide at least 5 decibels (5 dB(A)) in noise level reduction (NLR) to 12 receptors. Table 4: US 221 Widening Project Noise Barrier NW2 (TIP #: R -2915) — Noise Wall Analysis Noise Start End Length Area Height (ft.) Wall (ft.) (sq. ft.) (Min. / Avg. / Max.) -NW2- Sta. 10 +00.00 -NW2- Sta. 34 +29.70 NW2 -L- Sta. 818 +67.58 -L- Sta. 842 +99.09 2 430 30 230 8.0 12.4 14.1 84.53' RT 60.37' RT 1. The newly recommended traffic noise abatement noise wall design meets the feasibility and reasonableness criteria of the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. Please contact me if additional information is required in this matter. 4 Traffic Noise Analysis R -2915/ US 221 NCDOT — September 2012 Watauga /Ashe Counties FIGURES North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History Division of Historical Resources Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David Brook, Director Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary May 24, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Division of Highways Department of Transportation t FROM: Peter Sandbeck SUBJECT: US 221 from US 421 to NC 88 in Jefferson, R -2915, Ashe and Watauga Counties, ER 06 -1023 Thank you for your memorandum dated April 7, 2006, concerning the above project. Several archaeological sites were recorded during an archaeological survey of a portion of the project area. Additional previously recorded sites are located within or adjacent to the project area. Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence Of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities. We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of this project: Gentry Worth House, 203 East Main Street, Jefferson, Ashe County, State Study - listed. West Jefferson Hotel, corner of S. Second Ave. and W. Main St., Jefferson, Ashe County, State Study - listed. St. Mary's Episcopal Church, US 221 and NC 163, Jefferson, Ashe County, State Study- listed. Ashe County Courthouse, Main Street, Jefferson, Ashe County, Watauga County, National Register of Historic Places. Blue Ridge Parkway, (view shed), Watauga County, determined eligible for the National Register. Location Mailing Address Telephone /Fax ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service (:cntcr, Raleigh NC 276924617 ()19)733 -47( 3/73,8653 RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 ON 9)733-6547/715-4801 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Seance Center, Raleigh NC 276944617 (919)733 - 6545/7154801 Alfred Jacob Moretz House, Deep Gap, NE side SR 1359, 1.6 miles S of jct. with SR 1367, Watauga County, surveyed property. We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733 -4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. cc: SCH Mary Pope Furr Matt Wilkerson � -14 a� North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Pat McCrory, Governor Susan W. Mum, Secretary Kevin Cherry, Deputy Secretary March 5, 2013 MEMORANDUM Office of Archives and History Division of Historical Resources David Brook, Director TO: Matt Wilkerson Office of Human Environment NCDOT Division of Highways P&+FROM: Ramona M. Bartos SUBJECT: Draft Report of the Archaeological Survey of US 221 Improvements, R -2915, Federal Aid # STP- 125(1); Ashe and Watauga Counties, ER 06 -1023 Thank you for your letter of January 24, 2013, transmitting the draft archaeological survey report by Michael O'Neal of Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas for the above project. We have reviewed the report and offer the following comments. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places: 31WT300 (revisit), 31WT365 &365 * *, 31WT366, 31WT367 * *, 311VT368, 31WT369, 31AH276, 31AH277 &277 * *, 31AH278 ** and 31AH279 None of these archaeological sites retain sufficient integrity to provide important information regarding the prehistoric or historic past of North Carolina. We concur with the author's recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted in connection with this project as currently proposed. The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific concerns and /or corrections which need to be addressed in the preparation of a final report are attached for the author's use. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number. cc: Michael O'Neal, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. Location: 109 Bast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599 Specific Comments, US 221 Improvements, R -2915, Ashe and Watauga Counties 1. The report needs extensive editing. There are many missing words, typographical errors and sentence fragments scattered throughout the document. 2. The Tuscarora War did not end in 1712, as the last big battle of the war at Neoheroka did not occur until March of 1713. 3. In several places in the report during the discussion of corridor width, the document states that the corridor was primarily 61 meters (200 feet) wide, but in some places it was 91 meters (200 feet) wide. Appendix E Public Hearing Map Comments US Army Corps of Engineers Public Comments & Correspondence a"'SWt STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAT MCCRORY ANTHONY .1. TATA GOVERNOR SECRETARY MEMO TO: Post Hearing Meeting Attendees FROM: Jay A. Bennett, PE tq'�' State Roadway Desi Engi ee DATE: May 14, 2013 SUBJECT: Project: 34518.1.1 (R -2915) Watauga / Ashe Counties US 221 from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business / NC 88 in Jefferson in Ashe County Post Hearing Meeting Minutes A design public hearing was held on December 4, 2012 at Ashe County High School for the subject project. Approximately 160 people were in attendance. Thirty written continents were received. The following people met on February 26, 2013 to discuss these comments: Mr. Jay Bennett, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Mr. Greg Sealy, NCDOT, Utilities Unit Mrs. Susan Lancaster, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Mr. Glenn Mumford, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Mr. Doug Taylor, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Mr. Gary Lovering, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Ms. Brenda Moore, PE, NCDOT, Roadway Design Ms. Tatia White, PE, PLS, NCDOT, Roadway Design Ms. Elise Groundwater, NCDOT, Congestion Management Mr. John Conforti, NCDOT, PD &EA Mr. Michael Wray, NCDOT, PD &EA Mr. Tris Ford, NCDOT, Public Involvement and Community Studies Mr. Marshall Clawson, PE, NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit Mr. Jamille Robbins, NCDOT, Public Involvement and Com. Studies. Mr. Trent Beaver, PE, NCDOT, Division 11 Construction (via telephone) Mr. Tim coins, Ptle rsons Transportation Group Mr. Ed Robbins, PE, Parsons Transportation Group Ms. Kristin Webb, NCDOT, PD &EA R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 2 Executive Summary The NCDOT preferred typical section for US 221 from US 421 to NC 194 (South Jefferson Avenue) is a 4 lane divided highway with a 23' raised median with grassed shoulders. From South Jefferson Avenue to approximately 0.5 mile north of SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) along US 221, the NCDOT preferred typical section is a 4 lane divided highway with 36' depressed median with grassed shoulders. The remainder of the project will propose a 4 lane highway