20011499 Ver 1_Complete File_20011016

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
D E N R
September 15, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
'
Through: John Dorne?
From: Cyndi Bell &U6
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to
US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion
McDowell County
State Project No. 8.2871101, T.I.P. No. R-2643;
DENR #99E-0162
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve no fill in
wetlands. A culvert extension at an existing perennial stream crossing will be required. NCDOT
has sufficiently demonstrated avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts. The
project, as currently planned, would not require wetland or stream mitigation. We ask that DOT
stipulate that borrow materials will not be taken from wetlands.
Based upon the impacts described in the EA, a General Certification will be applicable to
this project. Final permit authorization may require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision
of wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is reminded
that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns,
to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC
Mike Parker, ARO
R2643FON
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date Received: Due Response Due (firm deadline):
11 15 014P ;L me- qhp ln g??sf J?
N . *-'- 5 7 ? 0 / _-2- -=L-
iris project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville p Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville ? Groundwater p?0i1 ife ? Water Resources
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ' ? Environmental Eicalth
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ?-Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem ? Parks & Recreation ? Other
/ f
Dater Quality t/ l
1
? Groundwater
1
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OMRegion: Date: In-E :ous,: Rcvie«•c:.-/rgcncy:
I Response (check all applicable:)
? No objection to projee:t as proposed.
a No comment
t7 Insufficient information to complete review
0 Other (specify or attach comments)
/\)o Vim( /6 LJ
5-1
K1,TUKi`1 TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator

Da e
7 7 w8
Date fill
k •
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Division Administrator, FHWA
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
July 1998
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
a ?
t: Richard B. Davis, P. E., CPM, Assi
Planning and Environmental Branch
-7/Z
Manager
••.•`I"N CARO`%
?°_.• cFss"ice: ??9
'92W" SEAL
6944 8
••
c co
FN61 NE?? 'JI I$00%
Project Planning Engineer
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will use Best Management
Practices, to avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of toxic and harmful
materials. This will substantially reduce sediment-related impacts to area streams.
2. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding
the relocation of survey markers along the project.
3. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C. Cultural Resources certifying that the
removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer
prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

I.
II.
SUMMARY i
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION I
A. General Description 1
B. Recommended Improvements 1
1. Length of the Proposed Project 1
2. Cross Section 1
3. Right of way 2
4. Access Control 2
5. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 2
6. Design Speed 2
7. Maintenance of Traffic 2
8. Noise Barriers 2
9. Sidewalks 2
10. Bicycles 3
11. Estimate of Cost 3
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 3
A. Existing Roadway Characteristics 3
1. Existing Cross Section 3
2. Sidewalks 3
3. Bicycles 3
4. Right of way and Control of Access 3
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 4
6. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control 4
7. Structures 4
8. Railroad Involvement 4
9 Speed Zones 4
10. Degree of Roadside Interference 4
11. Utilities 4
12. School Bus Data 5
13. Geodetic Markers 5
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project 5
C. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Classification 5
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity 6
E. Accident History 7
PAGE
F. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community 8
- III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES 8
CONSIDERED
- A. "No-Build" Alternative 8
B. Public Transportation 8
C. Highway Construction Alternatives 9
1. Alternative One (Symmetric Widening) 9
2. Alternative Two (West-side Asymmetric Widening) 9
3. Alternative Three (East-side Asymmetric Widening) 10
4. Alternative Four (Combination Widening - Recommended) 10
5. Alternative Five (Combination Widening) 11
IV EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES 12
V SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13
A. Social Effects 13
1. Land Use Planning 13
a. Scope and Status of Planning 13
b. Existing Land Use 13
C. Existing Zoning 13
d. Future Land Use 13
e. Farmland 13
2. Neighborhood Characteristics 14
3. Public and Private Facilities 14
4. Relocation Impacts 14
5. Cultural Resources 17
a. Historic Architectural Resources 17
b. Archeological Resources 17
B. Economic Effects 18
C. Environmental Effects 18
1. Physical Resources 18
PAGE
VI.
VII
a. Geological Resources
b. Water Resources
2. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
b. Aquatic Communities
3. Rare and Protected Species
4. Wetlands
5. Permits
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
7. Air Quality Analysis
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
9. Hazardous Materials
a. Underground Storage Tanks
b. Landfills
10. Geodetic Markers
11. Construction Impacts
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
C. Public Hearing
BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
APPENDIX A - Figures
APPENDIX B - Comments and Coordination Letters
APPENDIX C - Air and Noise Figures and Tables
18
19
23
24
27
28
31
31
32
32
35
42
42
43
43
43
45
45
45
45
46
J
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
J
0
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division of Highways, proposes to widen Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a multi-lane
facility from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion. The proposed
improvement is to widen the existing Sugar Hill Road to a five-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot),
face to face, curb and gutter facility (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2 for location maps
and aerial view of the project area). The proposed right of way width is 30.5 meters (100
feet). This section will provide a continuous center turn lane and two through travel lanes
in each direction. The project also proposes to remove the ramp access point on the entry
ramp from SR 1001 to I-40 west. The total project length is approximately 3.7 km (2.3
miles). This project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000
and construction to begin in FFY 2002. The estimated project cost in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $6,508,000. The current total estimated to cost of the project is $8,672,000, consisting
of $2,372,000 for right of way and $6,300,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will complete a link in
the Marion Thoroughfare Plan (see Appendix A, Figure 3). No prime or important
farmlands will be impacted. The project will require relocating four businesses, eleven
residences and one church. No properties eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places or recreational facilities will be involved. There may be some erosion and siltation
during construction, however strict adherence to Best Management Practices will be used
to minimize the damage. No high quality water areas will be impacted by the project.
Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +3 dBA to +9 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an
existing roadway, no alternative corridors were considered. However, both a five-lane
curb and gutter section and a four-lane divided section were considered at the onset of
this project. Due to the numerous driveways and intersecting roads, a four-lane divided
section is not considered a reasonable or feasible alternative. Sugar Hill Road is heavily
developed residentially with some commercial uses. Therefore, a five lane curb and
gutter section is recommended. Public transportation is not considered a feasible
alternative because the City of Marion does not currently have a public transportation
system and there are no immediate plans for one. The "no build" alternative was
considered, but rejected because of the future projected traffic demand and safety
concerns along the project.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Comments from the following were
received and considered during the preparation of this assessment:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N. C. Department of Administration, N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
N. C. DEHNR, Division of Land Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Marion
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation is aware that surface water impacts are anticipated from construction of
the proposed project. In accordance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) it is anticipated a General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 will be required
from the Corps of Engineers. The NCDOT will consult with appropriate agencies in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401). Best
Management Practices such as sedimentation control measures will be utilized during
construction to reduce erosion and sedimentation. A 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required prior to construction.
6. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal and
assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
n
I.
ll
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a multi-lane facility from I-40 to US
221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion. The proposed improvement is to widen the
existing Sugar Hill Road to a five-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot), face to face, curb and gutter
facility (see Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2 for location maps and aerial view of the project
area). The proposed right of way width is 30.5 meters (100 feet). This section will provide
a continuous center turn lane and two through travel lanes in each direction. The project
also proposes to remove the ramp access point on the entry ramp from SR 1001 to I-40 west.
The total project length is approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles). This project is included in the
1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000 and construction to begin in FFY
2002. The estimated project cost in the 1998-2004 TIP is $6,508,000. The current total
estimated to cost of the project is $8,672,000, consisting of $2,372,000 for right of way and
6,300,000 for construction.
B. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of the Proposed Project
The proposed project is approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles) in length.
2. Cross Section
The recommended cross section is a five-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot), face to
face curb and gutter roadway. This section will provide a continuous center left turn
lane and two through travel lanes in each direction. The recommended pavement
marking is for a 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane, and 3.6 meter (12 foot) inside
and outside travel lanes.