separated by a monolithic concrete island with grassed shoulders. Directional crossovers with median u -turns will be implemented throughout the project corridor. The written comments received were centered around bypassing the existing alignment, traffic management, alignment and grade concerns, aesthetics, right of way, and access. These comments were discussed and are summarized below: Written Comments and Responses A. Bypass 1. Jerry Styers Mr. Styers prefers a bypass a mile to the east or west while leaving the existing road for local traffic only. Response: The additional cost of a bypass instead of widening existing US 221 would be prohibitive. The current design utilizes the existing 2 lanes and adds the additional lanes left or right as well as utilizing right of way that NCDOT currently owns for approximately half of the project. To construct a bypass, right of way will have to be purchased for all lanes as well as having to do grading, paving, etc. for the entire length of project. This approach would create additional impacts to wetlands and streams that are currently not impacted. B. Traffic Management 1. Charles and Ellen Vitale Mr. and Mrs. Vitale travel on West Pine Swamp Road to access US 221. They are concerned about unsafe detours they will need to navigate during project construction. They are also concerned about EMS response times being delayed. They are in agreement that the road will be safer post construction. Response: Generally traffic will be maintained on 2 lanes while the 2 new lanes are constructed. Final locations of the detours will be developed in the Traffic Management Plan prior to construction beginning. The TrAa Management Plan will take into consideration all possible safety considerations for both the construction crews and local citizens in order to inconvenience the travelling public as little as possible. Minutes of this meeting will be forwarded to the Traffic Management Unit. R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 3 C. Alignment and Grade 1. Roger Newton Mr. Newton states the curve at Grover Goodman's property needs to be corrected and made a 4 lane highway. (Located around station —L- 270 +00 R- 2915C) Response: The final alignment and grade will be designed to accommodate a 60 mph design speed. Widening to 4 lanes will also help with sight distance. 2. Mr. James Trivette Mr. Trivette is concerned about the sharp horizontal curves and steep grades on Lemly Hill Road. Response: Lemly Hill Road will be tied into US 221 using NCDOT standard tie in practices. Locations along Lemly Hill Road outside of the tie in area are outside the project scope and will not be corrected under this project. Funding for this project is specifically set aside for the widening of US 221 and reconnection of intersecting roads. 3. Mrs. Martha Kincaid Mrs. Kincaid is concerned about the sharp horizontal curves and steep grades on US 221 between Windy Hill Road and Liberty Grove Road. Response: US 221 will be designed to accommodate a 55 mph posted speed where possible. Both the horizontal curves and grades will be designed for safe travel at this design speed for the entire length of the project corridor. Clearing will be done to accommodate the new 4 lane highway and will provide greater sight distance throughout the project. D. Aesthetics 1. Watauga County Planning Board Deep Gap Gateway Corridor Committee The Deep Gap Gateway Corridor Committee would prefer context sensitive design solutions in the Deep Gap area specifically in the US 421 1 US 221 interchange area. They request matching the aesthetics to the Blue Ridge Parkway, evergreen plantings adjacent to the right of way for screening purposes, and reflective markings due to being a heavy fog area. Because of the views of the valley, woodlands, and mountains, they request special attention be given to all signs, sign structures, and lighting so as not to disturb the natural setting. Response: NCDOT will take into consideration context sensitive design solutions during final design but may not be able to incorporate all of the requests without a cost sharing partnership with the requesting party. Both the pavement markings and signing requests will be considered during final design. Additional landicaping will also be considered but may require a cost share partnership to fully implement. Additional coordination with Watauga County will be required during final design. ` R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 4 E. Right of Way 1. Avi Shaki Mr. Shaki inquired about NCDOT's process to offer current fair market value or potential market value for his property. (interchange r/w area) Response: NCDOT policy is to offer fair market value based on current appraisals for the property needed to build the project. Right of Way acquisition is scheduled to begin in July 2013. It will take approximately two years to complete the purchase of the right of way needed for the entire project. The right of way schedule is subject to change. Mr. Shaki also inquired about the reason the interchange was placed on the west side of US 421. The previous design was an at grade intersection instead of an interchange. Response: The interchange shown is based on minimizing environmental impacts in this area. The at grade intersection was changed to a free flow interchange due to the concern for fog limiting the ability of drivers to see a traffic signal. A free flow interchange which separates the traffic conflicts will greatly reduce fixture accidents in this area. Mr. Shaki inquired about access across the creek to US 421 on his property. Response: NCDOT must provide new access to a parcel if existing access will be cut off due to proposed construction or pay for loss of access. However, if there is not currently access across the creek, the property owner will be responsible for his own access across the creek. The access from the existing service road to US 421 will remain open. Exact location of the driveway tie will be considered during the right of way stage. 2. Archie and Nancy Pierce Mr. and Mrs. Pierce are in favor of the project and would like to be considered for acquisition as soon as possible due to their age. They also are requesting help with relocation. Their home is inside of the proposed easement area (parcel 632). Response: NCDOT will proceed with acquisition of property with relocations near the beginning of the right of way acquisition stage. There is also an advanced acquisition process for qualified property owners. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce may feel free to contact Daneil Miles of the Division I 1 Right of Way office at (336)667 -9114 for more information. R/W acquisition is scheduled to begin in April 2014 for this area of the project. The right of way schedule is subject to change. F. Access 1. Roger Newton Mr. Newton is requesting a crossover at the intersection of US 221 and River Ridge Rd. ( -Y 14 -) Response: NCDOT does not agree with providing a crossover at the River Ridge intersection due to the sight limiting terrain around the intersection. R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 5 2. William Moretz Mr. Moretz is concerned about access to Moretz Farm Rd: He owns acreage on both sides of US 221 that he uses for his Christmas tree farm. He is concerned about the u -turn that his equipment will have to make to reach both sides of his farm. He feels this u -turn will be a hazard and is requesting a full movement intersection limited for farm equipment. Response: NCDOT would not be in favor of designing a full movement intersection exclusively for farm equipment. U -turns will be designed to accommodate appropriate traffic. The proposed design should make the intersection safer by providing an exclusive turn lane separate from the north and south bound traffic. 