3. Right of way
The proposed improvement will require 30.5 meters (100 feet) of right of
way. Temporary construction easements will be required to contain construction at
various locations along the proposed project.
4. Access Control
Full access control will be maintained at the Sugar Hill Road interchange
with I-40 and the US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass). However, no additional control
of access is recommended for the project.
5. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the proposed project are currently at grade and will
remain at grade, except for the interchange at Sugar Hill Road and I-40. The existing
signalized intersections along Sugar Hill Road will remain signalized. All other
intersections along the proposed project will remain stop sign controlled.
6. Design Speed
The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 80 kilometers per
hour (kph) (50 mph). Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a
highway which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and
mobility desired along a highway. The posted speed limit is anticipated to be 65 kph
(45 mph).
7. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction. All traffic
control devices used on this project shall conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).
8. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of this widening project.
9. Sidewalks
The City of Marion has requested that all existing sidewalks be replaced.
2
10. Bicycles
Special accommodations for bicycles were not recommended for the
proposed project. Sugar Hill Road does not correspond to a Bicycle TIP request, nor
is it a designated bicycle route.
11. Estimate of Cost
Construction $ 6,300,000.00*
Right of way $ 2,372,000.00**
Total Cost $ 8,672,000.00
* Includes engineering and contingencies.
* * Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Roadway Characteristics
1. Existing Cross Section
Currently, the cross section along Sugar Hill Road varies from a two-lane,
7.2-meter (24-foot) section with grassed shoulders, to a five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-
foot), face to face curb and gutter section just south of US 221/NC 226 (Marion
Bypass). There are several sections along the project where exclusive left or right
lanes have been added to accommodate high turning volumes. However, the through
movements are constrained to one lane in each direction throughout the project.
2. Sidewalks
Currently sidewalks exist on the left (west) side of the road, from Stroud
Street (SR 1183) continuing to and beyond the end of the project.
3. Bich
Presently, there are no accommodations for bicycles.
4. Right of Kay and Access Control
The right of way (ROW) along Sugar Hill Road is generally 10 meters (32
feet), symmetrical about the present centerline. There is full control of access at the
I-40 and US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) Interchanges with Sugar Hill Road.
5. Horizontal and Vertical Ali nment
Overall the horizontal alignment along the studied section of Sugar Hill Road
is fair. Two existing curves along the project have a maximum design speed of 60
kph (35 mph). The vertical alignment along Sugar Hill Road is rolling and
considered poor.
6. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
There are many roads, residential driveways, and commercial entrances that
intersect Sugar Hill Road along the studied portion. All roads and driveways
intersect Sugar Hill Road at grade, with the exception of I-40 and US 221 /NC 226
(Marion Bypass). Signals exist at the following intersections: Veterans Drive (SR
1191), Rankin Drive (SR 1323), Stroud Street (SR 1183) and the southern on-ramp
to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass). All other intersections are stop sign controlled.
7. Structures
Bridge Number 128 is located just beyond the project limit at the I-40
Interchange with Sugar Hill Road. The 331-foot structure is a reinforced concrete
deck on I-beams with a sufficiency rating of 74.9 out of 100.
Railroad Involvement
No railroads cross the studied section of Sugar Hill Road.
9. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along Sugar Hill Road is 45 mph from I-40 to
Rankin Drive (SR 1323). From Rankin Drive to US 22I NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
the existing speed limit is 35 mph.
10. Degree of Roadside Interference
Development along the studied route is heavy and is a mixture of
commercial, residential and institutional uses. The McDowell County Schools Head
Start is located on the east side of Sugar Hill Road at the intersection of SR 1169.
McDowell Hospital is located just off the project on Rankin Drive. The West
Marion United Methodist Church is just north of SR 1183.
11. Utilities
Utility conflicts along the studied section are considered medium in severity.
Aerial power and cable lines are located along Sugar Hill Road throughout the
project corridor. Underground water, phone, cable, power, sanitary sewer, and
natural gas lines are also present in the project corridor.
12. School Bus Data
A total of 18 school buses travel along Sugar Hill Road four times a day,
which creates 72 trips per day. The generator of these buses is the McDowell
County Schools Head Start - Sugar Hill Center and the McDowell County Schools
maintenance facility located along Sugar Hill Road between Steppe Street (SR 1169)
and Shady Lane (SR 1164).
13. Geodetic Markers
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural
Resources - Division of Land Resources has indicated that 11 geodetic survey
markers will be impacted by the proposed project (see Appendix B).
14. Project Terminals
The southern project terminus is the intersection of Sugar Hill Road and the
entry/exit ramps to westbound I-40. South of this intersection Sugar Hill Road is a
two lane 7.2-meter (24-foot) section with grassed shoulders.
The northern project terminus is the intersection of Sugar Hill Road and the
entry/exit ramp to eastbound US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass). North of this
intersection Sugar Hill Road is a five lane curb and gutter facility.
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project
Sugar Hill Road has an accident rate higher than the average for other similar
facilities throughout the state. Currently the existing facility is near capacity and therefore,
is not adequate to handle the increasing traffic demand. The purpose of this project is to
increase the traffic carrying capacity, improve safety, and reduce accident rates along Sugar
Hill Road. Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) serves the southwestern area of Marion and provides
a major connection between Interstate 40 and the Marion downtown area. The Marion
thoroughfare plan designates Sugar Hill Road as a major thoroughfare.
C. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Classification
The mutually adopted January 1985 Marion Thoroughfare Plan designates Sugar Hill
Road as a major thoroughfare (see Appendix A, Figure 3). The Statewide Functional
` Classification System classifies Sugar Hill Road as a Rural Major Collector. Sugar Hill
Road serves as a major north-south collector road, providing access from I-40 and many
residential areas to downtown Marion and US 22 1 /NC 226 (Marion Bypass).
The proposed improvements are in conformance with the Marion Thoroughfare Plan.
Construction of the proposed project will be a step toward the implementation of this plan.
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Sugar Hill Road is currently near capacity and traffic volumes are expected to grow
in the future because of the significant amount of through traffic. The proposed additional
travel lanes will reduce congestion and improve safety to better accommodate these
volumes.
The 1996 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes range from a low of 11,600
vehicles per day (vpd) near the Lukin Street intersection, to a high of 16,200 vpd near US
221 /NC 226 (see Appendix A, Figures 5 and 6). These volumes are expected to increase to
20,700 vpd and 27,500 vpd respectively by the year 2020 (see Appendix A, Figures 7 and
8).
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of service (LOS)
which range from LOS A to LOS F. Level of Service A represents unrestricted
maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of Service B represents reduced
maneuverability and normal operating speeds. Level of Service C represents restricted
maneuvering and operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of Service D represents
severely restricted maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. This condition is
considered acceptable in densely developed urban areas. Level of Service E represents
operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Breakdown conditions, commonly
referred to as stop and go traffic, indicate a level of service F.
Due to the urban nature of development in the vicinity of this project, intersection
levels of service will control the overall level of service of the facility. Capacity analyses
were performed on the signalized intersections along the proposed project using the current
1998 and projected 2020 design year traffic. Based on this analysis, a LOS for each
intersection was determined. These analyses are based on the proposed improvements to
each intersection described below. Table 1 lists the 1998 and 2020 LOS for each of the
signalized intersections with Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001).
TABLE 1. Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses.
Intersection With Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) 1998 LOS 2020 LOS
Rankin Drive (SR 1323) B B
Stroud Street (SR 1168) B B
US 221-NC 226 Eastbound Ramps/Woodlawn Street B C
Note: 2020 LOS is based on proposed improvements to each intersection described below
Rankin Drive (SR 1323)
The intersection of Sugar Hill Road with Rankin Drive (SR 1323) is currently a
signalized "T" type intersection. Exclusive left and right turn lanes are proposed on Rankin
Drive to accommodate the large volume of motorists. An exclusive right turn lane is
proposed on the southbound approach of Sugar Hill Road to accommodate the large number
of right turning motorists. With these proposed improvements, the intersection is expected
to operate at a LOS B in the design year (see Appendix A, Figure 9).
Stroud Street (SR 1168)
The intersection of Sugar Hill Road with Stroud Street (SR 1168) is currently a
signalized "T" type intersection. Exclusive left and right turn lanes are proposed on Stroud
Street to accommodate the large volume of motorists. With these proposed improvements,
the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS B in the design year (see Appendix A,
Figure 10).
US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) Eastbound ramps/Woodlawn Street
The intersection of Sugar Hill Road with the US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
eastbound ramp terminal and Woodlawn Street is currently a signalized, four leg
intersection. An exclusive right turn lane is proposed on the northbound approach of Sugar
Hill Road to accommodate the large number of right turning motorists. With these proposed
improvements, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS C in the design year (see
Appendix A, Figure 11).
E. Accident History
Listed below are the accident rates for the proposed project for the period 1993
through 1995. A comparison between the accident rates along Sugar Hill Road and the
average statewide accident rates for the period 1994 through 1996 shows a significant
difference (Table 2). All rates are listed by accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers
(mvk).
TABLE 2. Comparison of Accident Rates with Statewide Average
Accident Types Statewide Average for
Sugar Hill Road Rural Secondary Routes
Total Accident Rate 224.5 155.2
Fatal Accident Rate 0.0 1.7
Non-Fatal with Injury Rate 113.3 70.8
Nighttime Accident Rate 41.2 54.3
Wet Accident Rate 22.7 32.8
A total of 109 accidents occurred on Sugar Hill Road between I-40 and the US
221 /NC 226 (Marion Bypass) for the period 1993-1995. Forty-nine (49) percent of these
accidents were rear-end accidents, 21 percent involved left turning movements, and 12
percent were angle accidents. The estimated property damage resulting from these accidents
was $319,920.
F. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The area along the proposed project is already heavily developed with residential and
commercial uses. There is also a school and a hospital located along Sugar Hill Road.
Future development along the proposed project is anticipated to be primarily residential and
scattered office/institutional with some commercial uses. Therefore, adding a center turning
lane will aid in access to existing development and improve conditions for school bus and
emergency traffic. Adding the center turn lane will also reduce rear end accidents, which is
the leading cause of accidents along the project. The additional lanes will also reduce left
turning movement and angle accidents. The improved access to the area, savings in
operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel time, and the general
improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local community, as well
as the State.
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for this project include the "no build" alternative, the
public transportation alternative, and five construction alternatives.
A. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No Build" alternative was considered, but was determined to be unreasonable
because it does not alleviate congestion and improve safety, which is the stated purpose and
need of the project. Construction of the proposed project will complete a vital part of the
Marion Thoroughfare Plan by improving access between I-40 and downtown Marion. The
existing roadway has several areas where the curvature limits the design speed and sight
distance. The accident rate along Sugar Hill Road is 1.45 times the statewide average for
similar facilities. If the road is not improved, the facility will likely experience increased
accidents and congestion. For these reasons, construction of the project will provide a safe
and more efficient route in this area. Therefore, the "no build" alternative was rejected. The
no build alternative does provide a basis for comparison of the build alternatives.
B. Public Transportation
Through trips constitute the major traffic movement along Sugar Hill Road. '
Development in the area is primarily urban, but of low density. This type of development
does not lend itself to a mass transit system. The City of Marion does not currently have a
public transportation system. Creating a public transportation system could relieve some
8
congestion and increase the level of service along Sugar Hill Road. However, as traffic
increases in the future the current rate of accidents will also increase and the level of service
of the facility will decrease. Therefore, public transportation is not a reasonable alternative.
C. Highway Construction Alternatives
The highway construction alternatives consist of five widening options including
symmetric widening, west side asymmetric widening, east side asymmetric widening, and
two combinations of symmetric widening, asymmetric widening, and new location. Each of
these alternatives propose to widen Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a multi-lane facility from
I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion. During the analysis of these
alternatives the feasiblity of extending the project limits across I-40 because of the future
projected traffic volumes was studied. This extension would require the bridge over I-40 to
be replaced and extensive earthwork south of I-40. The project cost would be greatly
increased by these operations. The increase in cost cannot be funded within the budget
established for this project. Therefore improving the entire imterchange has been
recommended as a future project need.
Each of these alternatives recommend a five-lane facility along Sugar Hill Road (SR
1001) from I40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass). The recommended cross section, a
five-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot), face to face, curb and gutter roadway, will provide a
continuous center left turn lane and two through travel lanes in each direction. The
recommended pavement marking is for a 3.6 meter (12 foot) center lane, 3.6 meter (12 foot)
inside travel lanes, and 3.6 meter (12 foot) outside travel lanes.
Each alternative also proposes to remove the ramp access point on the entry ramp
from Sugar Hill Road to I-40 west. The ramp would be converted to one way access. This
proposed improvement would require the closure of a section of Condrey Road in order to
realign on new location the remaining section. The remaining section of Condrey Road
would be extended on new. location to intersect SR 1001 90 meters (300 feet) north of the
existing westbound entry ramp to I-40 (see Appendix A, Figure 2). The recommended cross
section is a two lane, 7.2 meter (24 foot) roadway with 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed shoulders.
1. Alternative 1 (Symmetric Widening?)
Alternative 1 consist of widening the existing roadway symmetrically along
the centerline. It is estimated to cost $8,780,500, including $2,780,500 for right of
way acquisition and $6,000,000 for construction. This alternative relocates 16
residences, 2 businesses and 2 churches.
2. Alternative 2 (West-side Asymmetric Widening)
Alternative 2 consist of widening the existing roadway on the west side of the
centerline. It is estimated to cost $8,336,500, including $2,236,500 for right of way
9
acquisition and $6,100,000 for construction. This alternative relocates 18 residences,
2 businesses and 1 church.
3. Alternative 3 (East-side Asymmetric Widening)
Alternative 3 consist of widening the existing roadway on the east side of the
centerline. It is estimated to cost $8,123,500, including $2,323,500 for right of way
acquisition and $5,800,000 for construction. This alternative relocates 14 residences,
4 businesses and 1 church.
4. Alternative 4 (Combination Widening - Recommended)
Alternative 4, the recommended alternative, consist of widening the existing
roadway using a combination of symmetric widening, asymmetric widening, and
new location (realignment of curvature). This widening type takes into account
improvements to the horizontal and vertical alignment, as well impacts to the human
and natural environment. The improvements proposed to the horizontal and vertical
alignment provide an 80 kph (50 mph) design speed along the entire length of the
project. The types of widening for this alignment are described as follows (see
Figure 3 for aerial showing alignment):
Type of Widening Distance Location
Symmetric 0.25 km From the project limit with I-40 to 0.25
kilometers north of I40.
Asymmetric - east 0.25 km From 0.25 kilometers north of I-40 to
0.16 kilometers south of Condrey Road.
New location 0.42 km From 0.16 kilometers south of Condrey
Road to 0.09 kilometers north of
Veterans Drive.
Asymmetric - west 0.28 km From 0.09 kilometers north.of Veterans
Drive to 0.03 kilometers south of
Steppe Street.
Symmetric 0.20 km From 0.03 kilometers south of Steppe
Street to 0.05 kilometers north of Lukin
Street.
Asymmetric - west 0.20 km From 0.05 kilometers north of Lukin
Street to 0.04 kilometers north of Shady
Lane.

I

10
New location 0.27 km From 0.04 kilometers north of Shady
Lane to 0.06 kilometers north of Stroud
Street.
r
Asymmetric - west 0.33 km From 0.06 kilometers north of Stroud
Street to 0.23 kilometers south of
Rankin Road.
Symmetric 1.20 km From 0.23 kilometers south of Rankin
Road to US 221/NC 226 (Marion
Bypass).