3. Alan Crees Mr. Crees is the engineer working on behalf of High Country Commercial property. They are in the process of developing a commercial subdivision on their property that is located by —SRI- off US 421. They are requesting the following: A_ Can the proposed service road be relocated to match the alignment on their Master Site Plan (see Figures 1 & 2)? Response: It appears the service road could be relocated however the developer needs to coordinate with the adjacent properties that are provided access by the service road as well. B. Can. the r/w along the proposed road be reduced from 60' to 45' so that it has less impact on the lots? Response: NCDOT will not commit to the reduction of the r/w until the development plan is approved. C. How can they proceed with the subdivision development plan while NCDOT is still in the design phase? Response: After coordinating with adjacent property owners regarding the service road location, the developer is encouraged to submit their plans to NCDOT Division 11, District 2 office for further review via the driveway permitting process. The District Engineer for this area is Mr. Ivan Dishman and may be reached at ($28)265 -5380. 4. Jan Welborn Ms. Welborn owns a trucking company along US 221 (near —L- 15 +00 Rt at --SR- 2). The proposed r/w appears to impact her barn and another building as well. Her home and garage will not be impacted. She operates semi trucks with 53' trailers that need a drive opening wide enough to get trucks in and out. Response: ' NCDOT does not prp_ppse controlling access along the service road. During final design, driveway tie -ins will be designed and NCDOT will take this driveway opening into consideration.. R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 6 5. Martin Lambert Mr. Lambert's. property is located on parcel 3 along -SR- 2. Mr. Lambert is not in favor of the . service road. He states the road will devalue his property and desires direct access to US 421 like he currently enjoys. Response: NCDOT is fully controlling access in the interchange area that intersects US 421 and US 221. Direct access will not be allowed to US 421. It would be unsafe to allow property owners direct access to the highway in the interchange area. A service road is provided to allow property owners safer access further away from the interchange area. 6. Gary Stainback Mr. Stainback lives between -Y14- River Ridge Rd. and -Y15- Windy Hill Rd. ( -L- 290 +00 Rt.) He is in favor of the project but would like to know, if another u -turn location could be added near his home. Response: Mr. Stainback will have access to US 221 at -L- 253 +00 and —L- 313 +70. NCDOT is not in favor of adding an additional crossover because of the terrain in this area. 7. Harold Charles Style, Jr., Harold Charles Style, Lauren Ashley Style, Mr. and Mrs. Harold E. Steelman, Sr., Harold E. Steelman, Jr. (These properties are located at or near parcel 5 along -SR2 -) It appears the septic system on parcel 5 would be impacted by the proposed service road and will require acquisition of this property. Both parcel 2 (James Barry Greene and adjacent property, James E. and Margaret Greene utilize the same driveway off US 421). They are requesting NCDOT consider realigning this drive to the left and still maintain the access to US 421. This would continue to serve both parcels. The service road could then be shortened and the cul -de- sac moved to the edge of parcel 5 and save this parcel. Response: NCDOT is not in favor of realigning the drive because of its close proximity to the northbound ramp at the interchange. Too many conflicts exist to allow driveway access in this area. S. James Leonard Greer (parcel 15) Mr. Greer states that his septic field is within the proposed r /w. Other locations inside his property have failed to perk in the past. How will NCDOT address this? Response: If there are no other locations for the septic system to be relocated, NCDOT,will have to acquire the property and provide relocation assistance. NCDOT Right of Way will contact Mr. Greer once the right of way acquisition stage begins (currently scheduled to begin July 2013) to initiate negotiations. 9. Joseph and Angela Turrisi (parcel 81) Mr. and Mrs. Turrisi are requesting driveway access across the adjacent Thomas and Patricia Griggs property onto Idlewild Road: -T*ey prefer this over the current access directly onto US 221. Regardless of the final driveway access, they are requesting their driveway be paved due to the inclement weather conditions.. Response: NCDOT policy is to re -tie driveways along their current location where possible. NCDOT cannot severely impact another parcel to build a new driveway access when a driveway R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 7 access currently exists. Driveways will be tied in to the new highway using like material as the existing driveway. (Existing gravel drives will be gravel, existing soil drives will be soil, etc...) 10. Curtis and Peggy Cheek (- L- 120 +00 Lt.) Mr. and Mrs. Cheek have approximately 29 acres with 250 feet of road frontage on US 221. They are requesting good access for their property. Response: This section of US221 will be partially controlled. Generally, one access point will be allowed per parcel except on very large parcels with road frontage of 2000' or greater. A right in / right out access will be Iocated somewhere along the road frontage. 11. Lloyd Pickard ( -L- 232 +00 Lt.) Mr. Pickard is concerned with the access of Twin Bridges Drive to US 221. He is in favor of the project and is inquiring about how to go north / south. He is on the board of directors of the Property Owners Association that serves 35 homes. Response: U -turns will be utilized in order to access US221 from Twin Bridges Drive. The closest u -turn south is at —L- 216 +00 (1600') and north at —L- 253 +00 (2100'). U -turns are located where topography and environmental features would allow. 12. Jerry Ashley ( -L- 425 +00 Rt.) Mr. Ashley is concerned about the loss of his business as well as access to US 221. He states his business is shown inside the limits of proposed right of way. Response: It appears the business is located on parcel 153 (Jessie Baldwin) but both parcels share a driveway access onto US 221. The business looks like it will have to be acquired or possibly moved back beyond the buffer zone for Old Field Creek. Access will be allowed as a right in / right out and drivers can utilize the u -turn 300' to the north in order to travel south on US 221. 13. William Stringer Mr. Stringer accesses US 221 using West Pine Swamp Road ( -Y4 -). He is concerned that left turns will not be allowed. Traffic going south on US 221 will have to travel north 1500' and make a u -turn that in his opinion will be unsafe. Response: Left turns are desired for Cranberry Spring Road ( -YS -), West Pine Swamp Road (- Y4 -), and Church Hill Road ( -Y6 -) all within very close proximity to each other. NCDOT is spreading those left turns out into u -turns located further south and north to allow for safer turning and merging. 