Estimated cost is $8,672,000, including $2,372,000 for right of way
acquisition and $6,300,000 for construction. This alternative relocates 12 residences,
4 businesses and 1 church.
5. Alternative 5 (Combination Widening)
Alternative 5 consist of widening the existing roadway using a combination
of symmetric widening, asymmetric widening, and new location (realignment of
curvature). For this alternative, the improvements proposed to the horizontal and
vertical alignment provide a 60 kph (40 mph) design speed along the entire length of
the project. The types of widening for this alignment are described as follows:
Type of Widening Distance Location
Symmetric 0.50 km From the project limit with I-40 to 0.16
kilometers south of Condrey Road.
Asymmetric - east 0.46 km From 0.16 kilometers south of Condrey
Road to 0.12 kilometers north of
Veterans Drive.
Symmetric 0.44 km From 0.12 kilometers north of Veterans
Drive to 0.05 kilometers north of Lukin
Street.
Asymmetric - west 0.20 km From 0.05 kilometers north of Lukin
Street to 0.04 kilometers north of Shady
Lane.
New location 0.27 km From 0.04 kilometers north of Shady
Lane to 0.06 kilometers north of Stroud
Street.
11
Asymmetric - west 0.23 km From 0.06 kilometers north of Stroud
Street to 0.33 kilometers south of
Rankin Road.
Symmetric 1.30 km From 0.33 kilometers south of Rankin
Road to US 221/NC 226 (Marion
Bypass).
This alternative is estimated to cost $8,096,500, including $1,996,500 for
right of way acquisition and $6,100,000 for construction. This alternative relocates 6
residences, 2 businesses and 1 church.
IV. EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
All of the construction alternatives have equivalent effects on surface waters, biotic
communities, and noise impacts. The traffic carrying capabilities of all the construction
alternatives are also similar. None of the construction alternatives affect any archaeological
sites, architectural sites, parks or recreational resources. Therefore, the selection of the
recommended alternative was mostly based on providing the best highway alignment with
the minimal amount of relocatees at the least cost.
Alternative 4 is the recommended alternative for the following reasons:
1. Alternative 4 is the only alignment that upgrades all of the substandard vertical
and horizontal alignment sections along Sugar Hill Road to create an 80 kph (50
mph) design speed.
2. Alternative 4 minimizes relocation impacts, while maintaining the 80 kph design
speed along the entire section of Sugar Hill Road. Only alternative 5 has fewer
relocatees but it only provides a design speed of 60 kph.
3. Alternative 4 is the most cost effective alternative, when considering the best
highway alignment. Only alternative 5 is substantially less expensive ($575,500)
but fails to provide an 80 kph design speed.
12
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use Planning
a. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and zoning
jurisdictions of the City of Marion and McDowell County. The city has an
adopted land use plan and enforces zoning ordinances as well as subdivision
regulations inside the city limits. McDowell County has an adopted land use
plan and enforces a zoning regulations but only in the heavily populated areas
of the county.
b. Existiniz Land Use
The project area is characterized as urbanized with scattered
commercial, residential and office/institutional uses. From the US 221/NC
226 (Marion Bypass) to the city limits at the intersection of SR 1323 the
project corridor is composed of single-family residential, scattered
commercial, a mobile home park and scattered vacant properties. A hospital
is located on Sugar Hill Road. The area from Marion's city limits to I-40 is
composed of a mix of commercial and residential uses.
Existing Zoning
The entire project area is zoned for a mix of residential and
commercial uses. The commercial uses are primarily highway business. The
residential uses are primarily single-family with areas of multi-family
possible.
d. Future Land Use
According to local planning officials, the project area will likely see
primarily commercial and residential land use growth. Highway commercial,
single-family and multi-family growth is anticipated.
e. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction on prime and important farmland soils. Such soils are
designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) according
to crop yield and the level of resources expended. Land which has been
13
previously converted to non-agricultural uses, either through development or
zoning designations by local governments, is exempt from the requirements
of the Act. The proposed improvement will occur within an area that is
experiencing urban growth, where urban growth has been planned and where
no agricultural uses exist. Therefore, no further consideration of potential
impacts to farmland soils is required.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in McDowell County. McDowell County is
located in the western central section of the state and is bounded by Rutherford,
Buncombe, Yancey, Mitchell, Avery, and Burke Counties. According to the Office
of State Planning, State Demographics unit, the 1996 population for the City of
Marion, the largest urban area in the county, was 4,972. The 1996 McDowell
County population (including Marion) was 38,317, of which 36,360 or 95% were
white and 1,957 or 5% were minorities. According to the 1990 census data, 2,208 or
6% of the population of McDowell County were considered to be in the low income
category.
The area along the project corridor is characterized by a mixture of residential
and commercial uses with some office/institutional development. Most development
is set back from the existing highway facility, however some of the existing
development appears to be close to Sugar Hill Road. The neighborhood has
development along the existing facility that is typical to highways in congested areas
that also serve as the neighborhood's local street. As proposed, the project does not
disrupt community cohesion, interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services,
and will not split the community or neighborhood.
3. Public and Private Facilities
There are several public-and private facilities located Tong Sugar Hill Road
within the project limits. Among the public facilities located along the project are:
McDowell County Schools Head Start - Sugar Hill Center, McDowell County
Schools maintenance facility, New Hope Freewill Baptist Church, West Marion
United Methodist Church and the Bethlehem Church of God.
Some privately owned facilities include Bartletts Builder Supply, West Side
Market, Jack Frost Dairy Bar, County Market, McDowell Family Medicine, Hortons
Grocery, and the Sugar Hill Mobile Home Park.
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on the right of way report prepared by the NCDOT, it is estimated that
the recommended alternative will impact 11 residences, 4 businesses and 1 church.
Of the eleven families displaced by the project, 7 are owners and 4 are tenants. One
14
minority residence will be affected by the project. The majority (46 percent) of the
displaced families are estimated to have annual incomes ranging from $15,000 to
$25,000. Thirty six percent are estimated to have annual incomes ranging from
$25,000 to $35,000. The other eighteen percent are estimated to have annual
incomes ranging from $35,000 to $50,000. The proposed projectis being
implemented in accordance with executive order # 12898 on environmental justice.
Considering the nature of the project, widening along existing alignment with some
asymmetrical widening to correct alignment problems, it is not believed to
disproportionately impact any minority populations or have any adverse affects to
the proposed project. Although the project is disruptive to several lower and
moderate income families, it provides a desirable economic alignment that
minimizes adverse impacts. The proposed alignment has been established to
minimize impacts to families, businesses, and non-profit organizations, where
possible. The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion or interfere with
the accessibility of facilities and services.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
will be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation Assistance,
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of
homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement
will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to
$22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to
provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which
to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
project for this purpose.
15
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation
assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to
displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons
will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within
the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist
owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive
an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement
housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving
existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer
will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering
assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys,
appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment
is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement
exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
16
or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person
for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is
not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
5. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given an opportunity to comment. This project is also subject to compliance with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
a. Historic Architectural Resources
The area of potential effect (APE) for this project was determined,
and the area was reviewed by a NCDOT staff person. The North Carolina
State Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted as part of the process for
identifying historic architectural resources located in the APE. On July 19,
1996, the SHPO and NCDOT met to review photos of structures over fifty
years of age within the APE. The SHPO concurred that none of the
structures appeared to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places and a concurrence form was signed (see Appendix B).
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the APE. Based on
the SHPO's present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project (see Letter, page B-15, Appendix
B).
17
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary Data for
September 1996) indicate that McDowell County has a labor force of 20,970. This total,
19,460 persons are gainfully employed resulting in an unemployment total of 1,510 or 7.2
percent.
Officefinstitutional and commercial developments are the primary economic
components in the project area. The proposed project will create an overall benefit to the
community by improving traveling conditions along Sugar Hill Road, making travel safer
and more efficient. Sugar Hill Road serves as a major arterial connecting I-40 and the US
221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass). The improvements will create improved access to motorists
conducting business at the various businesses located along the proposed project.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below
with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within
the project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate
water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation.
Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter
both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition,
soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition
and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the
characteristics of these resources.
The project is located in the inner Piedmont Geologic Belt. The topography
in this portion of McDowell County is characterized by strongly sloping to very
steep uplands and narrow, nearly level floodplains along streams. Topography in the
vicinity of the study area is composed of steep slopes and narrow floodplains along
streams. Project elevations range from 396 in (1300 ft) to 457 in (1500 ft) above
mean sea level. Parent material for soils in this region of McDowell County is
composed of residual material, alluvial sediments, and colluvium.
a. Geological Resources
Soils located in the project area are of the Hayesville-Evard soil
association. An inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the project
area can be found in Table 3. A brief description of each soil type is also
provided.
18
TABLE 3. Soils occurring in the project
Map Unit Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Site Index' Erosion
Symbol hazard'
HeD Hayesville-Evard complex 15-25 85-93 moderate
CoA Colvard loam 0-2 83 slight
HuC Hayesville-Urban land complex 6-15 --- ---
HcC2 Hayesville clay loam 6-15 77 slight
Note: ' describes the potential for future erosion, inherent in the soil itself, in inadequately
protected areas. Based on tons of soil lost/acre/year.
the expected average height (ft) of dominant trees in an even aged stand at 50 years
of age (eastern white pine).
• The Hayesville-Evard complex consists of mainly very deep, well drained, moderately
steep soils in intermountain areas and on the side slopes of foothills. This complex
experiences rapid surface water runoff, moderate permeability, and the seasonal high
water table is below 1.8 m (6 ft).
• Colvard loam consists of very deep, well drained, nearly level Colvard and similar soils
on floodplains along small streams in the intermountain areas. This soil has slow surface
water runoff, moderately rapid permeability, and is occasionally flooded for brief
periods.
• The Hayesville-Urban land complex is composed of very deep, well drained, strongly
sloping hayesville soils and areas of urban land. This unit is found on ridgetops and side
slopes in intermountain areas and foothills. This soil has rapid surface water runoff,
moderate permeability, and the seasonal high water table is below 1.8 m (6 ft).
• Hayesville clay loam is an eroded soil and consists of very deep, well drained, strongly
sloping soils on ridgetops in intermountain areas and foothills. This soil has moderate
permeability, rapid surface runoff, and the seasonal high water table is below 1.8 m (6
ft).
No hydric soils or soils with inclusions of hydric soils are found in the
project area. It is recommended that erosion control measures be strictly
enforced within areas with steep slope areas and erodable soils.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface waters likely to
be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the
physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the
water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage
systems. Probable impacts to surface waters are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
19
Characteristics of Surface Waters
Water resources located within the study area are located in the Upper
Catawba subbasin of the Catawba River Drainage Basin. SR 1001 crosses
one perennial stream and two intermittent tributaries (Figure 4). The
proposed action will not result in the construction of any new stream
crossings. However, it will necessitate the widening of the two pipe
crossings and one culvert crossing to accommodate the new facility.
North Muddy Creek and an unnamed tributary originate west of SR
1001 and flow northeast to its confluence with the Catawba River in Burke
County. An unnamed tributary to Nicks Creek originates just east of SR
1001 and flows northwest to its confluence with Nicks Creek and eventually
the Catawba River west of Marion.
The unnamed tributary to Nicks Creek has its headwaters at a spring
located adjacent to the existing road. The channel is undefined at the spring
and becomes well-defined as it flows away from the study area. Substrate is
composed of packed sand and changes to a mixture of sand, gravel and larger
stones as the channel becomes more defined. At its widest the channel is 1 m
(4 ft) wide and extremely shallow with the exception of several pools 0.5 m
(2 ft) deep located near the spring. This stream experiences intermittent flow.
The unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek is an intermittent,
highly channelized drainage that flows through pasture land The stream
course is approximately 1 m (4 ft) wide and deeply eroded, pools up to 0.3 m
(10 in) deep can be found in front of riprap accumulations. The natural
substrate completely absent and has been replaced by granite riprap and
deposits of sediment. _ Stream banks are maintained to the edge of the channel
with no riparian vegetation present.
North Muddy Creek is a meandering stream with moderate flow and
riffle zones that occur frequently between deep pools. The riffle zones are
approximately,0.2 m (0.5 ft) deep and the pools are up to 0.9 m (3 ft) deep.
The channel is approximately 18 m (60 ft) wide in the study area. The
substrate is composed of gravel and large rocks. Heavy siltation is evident at
the current crossing and the stream appears to have been channelized
upstream of this crossing. Stream banks exhibited slight signs of erosion at
the time of the site visit.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental
20

Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. Unnamed streams carry the same best usage classification as
the streams for which they are tributaries. North Muddy Creek (DEM Index
No. 11-20) is classified as "C" (9/1/74). Nicks Creek [DEM Index No. 11-
32-1-(0.5)] is also classified as "C" (3/1/62). Class C waters are defined as
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within
the project area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these
waters from both point sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water
quality assessments are made based on published resource information and
existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into
the value of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and
to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
General Watershed Characteristics
Runoff from urbanization activities are likely to be the primary
sources of water quality degradation to the water resources located in the
project vicinity. Urbanization activities include the construction of. roads,
utilities, homes, businesses, and manufacturing facilities. Runoff from
urbanization activities is primarily composed of sediment but is also likely to
include oxygen depleting organic compounds (pesticides, fertilizer, solvents),
potentially harmful bacteria (E. coli, fecal coliforms), and petroleum
products. Nonpoint source pollution from these activities is difficult to
measure but is considered to be a major source of pollution in urban areas.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed
by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program
monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and
assigned a taxa richness value. Samples are also assigned a bioclassification
that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection.. No BMAN
data is available for Nicks Creek. BMAN data for North Muddy Creek can
be found in Table 4.
21
TABLE 4. BMAN data for North Muddy Creek.
Sample Date Distance from project km (mi) EPT Bioclassification
Location value'
SR 1819 4/85,8/90 15 (9) downstream 19,17 fair, fair
SR 1794 4/85,8/90 7 (4) downstream 17,6 fair, poor
SR 1750 4/85 16 (10) downstream 35 good-fair
Note: ' EPT values are ranked such that a value <6 is poor and >32 is good (the scale
changes for each physiographic province).
The bioclassification and taxa richness values primarily reflect the
effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such
physical pollutants as sediment.
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to
register for a permit.
The DWQ NPDES report lists four permitted dischargers into North
Muddy Creek and its tributaries west of SR 1001 and one discharger into
Nicks Creek east of SR 1001 (see Appendix, Figure 4). All permitted
dischargers listed in Table 5 are located downstream of the proposed project.
TABLE 5. NPDES dischargers for R-2643.
Name Distance from Volume Type of discharge
project km (mi) (MGD)
North Muddy Creek
Sugar Hill Truck Stop < 0.1 (0.1) 0.005 Domestic
Chilson Corp/ Econolodge 7(4) 0.019 Domestic
Marion/Corpening WWTP 12(7) 3.000 Domestic, Textile, Metal Plating
Rocky Pass Rest Home 15(9) 0.010 Domestic
Nicks Creek
Marion WWTP 3 (2) 0.300 Water plant
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment.
Any action which affects water quality can have an adverse affect on aquatic
organisms. Although these actions may be temporary during the construction
phase of the project, environmental impacts from these processes may be
22
long term or irreversible. Sources of aquatic impacts associated with project
construction include: the extension of pipes and culverts, streambank
vegetation removal, grading, and pavement installation.
The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result
from project construction:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or
erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction, and toxic spills.
• Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water
volumes which will result from the concentration of stormwater
runoff associated with the curb and gutter roadway design.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil
from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in
surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
will be enforced during the construction phase of the project
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided
for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same
23
organism refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are
denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the
project area: Disturbed Community, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and
Floodplain Alluvial Forest. Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined
due to disturbance; contiguous communities often merge without distinct
boundaries between them. Thus, some areas may contain characteristics of
two communities.
Disturbed Community
The disturbed community occurs on the roadside shoulders, home
sites, and waste areas in the study area. Homesites and roadside shoulders
are maintained in an early successional state through frequent mowing and
herbicide application. This portion of the community is dominated by
grasses and hardy herbs such as: wild onion (Allium canadense), fescue
(Festuca sp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum
ofcinale). Many homesites also include cultivated trees such as apple
(Malus pumila), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), and white pine (Pinus
strobus). Waste areas are places that the natural vegetation has been removed
and a mid successional community has developed in its place. Some of these
areas have been overgrown with kudzu (Pueraria lobata), while others
contain many of the species listed above along with other herbaceous and
woody species such as: goldenrod (Solidago spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.),
sunflower (Helianthus sp.), wingstem (Verbesina alternijlora), privet
(Ligustrum sinense), field garlic (Allium vineale), Japanese honeysuckle
(Loncera japonica), wild rose (Rosa sp), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red
maple (Acer rubrum), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana).
This community provides foraging opportunities for permanent
residents of other communities in the project vicinity. Foraging opportunities
exist for species which feed on seeds, insects, and carrion. Larger predators
which commonly feed on small animals will also find foraging opportunities
along roadside shoulders. Large predators commonly found utilizing
roadside habitats include: red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Invertebrates commonly found utilizing
roadside habitats include: silver spotted skipper (Epargyreus clarus), red-
banded hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops), and black swallowtail butterfly
(Papilio polyxenes). Also present are various grasshoppers, flys, moths;
beetles, and bees. These species form the prey base for such predators as
garden spider (Argiope aurantia), northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicuda), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus
24
tyrannus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
Opportunities also exist for species which feed on seeds and grasses.
Common herbivores in this habitat include: eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinsis), and chipping sparrow (Spizella
passerina).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The oak-hickory forest community has experienced varying degrees
of disturbance from adjacent urbanization activities. Past land clearing
activities have left this community fragmented and in a mid to late
successional stage. This has resulted in evergreens and atypical hardwoods
being disproportionately present. The canopy in this community is composed
of red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. Alba), mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). The understory and
shrub layer includes: mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia ), great laurel
(Rhododendron maximum), American holly (Ilex opaca), dogwood (Cornus
Florida), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and saplings of canopy species.
Few species were observed in the herb layer during the winter field survey,
this layer is dominated by: galax (Galax aphylla), cranefly orchid (Tipularia
discolor), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Edges and
highly disturbed portions of this community have a dense understory of
privet.
Habitats found within this community support a highly diverse
association of fauna. Raptors such as red shouldered hawk and great horned
owl (Bubo virginianus) roost in the canopy and hunt in the adjacent disturbed
community. Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), and various mice (Peromyscus spp.) can been heard
searching in the leaf litter for worms and insect larvae. Avian species such as
white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinsis) and yellow-shafted flicker
(Colaptes auratus) forage on canopy trees for insects. Larger vertebrates such
as raccoon (Procyon lotor) and many species that forage in the disturbed
community seek shelter in this and other forested communities.
Floodplain Alluvial Forest
This community is located along the banks of North Muddy Creek
and surrounding the tributary to Nicks Creek. The canopy in this community
is dense and dominated by mature sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), red
maple, and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). A sparse shrub layer
composed of. dogwood (Cornus Florida) and tag alder (Alnus serrulata) is
25
present were disturbance has provided an opening. Herbaceous species
observed in this community included: cranefly orchid, wild onion, Christmas
fern and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum).
Alluvial forests provide valuable habitat for a variety of terrestrial and
semiaquatic species. Common mammals found in this community type are
raccoon, opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and gray squirrel. Birds typically
found in this habitat include: belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), blue-
gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), and barred owl (Strix varia). A
diverse assemblage of herptiles is also found in this community and includes:
salamanders (Plethodon spp.) and tree frogs (Hyla spp.). Species found in
this community and other communities in the study area are likely to migrate
from community to community to exploit all areas of suitable habitat.
Impacts To Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area,
and thus the loss of community area. Table 6 summarizes potential losses to
these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts
to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project
length 3.7 km (2.3 mi), and the entire proposed right of way width of 30.5 m
(100.0 ft). However, project construction often does not require the entire
right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Impacts to
different forested communities in the study area have been combined under
the broad term of Forested Communities for the impact analysis.
TABLE 6. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area ha (ac)
East side West side Total
Disturbed Community 21.4 (52.8) 24.6 (60.8) 46.0 (113.6)
Forested Communities 9.4 (23.3) 6.2 (15.3) 15.6 (38.6)
Total Impacts 30.8 (76.1) 30.8 (76.1) 61.6 (152.2)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will _
have a minimal impact on populations of native fauna and flora.
Construction will primarily impact the disturbed community which is already
highly altered from its natural state. Plants and animals found in this
community are generally common throughout North Carolina and are well
adapted to-persisting in disturbed areas. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable habitat following
project completion. Narrow zones along the edge of the forested community
will be impacted by project construction. This reduces the amount of suitable
26
habitat available for interior species and increasing opportunities for edge
species. If forested tracts become to small in area interior species will not
repopulate.
To minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity, it
is recommended that widening be conducted so as to avoid impacts to the
forested community to the extent possible and that all cleared areas along
roadways be revegetated immediately following project completion.
b. Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of
the physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water
resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent to water resources also greatly
influence aquatic community composition and structure.
The unnamed tributary to Nicks Creek provides excellent habitat for
salamanders and aquatic invertebrates in the shallow riffle zones. Northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)* and Blue Ridge two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata) can be observed feeding on aquatic insect
larvae in the rocky riffle zones. Small fish such as darters (Etheostoma spp.)
and shiners (Notropis spp.) persist in deeper pools during dry periods.
Gastropods were also observed feeding among rocks on detritus. These
organisms serve as the prey base for many terrestrial animals such as raccoon
and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
The unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek provides similar
habitats to those found in Nicks Creek. It is likely that species sensitive to
siltation and water quality degradation will be absent from this stream. No
salamanders or aquatic invertebrates were observed in the stream at the time
of the site visit.
North Muddy Creek is a large perennial stream as it flows through the
study area. A wide diversity of habitats are found in the stream course.
Rocky riffle zones are home to northern dusky salamander and two-lined
salamander. Deeper riffle zones and pools provide habitat for piscine species
such as, pumpkin seed (Lepomis gibbosus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus),
fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), and rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Reptiles are
also likely to be present in this community and include, musk turtle
(Sternotherus odoratus) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Many
of the species found in the adjacent terrestrial communities are likely to be
found utilizing habitats in the aquatic communities.
27
Impacts To Aquatic Communities
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic
communities will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light
penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms,
inhibiting their ability to feed and obtain oxygen. Filter feeders may be
covered by excessive sedimentation, thus preventing their ability to feed.
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates in the water column can
lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the
water column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations in water
temperature. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside
vegetation may also increase water temperatures.
To minimize impacts to aquatic communities in the project area, it is
recommended that instream construction be avoided wherever possible and
that stream banks be revegetated with native vegetation immediately
following project completion.
3. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of November 4, 1997, the
FWS lists the mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) as
threatened for McDowell County. A threatened species is defined as a
species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for this species along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impacts follows.,.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) Threatened
Family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: 20 October 1980
Flowers Present: June (mid to late)
28
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in color.