14. Sally Patrick Ms. Patrick does not think the left turn storage will be sufficient for turning traffic going south to access the school. She is requesting ahbther u -turn be added beyond the leftover into the school for parents to u -turn and enter the school going north instead. Response: During final design, NCDOT will consider the left turn lane storage length needed during peak hours and design accordingly. The addition of a u -turn further south could tempt traffic already waiting in the left turn lane to abruptly leave the leftover lane to access the u -turn and avoid waiting. This would create an unsafe conflict with south bound traffic. R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 8 15. Pete Yates Mr. Yates is requesting NCDOT move the u -turn at station --L- 69 +00 north about 150' to the southern edge of the cemetery property to simplify access to the cemetery for the elderly. Response: Moving the u -turn further north would adversely impact the cemetery due to the additional right of way needed to construct the turn around. Verbal Comments and Responses 1. Tom Pope Mr. Pope is in favor of the project and wanted to encourage property owners to express their concerns and questions. He believes as the road develops, so will the community. 2. Unnamed Audience Member This audience member is concerned about the sharp horizontal curves and steep grades along Windy Hill Road and Lemly Hill Rd onto US 221 between Windy Hill Road and Liberty Grove Road. Response: US 221 will be designed to accommodate a 60 mph design speed. Both the horizontal curves and grades will be designed for safe travel at this design speed for the entire length of the project corridor. Windy Hill Road (- Y15 -), Liberty Grove Road (- Y11 -), and Lemly Road (Y13 -), will be tied into the new highway. Improvements on -YI I -, -Y13 -, and -Y15- will be limited to the tie -ins to US 221. The scope and funding for this project only allows for minor adjustments for tie -ins of side road intersections. Clearing and grading will be done to accommodate the new 4 lane highway which will provide greater sight distance at intersections throughout the project limits. 3. Jeff Grogan Mr. Grogan doesn't feel the current design is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Response: US 221 widening utilizes the existing 2 lanes of the road to the extent practical. This is a substantial savings compared to a bypass or other new location alternatives. It also utilizes the right of way previously purchased by the state in the northern sections. The interchange area at the beginning of the project will provide a safer transition between US421 and US22 f by reducing the number of traffic conflict points. 4. Brad Vessal< Mr. Vessal desires for NCDOT to utilize local contractors for this project and keep the money in the state of NC. He stated since this is using NC taxpayer dollars, NC contractors should be utilized. Response: This project will be awarded to the•lowest responsible bidder: The project will be funded with State and Federal funds. The contract will be available for bids from all pre - qualified contractors, but not limited to local bidders only. Schedule According to the STIP, the project schedule is as follows: Section R -2915A (map 1) R -2915B (map 1) R -2915C (map 2) R -2915D (map 3) R -2915E (map 4) Right of Way July 2013 July 2013 April 2014 September 2013 PY R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 9 Let July 2015 July 2015 February 2017 September 2015 PY If anyone has any revisions to these minutes, please contact Gary Lovering, PE, Project Engineer at glovering @ncdot.gov. JAB /scl Attachments ec: Post Hearing Meeting Attendees Jennifer Harris, PE, NCDOT, PD &EA Carla Dagnino, NCDOT, PD &EA Drew Joyner, NCDOT, PD &EA Bruce Klappenbach, NCDOT, Structures DeWayne Sykes, NCDOT, Utilities Mohammed Mulla, PE, NCDOT, Geotechnical Stuart Bourne, PE, NCDOT Traffic Management Unit Michael Pettyjohn, PE, NCDOT, Division 11 Jay Twisdale, PE, NCDOT, Hydraulics Lawrence Gettier, PE, NCDOT WZTC Greg Fuller, PE, NCDOT ITS & Signals Zachary Little, PE, NCDOT, Signal Design Betty Yancey, NCDOT, Right of Way Daneil Miles, NCDOT, Division 11 Right of Way Elena Talanker, NCDOT, Transportation Planning Van Argabright, NCDOT, STIP David Graham, RPO Donnie Brew, FHWA -7 PRELIWNARY SITE PLAI+i rnrs�re- srrnirr. .- .. DH6P OAP. NC HWX 421 J J o I }lr � 111 \ r \ i SCALE � MiY a Figure 1 R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page 10 I II 14 III ICI IM II w J `ISl 4UI I'I' If I1�1I�� I�� � ►Ii ICI Il141 II ! it I I R -2915 May 14, 2013 Page l 1 'rtl tSwRUUJ �vl�a3wwo.� Aatrvno� rl� +rr rurf� ors a�srrr ��! 8uuaau}B ,� lvd�.nunN l3akltld dVeJ d33n 9y�tl l6'Ql -- s r AORi3 A117161343d ! i v 4 r( ll�s N d n 8 7 _LV.IO.iC 5 i1 N 5a� � � Y- I •� �- it - o 1J �% a 411; z r Figure 2 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Division/1200A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 February 25, 2013 Action ID: SAW- 2012 - 00882 /TIP R -2915 North Carolina Department of Transportation Attn: Dr. Gregory Thorpe Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 Dear Dr. Thorpe: Reference is made to your application dated January 9, 2013, regarding a potential future requirement for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with the proposed improvements and widening of US 221 to a multi -lane facility from US 421 near Deep Gap, Watauga County, North Carolina to NC 88 /US 221 Business in Jefferson, Ashe County, North Carolina. A Public Notice was issued on January 15, 2013, to solicit comments from the public on possible alternatives to consider as this proposal moves through the interagency Merger evaluation. It is understood that your permit= application was to facilitate this Public Notice and was not intended to initiate a 404 permit decision at this time, After review of your proposal, comments were received from one non - profit organization, one local business, one federal agency, and several adjacent landowners. Two of the individuals requested NCDOT assistance to determine if the preferred alternative would impact their respective properties. I would ask that you, or a member of your staff follow -up with those individuals. The remaining comments are pertinent for future decisions involving this project and are therefore attached for your review. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at telephone (919) 554 -4884 ext. 30. Attachments i 1 Reference is made to your application dated January 9, 2013, regarding a potential future requirement for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with the proposed improvements and widening of US 221 to a multi -lane facility from US 421 near Deep Gap, Watauga County, North Carolina to NC 88 /US 221 Business in Jefferson, Ashe County, North Carolina. A Public Notice was issued on January 15, 2013, to solicit comments from the public on possible alternatives to consider as this proposal moves through the interagency Merger evaluation. It is understood that your permit= application was to facilitate this Public Notice and was not intended to initiate a 404 permit decision at this time, After review of your proposal, comments were received from one non - profit organization, one local business, one federal agency, and several adjacent landowners. Two of the individuals requested NCDOT assistance to determine if the preferred alternative would impact their respective properties. I would ask that you, or a member of your staff follow -up with those individuals. The remaining comments are pertinent for future decisions involving this project and are therefore attached for your review. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at telephone (919) 554 -4884 ext. 30. Attachments Copies Furnished (with attachments): Ms. Amy Euliss NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office, Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Mr. Brian P. Cole United States Fish & Wildlife Service 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801 Ms. Marla Chambers Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 12275 Swift Road Oakboro, NC 28129 Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section, Water Protection Div.-Region IV U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early SHPO 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Mr. Craig Hughes, Transportation Planner, High Country Council of Governments 468 New Market Blvd. Boone, NC 28607 Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA USEPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Mr. Mitch Batuzich Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Monte From: Matthews, Monte K SAW Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:32 PM To: Matthews, Monte K SAW Subject: FW: Public Comment (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE - - - -- Original Message---- - From: greg tague [mailto:taRooma(@bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:17 AM To: Matthews, Monte K SAW Subject: Fw: US 221 (R -2915) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASHE & WATAUGA COUNTIES - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: greg tague < blockedmailto :tagooma @bellsouth.net> To: monte.k.matthews(@uf.army.mil Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:10 AM Subject: Fw: US 221 (R -2915) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASHE & WATAUGA COUNTIES - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: greg Lague <blockedmailto :tagooma @bellsouth.net> To: monte.k.mathews(@uf.army.mil Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:57 AM Subject: US 221 (R -2915) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASHE & WATAUGA COUNTIES AS PER OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, 2/1/13. REFERENCE FIGURE 2 SHEET 11 OF 14 - CONCERNS: BEAVER CREEK RUNS PARALLEL WITH 221 AND SNAKES AROUND BETWEEN 221 AND BEAVER CREEK SCHOOL ROAD FROM HELEN BLEVINS ROAD TO 221, CROSSING UNDER 221 AT SOME POINT. THE AREA IN CONCERN IS THE LAND BETWEEN HELEN BLEVINS AND 221 THAT FLOODS QUITE OFTEN DUE TO AN INADEQUATE DRAIN PIPE SOME WHERE BETWEEN HELEN BLEVENS AND 221 (GOING TOWARDS JEFFERSON AVE. FROM HELEN BLEVENS). THE DRAIN PIPE AND BRIDGE UNDER HELEN BLEVENS IS LARGE AND CAN HANDLE LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER. HOWEVER, WHEN THAT WATER MEETS BEAVER CREEK NEAR THE HELEN BLEVINS BRIDGE (AFTER THE LARGE CULVERT AT HELEN BLEVINS) IS WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTS. EVIDENTLY, THERE IS A CULVERT THAT IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE RELEASE OF THE HIGH VOLUME OF WATER FEEDING THROUGH THERE NEAR 221. THE CULVERT FILLS WITH DEBRIS AND CAUSES FLOODING BETWEEN BEAVER CREEK AND 221 FROM HELEN BLEVENS TO CLOSE TO JEFFERSON AVE AND PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THE NATIONS INN AND ASHE PRO HARDWARE. CONCERNS ARE WHEN YOU CHANGE THE LAND FORMATION THIS COULD CHANGE THE FLOW OF WATER AND CREATE EVEN MORE FLOODING. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AREA BEFORE MAKING YOUR CHANGES. THERE ARE MANY HOMES AND BUSINESSES ON HELEN BLEVINS AND BEAVER CREEK SCHOOL ROAD THAT COULD BE IMPACTED EVEN GREATER IF THIS IS NOT ATTENDED TO. CURRENTLY, OUR BUSINESS HAS BEEN RE- EVALUATED AND PLACED IN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BY FEMA. WE ARE GREATLY CONCERNED WITH MORE PROBLEMS DUE TO CHANGES TO 221. PLEASE HELP THE BUSINESSES AND HOMEOWNERS IN THIS AREA, FORE IT WOULD BE A RELIEF FOR FOLKS THAT ARE HAVING TO CONTEND WITH THIS FLOODING PROBLEM. 1 SINCERELY, GLORIA TAGUE - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE CONVERSATION RECORDI Time 1430 pm I Date February 11, 2013 Type: Visit Conference X Telephone Incoming Location Of Visit/Conference: [] Outgoing Name of Person(s)Contacted or In Contact with You: Organization Telephone No. Nell Domeck Private landowner at (502) 228-1219 Gap Creek SUBJECT: Action ID. 2012-00882, TIP R-2915; Watauga and Ashe Counties, North Carolina. SUMMARY: Received a call from Ms. Domeck in response to our Public Notice dated 1-15-2013 regarding the proposed widening of US 221 between Deep Gap and Jefferson. Ms. Domeck is opposed to this project and relayed the following concerns: 1) concerned with flooding and filling the floodplain of Gap Creek and other tributaries; 2) Impact (direct and indirect) to Gap Creek and other tributaries within the New River basin; 3) negative impacts on ingress and egress for adjacent property owners; 4) she questions the traffic projections relating to project need; 5) impacts to aquatic organisms (including trout within Gap Creek); 6) worried about inadequate sediment and erosion control; and 7) potential for increase noise impacts. ACTION REQUIRED: Forward to NCDOT for consideration on alternatives. NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION Monte Matthews Signature DATE February 11, 2013 Date 3020 Pioneer Place Crestwood, ICY 40014 February 7, 2013 Mr. Monte Mathews US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Dear Mr. Matthews: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OVFICE __ My mother owns a summer home on Highway 221 in Ashe County, which was built by my grandparents in the early 1950s. I have visited there almost every year since I was born in 1957. Gap Creek and the surrounding area are very near and dear to me. I have witnessed how changes in the area, such as Christmas tree farming, straightening the creek, and filling near the creek for construction, have adversely affected Gap Creek. Two of my family's bridges have washed away and there has been tremendous erosion to the banks. The creek and riparian zone now look nothing like they did when I was a child in the 1960's. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed widening of Highway 421 to 4 lanes with a median because it will adversely affect Gap Creek and the many endangered species in the area. I understand that improvements could be made to the road safer, such as shoulder improvements, adding turn lanes and widening the existing lanes. However, I drive Highway 221 every summer going to West Jefferson and to Highway 421 and do not believe that 4 lanes are necessary. It has always seemed like a relatively safe road to me. In addition to the environmental impact, 4- laning 221 would disrupt people's lives, change the character of the area and create problems with access to the road. I fear that we might not even be able to get out of our driveway if there is additional fill. The approach to the road from my mother's driveway is already steep. Furthermore, if there is a 23 -foot wide median, many homeowners will be unable to turn in both directions from their driveways. People will make u- turns, which will create a different safety issue. I sincerely hope that the Wilmington District for the US Army Corps of Engineers will deny the NCDOT's request for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into Gap Creek. Sincerely, Amanda Dreckman Linda B. Crouse 180 Indian Lake Drive West Jefferson, NC 28694 February 13, 2013 Mr. Monte Matthews US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Dear Mr. Matthews: This letter is to follow up on the notification that I received concerning the proposed discharge dredged or fill materials into the Old Field Creek. Thanks for your patience while we discuss the impact it would have concerning this Historic Native Trout Stream My Grandfather, Andrew Black, purchased property along Old Field Creek back in the Great Depression. The stream was so pure and plentiful of native trout that the fish actually swam over the top of each other. Over the years, the beaver have discovered the goodness of this stream and have built homes along the way. The Containment center along Hwy 221 is located above my property. There is trash that blows out and gets washed down stream onto my property. The plastic that gathers can't be good for the wildlife that live in the stream. The Old Field Creek is a very powerful stream. Just 2 weeks ago, we received a large amount of rain. It washed 140' of fence out on my property. The creek just flows where it is easiest to travel. I am concerned that if the process of road construction "moves" the stream — a heavy rain will cause the stream to cut its own course to travel. These streams involved have been researched for the 100 year flood plan — looks like a lot of hope the streams won't get up — or they are going to move a lot of water. The Hwy 221 project is needed. I recognize that progress concerning this will greatly improve the quality of traffic flow from Ashe to 421. My biggest concern is the path of the road. Hwy 221 from what I was told, was part of the original train path. This of course followed the Old Field Creek. If you travel the road — you will see that the creek or additional streams seem to be on either side of the road, this requires that the road go back and forth to avoid the streams. Many of my neighbors and friends are confused as to why the Hwy 221 expansion chose to follow the original road, verses cutting a new road (example) like the 421 road going to Boone. This expansion cut through the back part of properties and did not displace the amount of homes that are being proposed for our project. Mr. Monte Matthews February 13, 2013 Page 2 Southern Ashe is the most desirable part of Ashe County. The 70 homes to be destroyed contain people who in some cases are old — they have lived there for most of their lives and their tax values on their homes have been greatly reduced — so ultimately - they will not even be able to buy back — especially in the southern Ashe Area. Attached are some pictures for you to see the power of Old Fields Creek. Sincerely, Linda B. Crouse Attachments - sMQ Cot91i r r 0�t h Cartillpa -- -- -- - -- - u _ 77 r w't Ej t j\'} . Ali I ;A N e _Ii w� _ r' _ �I ; J jj hY } 1` _ V- z [ {, r I- _. �� ,ACS/ 'L r�` tidy • � � �.. ❑ 500 Year Flood Izesults Fire Buildings F_ r . - — `• �,` _, 1� re banes City Limits Farm Preservation FLEETWOOD%rO ff. j 'Flood Way Parcals ❑ Flood Zone Owner: CROUSE 41 Parcels 452 size: 18.540 Page: 279 O in: Roads g Taxgrid Townships %f All Water OLD FIELDS per' f Kr Coun ty Voting Districts OLD FIELDS 4 `' - A w 1` v' 1 C: 500 Year Flood Results Buildings Fire Zones City Limits FLEEIWOOD/TODD/W7 FD Farm Preservation Flood Way Parcels Flood Zone Owner: CROUSE, LINDA BLACK ,address: P 0 BOX 1575 t Parcels 452 Size: 18.540 acres Bldg Value: 157100 Total value: Roads Page: 279 Gpin: 295551654722 Xfer Date: 7/25/2007 Taxgrid Tove 9 ships Mater OLD FIELDS -ounty Voting Districts OLD FIELDS RECEIVECE FEB 13 2013 RALEIGH'. REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE' Hi rt % I,,) ", , " KA re' -s,( 1�, YWL, P,1-6 05e) P%,e—<i AJ Peril- e- le>jq y f ;( 1-l(L sl-lr-1-111n" I J - Z) owt ,'Aer:4-tC 6(,S. �l t �-2 -1 6-�- 4-11;� "z5 5' , a- 0 L 6:cy 4-b roo-,� coav r I )v lb - )L oa 0 afe J -4 r6 S 4,k<- ✓"6 C-6u 4k.— Y" -,J C, al, 7-6 p %V et e_,-_ S c-akr yk, ar-AR'11 ou\) f-I —Z CORNEAL L.IDOMECK, III 7507 GREENLAWN ROAD LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40242 (502) 426-7042 M31MMMMEM US Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Re: Corps Action ID # SAW-2012-00882 (Widening of US 221- Ashe Co., NC) M.-TITITUMMI .19 III � III , 11 1 1 IM, 11 M I 1 11 1! RECEIVES FEB 13 2013 RALEIGH REGULA WORY FIEW OFFICE Gap Creek used to support a healthy trout population and was stocked by the State. However, developers were allowed to straighten the creek and runoff of pesticides caused the State to abandon the stocking program. The creek still has speckled trout, crayfish, and other species which will be threatened by this BMW I have also fished the New River for many years. It has also been changed by development and siltation. Again, the health of the affected New River drainage system will be threatened by this project. The environmental issues mentioned in your notice should make the denial of this permit self-evident. There is also a cultural factor to be considered. Families and their small communities have existed along this road for generations. Widening this road to four lanes will destroy this valley forever. There are now many roads and privatt driveways that intersect with US 221. Ingress and egress from the current road is difficult, but getting across multiple lanes of traffic will be next to impossible. Finally, we trust that you will undertake a critical analysis of this matter and not just rubber stamp the State's ill-conceived plan. P, CORNEAL L. DOMECK, Ill ANNE SKLARE 7200 CREEKTON DRIVE LoulSVILLE, KY 40241 Mr. Monte Matthews US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Dear Mr. Matthews: MOMMUM RALEIGH ' REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE I am writing regarding the proposed widening of US 221 to a multi-lane facility from US 421 near Deep Gap in Watauga, North Carolina to NC 88/US 221 Business in Jefferson in Ashe County, North Carolina. My family has owned property on US 221 in Ashe County for more than 60 years and the potential impact of the widening project is of grave concern. A road widening project of the scope that is proposed—especially one that calls for 4 lanes, a grassy median of between 17.5 feet to 36 feet wide, and 8-foot shoulders on both sides—would exacerbate flooding and erosion of Gap Creek that runs along US 221. By diminishing the width of the natural flood plain and speeding the current in areas restricted by the presence of fill for the widened road, this project will cause ongoing environmental and property damage. I urge the Corps to deny authorization to the NCDOT