It usually grows in clumps 10 cm to 20 cm across and 15 cm high, it sometimes occurs in
clumps that are a 30 cm or more across. The leaves from the previous year are retained and
appear scale-like on the older branches. Leaves are from 3-7 mm long and appear awl-
shaped and thread-like. It forms solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers that are nearly three
centimeters across. These yellow flowers have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30
stamens. Fruit capsules have three projecting points at the tips, are roundish, and are found
on 1.3 cm stalks.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops. It can be
found on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds
dominated by Leiophyllum which merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially shaded
areas, but do not appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas.
Critical habitat has been designated in Burke County, North Carolina. The area is
bounded by the following: on the west by the 2200 ft contour; on the east by the Linville
Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2200 ft contour and the
Shortoff Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3400 ft contour at "Chimneys" then follow
the 3400 ft contour north until it reintersects with the Wilderness Boundary then follow the
Wilderness Boundary again northward until it intersect the 3200 ft contour extending west
from its intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south at this point
the Boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2200 ft contour.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Biotic communities found in the study area do not provide suitable habitat in the
form of balds and open rock faces. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats found no occurrence of the mountain golden heather in the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impacts to this species will result from project construction.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are thirteen federal species of concern (FSC) listed by the FWS
for McDowell County (Table 6). Federal species of concern are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is
subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species which is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state
29
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 7 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these
species (if afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in
the project area for each species. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the protection status of these species may be upgraded in the
future.
TABLE 7. Federal Species of Concern and N.C. protected species for McDowell County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Contopus borealis
Dendroica cerulea
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Caecidotea carolinensis
Speyeria diana
Carex roanenis
Delphinium exaltatum
Hymenocallis coronaria
Juglans cinerea
Lilium grayi
Monotropsis odorata
bog turtle T No
olive-sided flycatcher SC No
cerulean warbler -- Yes
southern Appalachian woodrat SC Yes
Bennett's MillCave water slater -- No
Diana fritillary butterfly -- Yes
roan sedge -- Yes
tall larkspur E-SC No
rocky shoal spider lily -- No
butternut -- No
Gray's lily T-SC No
sweet pinesap -- Yes
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla northern oconee bells E-SC No
NOTE: NC Status
• "E" (Endangered) any native or once-native species whose continued existence is
determined to be in jeopardy or any species determined to be an `endangered species'
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "T" (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become an
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act.
• "SC" (Special Concern) any native or once-native species which requires monitoring
but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were any of these species observed. A review of the NCNHP data base of
rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
30
4. Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Rq
328.3_ Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material intc
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of En
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surf,
all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreation -
public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands were identified in
the study area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet
of the stream that is located within the proposed right of way. Physical aspects of
surface waters are described in section 2.3.1. Table 8 lists potential impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters.
TABLE 8. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Surface Waters.
Stream Name Type of Flow Impacts (linear ft) Impact Area (sq. meters/sq. ft)
North Muddy Creek Perennial 100 558 / 6000
UT North Muddy Creek Intermittent 100 37 / 400
UT Nicks Creek Intermittent 50 19 / 200
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications
from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public
water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) is likely to be applicable at most
ditch and stream crossings found in the project study area. This permit authorizes
construction provided the following conditions are met:
• the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing;
• the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.1 hectares (1 /3 acre);
31
• no more than a total of 61 in (200 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can
occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
• the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
movement of aquatic organisms, and;
• the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent,
is part of a single and complete project for crossing of a Water of the United
States.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted
for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a
401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
McDowell County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. This project does not cross any identified flood hazard areas. The
proposed roadway widening will not have any significant adverse effect on existing
floodplains or floodways.
7. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center
of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of
the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide
levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to
the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
32
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a
pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration
components were resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However,
regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by
the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10
to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as
a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions
of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no
reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel.
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average
lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.54 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite
33
average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale,
supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project
will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic
volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections and the highest
volume along the project was used in the CAL3QHC modeling. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 2000 and the design year of
2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is
suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptors were determined to be along the right of
way line at a distance of 15.2 meters from the proposed centerline of the roadway
and 6.1 meters from the existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour
CO concentrations for these receptors for the years of 2000 and 2020 are shown in
the following table.
TABLE 9. Worst-case CO concentration receptor
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Sensitive I Build I No
2000 1 2020 1 2000 1 2020
R-W 1 3.4 1 3.7 1 4.4 1 6.8
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm (8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the result of the worst-case 1-hour
34
CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not
exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in McDowell County, which has been determined to be
in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since the proposed
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done
in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be
taken to insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or
area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
8. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening
of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from the eastbound I-40 exit/entry ramps to US
22I NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in McDowell County on noise levels in the immediate
project area (Figure N1). This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise
sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study
area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected from the proposed
project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are.predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise is usually a composite of
noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
35
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel
(dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted
sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some
more than others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise
persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgment
of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises occurring during
sleeping hours are usually considered to be more offensive than the same
noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of any unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be more
objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of
individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels
of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises while activities requiring
manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
36
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
» have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level
with the same energy content.
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise
level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to
provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing
Leq noise level in the. project area as measured at 15 meters from the
roadway ranged from 63.6 dBA to 67.3 dBA. The ambient measurement
sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and
Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise
levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated
existing noise levels averaged approximately 1 dBA higher than the
measured noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were
obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
i
37
d. Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a
continual changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to
the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must
be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the
Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation,
and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the
existing facility to a 5-lane curb and gutter section. Only those existing
natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The
roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-
grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related
noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used
with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods,
the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during
the peak hour of the design year 2020. A land use is considered to be
impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise
increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15,
30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors
were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this procedure
was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
38
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed
in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of listings of
all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted
noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.

e. Traffic Noise Impacts And Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are issued
within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public
Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODs, or the
Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to
insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5.
These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic
noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772,
there are 65 residential and 4 commercial impacted receptors in Alternate 1
(northside widening) impacted receptors in the vicinity of the project. The
maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are 20 and 38
meters, respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over
the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of Table N6 indicates the
exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in each
roadway section. No receptors are predicted to be impacted by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level increases for this
project range from +3 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is
possible barely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is
more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
39
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise
impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures
must be given to all impacted receptors.
1. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to
minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments
for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters.
For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a
matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
2. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
3. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract,
absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement
walls.
The project will not maintain limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must
be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
40
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the
receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening
of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-
7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for
traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 37
residential receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching
or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of 1 to +4 dBA.
As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3
dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
41
i. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR
Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise
reports are required for this project.
9. Hazardous Materials
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if any
hazards such as underground storage tanks (UST's), hazardous waste sites,
regulated and unregulated dump sites that may impact construction of the
project, cause delays, or create liabilities.
a. Underground Storage Tanks
As a result of this study, seven facilities with the potential for UST's
were discovered in the project area. A description of these facilities is as
follows:
1. There are six UST's located at the Sugar Hill Truck Stop, Sugar
Hill Road, Marion, NC 28752.
2. There are four UST's and one aboveground storage tank (AST)
located at the Rainbow Pantry #1, Sugar Hill Road/I-40, Marion,
NC 28752.
3. There is no information available on the possible UST's located at
F. F. Auto Repair, •1265 Sugar Hill Road, Marion, NC 28752.
4. There are four UST's located at the Westside Market, 1024 Sugar
Hill Road, Marion, NC 28752.
5. There is one AST located at the McDowell County Schools
Maintenance Department, 709 Sugar Hill Road, Marion, NC
28752.
6. There are three UST's located at the County Market, 627 Sugar
Hill Road, Marion, NC 28752.
7. There are three UST's located at the R. V. Horton's Gulf Station, `
220 Stroud Street, Marion, NC 28752.
42
If acquisition of any of these properties cannot be avoided, a
preliminary site assessment will be performed prior to right-of-way
acquisition.
b. Landfills
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor. Based on reconnaissance and a records search no regulated
or unregulated landfills dumpsites or Superfund sites were identified within
the project area.