to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the New River Basin. Pollution of these waterways with dredged or fill material would negatively impact the environment, fish and wildlife, and the local economy that benefits from tourism and sporting activities such as fishing, canoeing and hiking in and around the South Fork of the New River and the creeks near US 221. I appreciate this opportunity to express these concerns and hope that the Corps will deny approval of NCDOT's application related to the widening of US 221. The scope of the proposed "Best-Fit Widening" alternative for US 221 is not justified in light of the harm that would result. Sincerely, Anne Sklare RALEIGH REOIJ ATORY J_Lf) OFTJ� E e hi cri G) Ke 4 lcv ro 4c) Ic C� c c;,�, T yo m/a ecr 61, (CfY it U�j �k a u IQ b Ol C-116 v-vuNvvGvt NK Q W CD S Q, VID IS S, Cylsk, Arco Vitt El IN CA, Jv 0 U V , ASO c VON Man, vvAv- CQ' P�J -xim ilr t AN On. VA. IT Qx1v to Al '�4-0 CD CO- Ml JAY vco, ? c-, MOUNTAIN KUBOTA OF BOONE 418 DEEP GAP DR DEEP GAP, NC 28618 828 -264- 2711/828- 264 -2719 FAX Januray 31, 2013 Mr. Monte Matthews US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 t -_ FEB 0, 7.2013 E1GH.REG TO RY — _ReLD Dear Mr. Matthews, Please see below two primary concerns we have with the proposed widening of US221 and the proposed new interchange at US421 Corps Action ID #: SAW -2012- 00882; TIP Project No. R2915, in Deep Gap, NC. Concerns: 1. Disruption from construction 2. Loss of visibility of our business building, signage and equipment display lot to traffic flow on US421 and US221. We are a small business equipment dealership located in Deep Gap, NC. We have been in business now for 1 l/2 years. As the owner of Mountain Kubota, we have made a significant investment n land and facility based on the location benefits. The new interchange will bring obstruction of visibility of our equipment display lot as well as our building. The result is a loss of sales. When the construction begins, it will disrupt access and traffic flow for our customers. Again, this disruption will result in loss of sales for our business. When the disruption of the construction project is taken into account, along with the long term impact of the interchange on visibility, it is possible to have a significant reduction in sales revenue and therefore profit. We currently have 9 employees at our dealership in Deep Gap, NC. Our business provides income to all these employees and that income could be jeopardized by the new interchange. We have had a good start-up, even in this difficult economic environment, and hope to continue to grow. With the location and interchange design proposed, our future success could be limited. We at Mountain Kubota ask that our opinion of potential impact be considered as the project moves forward. We would like plans and decisions to be developed and implemented which will factor in our concerns and issues. Also, if we are either damaged by loss of sales due to construction or loss of visibility an appropriate compensation settlement be granted. Our current location works very well for us for visibility and access. We have also invested in advertising to tell our customers where we are located. We do not want to lose any of our growth momentum now or in the future. Thank you for consideration of issues defined in our letter and we look forward to your response. On behalf of all of us at Mountain Kubota- Sincerely, Terry J es & Elna Jones Owners of Mountain Kubota-61 Boone LLC Southeast Regional Office 263 13t1i Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -5505 (727) 824 -5317; FAX (727) 824 -5300 http: / /sero.nrnfs.noaa.gov/ January 15, 2013 (Sent via Electronic Mail) Colonel Steven A. Baker District Engineer, Wilmington District Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division .SAN " 6 2'0 3 P.O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402- 18901tt Bncineh Dear Colonel Baker: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the public notice(s) listed below. Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and no further action is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed work. NOTICE NO. 2012 -00882 APPLICANT NCDOT NOTICE DATE January 15, 2013 NIUMM February 14, 2013 Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or critical habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected Resources Division at the letterhead address. Sincerely, Pace Wilber (for) Virginia M. Fay Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division CONVERSATION RECORD Time am I Date January 24, 2013 Type: Visit Conference X Telephone Location Of visit/conference: Incoming ❑ outgoing Name of Person(s)Contacted or In Contact with You: Organization Telephone No. Brenda Laurance Adjacent landowner (336) 877-1455 SUBJECT: Action ID. 2012-00882; Watauga/Ashe County, North Carolina. SUMMARY: Call from Ms. Brenda Laurance, 744 Railroad Grade Road, phone 336-877-1455 concerning the public notice currently running for this project. She is elderly and/or disabled and has not been able to attend any of DOT's public hearings. Due to the scale of the maps included with the public notice, she is unable to determine how the current proposal would affect her property. ACTION REQUIRED: Refer to DOT for appropriate action NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE Monte Matthews January 24, 2013 ACTION TAKEN, Signature Date CONVERSATION RECORD Time am I Date February 11, 2013 Type: visit Conference X Telephone Location of Visit/Conference: ❑ Incoming ❑ outgoing Name of Person(s)Contacted or In Contact with You: Organization Telephone No. Rebecca Houck Adjacent landowner (336) 877-3375 SUBJECT: Action ID. 2012-00882; Watauga/Ashe County, North Carolina. SLU49MY: Call from Ms. Rebecca Houck, Clarence Lyall Road, phone 336 -877- 3375 concerning the public notice currently running for this project. Due to the scale of the maps included with the public notice, she is unable to determine how the current proposal would affect her property. ACTION REQUIRED: Refer to DOT for appropriate action NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE Monte Matthews February 11, 2013 ACTION TAKEN: Signature Date BOARD OF DIRECTORS Henry Doss, Chairman Anna Ziegler It is NCNR's understanding that it is DOT's goal to avoid negatively impacting any of STAFF creeks and wetlands the planned expansion could affect. If there are unavoidable impacts NCNR would like to work with the Corps of Engineers and NCDOT to identify and Brad Baskette, mitigate the creeks directly affected by the highway widening project. Mitigation Stewardship activities include stabilizing and restoring creeks and wetlands in this corridor, and Coordinator ensuring fish passage through stream crossings. Lynn Caldwell, February 14, 2013 Bob Lovett, While all of the creeks listed are creeks of concern to NCNB, the creek of greatest priority Vice Chairman is Old Fields Creek, whose headwaters are near West Jefferson (Environmental Director of Operations National Committee for the New River Bob Kelly, PO Box 1450 Treasurer West Jefferson, NC 28694 Martha Stephenson, feet. In the late 1990's and again in earl y 2000`s the New River Soil and Water g Secretary Re: Corps Action ID #: SAW- 2012 -00$82 Jonathan Halsey TIP project No. R -2915 Fred Jordan National Committee for the New River (NCNB) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that Assistant believes that clean water, healthy land, and empowered people benefit our communities Dixie Leonard by creating a watershed where people want to live, work and play. Russ Moxiey WWW.NCNR.ORG INFO@NCNR.ORG P—Wrr pope -o�m omqumnmum o; 3d' =po,r­:oma ,, For many years NCNR has been following erosion issues in the 221 corridor due to John Pine stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, historic straightening of creeks, and lack of Julio Stephens riparian buffers. While NCNB realizes that the 221 widening is necessary to the area in terms of safety and economy, we realize that increased impervious surface from widening Lorrie Sprague will also increase the stormwater runoff and "flashiness" of the creeks along the highway, Dave Wallace further contributing to the erosion and entrenchment of the creeks. Anna Ziegler It is NCNR's understanding that it is DOT's goal to avoid negatively impacting any of STAFF creeks and wetlands the planned expansion could affect. If there are unavoidable impacts NCNR would like to work with the Corps of Engineers and NCDOT to identify and Brad Baskette, mitigate the creeks directly affected by the highway widening project. Mitigation Stewardship activities include stabilizing and restoring creeks and wetlands in this corridor, and Coordinator ensuring fish passage through stream crossings. Lynn Caldwell, For over a decade, the streambanks of Old Fields Creek at its confluence with the South Restoration Director While all of the creeks listed are creeks of concern to NCNB, the creek of greatest priority Carol Coulter, is Old Fields Creek, whose headwaters are near West Jefferson (Environmental Director of Operations Assessment Sheet # 9) and flows into the South Fork New River in Fleetwood, NC (EA President Sheet # 5). The distance from the headwaters to the confluence is about 5 miles and the Laura Green, entire stream and its watershed is designated as an Outstanding Resource Maters. :administrative Asst. feet. In the late 1990's and again in earl y 2000`s the New River Soil and Water g Ben Lucas, For over a decade, the streambanks of Old Fields Creek at its confluence with the South Land Protection Fork New River in Fleetwood had been documented by field observations and cross - Coordinator sections as being severely unstable, with high, vertical, eroding banks. The creek had George Santucci, experienced heavy erosion due to historic agricultural practices, buffer degradation, and President upstream impacts such as road construction and residential buildings. During the 12 years or so that the creek was being observed, some sections of the stream channel moved 100 Courtney Wait, Advocacy Coordinator feet. In the late 1990's and again in earl y 2000`s the New River Soil and Water g cjc %E Alp Dave Wesolowski, Water Quality Assistant - 0 yh -0 ioea oM� POST OFFICE SOX 1480 WEST JEFFERSON, NORTH CAROLINA 28694 336 -846 -6267 FAX 336• -846-6433 WWW.NCNR.ORG INFO@NCNR.ORG P—Wrr pope -o�m omqumnmum o; 3d' =po,r­:oma ,, share. In the summer and fall of 2011 construction was completed. The conservation easement was the last phase of the project. A significant amount of time and resources has been dedicated to restoring Old Fields Creek. NCNB does not want to see all that hard work wasted as a result of this project. We would also like to see the entire creek from headwaters to confluence stabilized and reconnected to the floodplain to minimize damage to structures and heavy erosion during rain events. Furthermore, we advocate for a canoe access where Highway 221 crosses the New River (EA Sheet # 4). There are currently no formal public river access sites along this popular reach of the South Fork New River. Boating, tubing, and fishing are a large part of the tourism economy in Ashe and Watauga Counties. It would be a gesture of diplomacy from NCDOT to reduce further destruction to the New River watershed, improve existing unstable streambanks with mitigation funding, and improve the community's ability to access and enjoy our treasured resource. We appreciate your careful consideration of these comments. We welcome discussion and can be contacted at any time. H O U W U O 14z N U a� Aa �a az w o X G4 z 5a 0 U N N a � Q 44 O a Q o -o 71 o N a o o 3 o_ °� �' a o °° a 3 o' o a 'o R O R o' O C o ro C .o C w ,L' 7 5 o ,�' 3 0 0 33 R o �o m m a o. R 3 R'^ W z �. y Id o N o o '�,�^ R N N "' w yO� R R y o. o o ❑" R N 0 y o S: o o 3 R o 1 o a o ro N o or m m Sao r 'o y o Q. ago g, '� y o o F o: o Q.� ,� Ot9 o R O o o C S oN RS A m R m o (� O g :p fo o 'no R G' 'o a� N O Vl .'�., N �° ag wi a� a+ r� M O "'6o Vi N .� O .no 3 B m m .3 _no m _� O �y .o 6r -o m o ,., �.. .3 0 .., ° o .� o =o °: =o m o 0 3 o o F N 'o A .� �6 =o m m o m m a o o o m m a N a. a m N q a o 3 N 'o N o r ' m ,L' ,L' '� m m .� '6 .L' 'o o y 'd x N o ro 0 O b N o o o o g m o ,y 0 0 3 Id 7 N o O O R oo Id ro o 8��y O 0 p 0 w ti 3 ++� o N r' 3 0 o om �, �L � m 3 N O o y o o N � ❑ �' N d Z! -o 'o Ed N O Vl ❑ C7 0 '� o B -o N '181 N 781 , N O ..�. o o 4 o Q o o o U l R m Sy°. G o p 'o g co so. o .. '6 N N A .ti R N Id q Id x o ° ° G' o Id o 3 a.� ❑0 7° om W F O o > > O F z o O � ld o w o o (sasn;eu2!S #) uoi ;t ;ad xs;uammoo (ra / uoT;njosag IediaiunyQ OWarm U fs� Ta ; ;aq O W ;aagS ;uau[u[oo a .TaxeadS $uixeag uopraiunmmo auogdalay C7 Z 'o ro o z � a m � x q o F ca v E O U W U O 14z N U a� Aa �a az Q N w o X z 5a 0 U N N a � Q 44 O a Q oo. o 'r 7 O qq m N N C o no O o -o o .y o c: o a 3 o o� m o r 3 R o N ,� o a �' o g_mo m'" 36o�a� °.� �,� ❑ °° 3 m ° N 0\ r M o o 3 '6 O m p ° P ° v" a o +� Q. R a3 cd .p o q 'o o Fo - .3 C 3 o F N W .� ro F" o 3 _o 4 0 0 =' zi F o 3 -d o 0 C. ... O� o m 0 0 0 3 m C ... ono y aooi m -d o •'' .� . > -. Vi �d y CJ P" ro F C a R o ,�' o '� 'a' N s��. o ,� 3 o o N o .no R Fa m m 7 ° o N N N R � d N R ��: 0 o w 4 O � .o 'RO N " td R R 'd o m . N N ol ''d G' U .o o R N o ' .k oa.��°' q-o y o q.>' 3-o d 3 O-o ao m U ° q o o o .,�, t q O O N 'o o N `�' o. G 2 0 o -� .Id O R m N m Id m o ,� o R o C F F 0 < Nd o O o Q R N NC R Chi L: R. R. o m5 o R Id a ono o o Vl O 3 Id .� •'� .°� N '� o ° o 3 oro� O N �, '� o �ppN� ❑ o -o °' '3 fo N N m °' � > o oo o 'Oox w �� N o '� N � oho N a>'i N N a g o N" m N 3 o m m o N 0 S o p .p $m 'o 3 0' o o m o-o ❑ R o .� o S. ti 0 m yR L� 'O o ti o° o° N N �° N o ''d oo o o P; o P; '4 „ o ono N - o O Ca O o ro v o @ o ;o ro .o V2 0 ❑o .�� `d o qp°no .p ro (� Q. Rr o '^ 'R. ° o ro .o N w o q ski '" o ,L' W E. O F z o O z�z F z o (saxn;eu2!S #) uoi;i ;ad xs;uammoo (ra / uoi;njosag IediaiunyQ Warm O U fs� .Ta ; ;aq > > > > O w ;aagS ;uau[u[oo a .TaxeadS $uixeag uop7aoiunmmo3 auogdalay w0wz 5 �co ro ro ro W ro co H z w 0 U 0 U O 14z N U a� Aa 0a az Q N W W X G4 z0 5a 0 U N N a � Q .'7 44 0 a Q m S o Id a � o oq � .o o .2 q N Id � o o z zi v o z ti W 0: � 0,0r0 , .�-o z q 3 a o oo F o p ,o' .S o z U ° o o ❑ y ° ° ��° x o N 3° 8, R a 3 o N o o no ro A R o w �o G ro F F N o�oFgo .o R z o or W � �r,o t o o �oo � � ro oo 3 x - E m N o 0: s ,o, ANN z � � � m x 0 F 3 3 W F O z�z F O z -o O z (sasn;eu2!S #) uoi ;t ;ad xs;uammoo (ra / uoT;njosag IediaiunyQ O Warm U fs� Ta ; ;aq O W ;aagS ;uau[u[oo a saxeadS $uixeag uoproiunmmo� auogdalay a p x � C a W v 0 oz x z N