10. Geodetic Markers
There are 11 geodetic survey markers located in the project area. If the
monuments need to be moved or destroyed, the North Carolina Geodetic Survey will
be notified prior to any construction activities.
11. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the proposed
project, the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase:
1. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and
safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to
and from construction sites along the project and that any inconveniences
imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the
safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the
value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.
3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those of the N.C.
State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid
waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard Specifications
of the Division of Highways. These specifications have been reviewed
and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division
of Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or
special provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted
by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or
disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the
43
Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of
the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
5. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will be
held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of
precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will
minimize interruption of service.
6. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to
relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this work will be made at that time.
7. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at
the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
8. The Contractor will be required to perform erosion control in accordance
with the project erosion control plans, contract, standards, and/or
Standard Specifications or as requested by the Resident Engineer. These
contract documents are in accordance with the erosion control measures
outlined in the Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1.
Temporary erosion control measures will be installed in accordance with
the plans. Additional measures to control erosion throughout the project
will be added as needed.
9. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the state
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall
be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
44
10. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made
to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both
during and after construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment were requested from
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. Listed below are the agencies which were
contacted.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N. C. Department-of Administration, N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
*N. C. DEHNR, Division of Land Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
*City of Marion
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on October 10, 1996 at the National
Guard Armory in Marion to inform citizens about the project and to receive comments and
suggestions. Approximately twenty five people attended the informal gathering in addition
to representatives from NCDOT. The majority of the comments submitted were in favor of
the proposed project. NCDOT right of way and relocation agents addressed the concerns of
several property owners regarding specific impacts to their properties.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held for this project following the circulation of this
document. The hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the
proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice
concerns regarding the proposed project.
45
VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is
determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects upon the human or
natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Assessment is applicable for this project.
t
46
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
C[l
Al
}
9 rttl wider a 1 '
!i 1
WOOd wn
I \
McD ELL
Z Lake
22 e0 Tohn t
A? Pleasant Garden r

.c
1
/?- Sugar Z--? g DysartSYlll
221
o
i
END PROJECT ?,..
;, - us_ w
s
I
I I
L J
IJ /QTY a ?Q,?n
SIR
? may'
%
BEGIN PROJFM

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
$ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
MARION, SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001),
FROM 1-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS,
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1 001 (13),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2871101,
T.I.P. NO. R-2643
0 KILOMETERS 1
FIGURE
d
MILES d.s 1
?: - ? ?'
??

f R
IL K
I' F •
,;i 1 I \ _1 1 fq _
I y ?' \ / I I ! \49 '
000
r_ `v la is
If <
rs /- •• ?? .,P p??'`' ?ls f "t, ? I? i s3ti 11b ,zi.D d
? 7 s ?\. ts:c., ?<< 1 ?,-. •.• _?• 5 ° u3 ?.1 0 o? I f \?° ??i
SR IIfiR ?' p_
JI:
Its
l „ t-4
?`Is ?, \1 ? ? y ?{, ? ? ° o. ? `tea ?•' / ?? =
°b,? \ ; , _ °ey •4 I wn .. •Y. A ,: ?.J° yy(11yq?`(, -9 - ?.
`? \? \ ?\ .._\ N ..\ d ?I • f?_. ? i ? ??iv ?`?I°'ll? { I? t 1 f ???i / .la?..-I.
??---/ \ (IS \` -41h BAIL IN RD ? ? ?Ib FA - ? • \.?
-1 ()? \\ 9s,"-I f 13I l? fiF (l
I
C
1, ?' .1 1
i \
' 1 l 1
I)
i
? ??•.-.__'-..: _.:. T ? ?', ? ?, ?? t ? I f. ' fly .,: / I `?.° ?.
1 ,
14
F>
-? ?? .' ¢?---'-?•, ? ?. ? \ J , psi
\? C .,,._ ? ?? `\? ? Isom lb? ? '? ?? ? ?.
i : to
M 3 0 Z c- 0 2
°m ° o 3 j z a o
?n f A D m _
I I go m
•-' D
I I I I :
3: _
sa? ()<'J'? N / ?_ ?<'.?eF...•. ??':?z { Itlll 0i?1} I I€? /,?
04- °Q • ¦ I I la
lip ui p0; o?i,? 1\ J ?D m .1 `Ft ? ?% ?'i ? ':;:8{ {? f { ifjfY? f{y"ii iE• "? :?
O Q* RI
Z p x 4{ v•'' >!t?'4%`:9:•k 1 c { f S 5•ti9%??"9{i•Q?%+ a iii 8
W - ? Z Z • ' : coo ,.t d ;i i t• ; ; 9?{kiI i !
. ¦
io 'Z ? ? to r ? ` rs % ! ,f e 5 ci:?"? 4
Z s'
Zy
z ?
Z I •
f Girl Stout •• `? .?.
r ` 1 Cam
p. r i co"WI
1,
IT .? BM 1279. ?' l
F, •? City 1
Filtration •'? . - .' _. c Hall
Plats y?`.• ?•• ._,Citvarv o? County, a=)
i ' • Athletic ? ; y `+ Ouse
Field
Marion `'s
-it t.
?• BM 1395
1? t T
Cro.Mi11 a P ark l' ii ???\? `-•?. / II +::
-7 K
Z WT
-7- X
Nem Chi '; f-. ,' •? •-
Begin -
8M
~ - - i\ 1360 L s BM
- r= % / • ?l - ` - a 1418-^ ' • I r° i ) I / X/966 ?^
e
`? .. l y? •G? •1' 9? i i T Bethlehe. Oh
373 ? "_.- .: "`:: ?;Y ?B,, •/? `-?-?_-._?__ ... ; ?.
Gethsemane. • • / BM 427
Ch t39r ?. <i ?~'• ,
Claypit
• ' /
Mt Calvan Trail r 't' ` 11 T,• '?
? \ Ch Park -- ?: ` ` -
West Court
?• --- ` -
/ - - -= Cem' -" • ?? _Trader ,• : f: _
;Park A '•
d
West
Marion _ _4. ?,«<
\ 1669 >: •`• _ .'' ,\ •1' - - r
/ _ - ,?' ? Al1 • - _ ? ? ao4 : _ _
.01
- - l
N60- r:• r
End
1 "? \\\ 0 , Ashworth Rwd ` .' . J ?-
` ` ` J ',? L• 30E1 . `° ?c` ?I .Trailer. 1385
Trailer I
-- _ ?? ?'?? Park •-= ? as • ?'" ? .?, ' ?> - ? -
..? .... - j Sugar HII( ??i;-?' - .. \' ?n •?' • . ; ??--'"> i 1
. _14
f . ??
Rest
Area*
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
• _ _ / TRANSPORTATION -
??` ?', 1 y 6?p 82 r\ (?`' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PTOV1denCe PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
p. 1137 1_ ?. r - i - •)r
T a' 1153 N, S 7 - G
?Parkr "11157 : /'• \• i
• : /• McDowell County
• . /. . _ - _ . -= ?n? Widen SR 1001 from I-40 to
tiG79 • _ .C .. :y
?_,. ,,c_ =?-r ` '?r.•,;?;• - ./ ? the Marion Bypass ,r
-: - \ R-2634
f - ` s.75 SCALE 1:24000 FIGURE 2.
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001) FROM INTERSTATE 40 TO US 221 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 1996 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN HUNDREDS
'0 Sugar Hill
s?T .0156 SR 1001
120 14
20
162 34
ss A? 20
v
Woodlawn Street zo 7 20, 14
0 1 14 14
F/
aI: 19 34
0
60?)12? 1- 161
108
1 US 221-NC 226
W. Henderson
Circle 1 Marion Bypass
161
Pm
60f. 12 1
(1, 1)
161
Pm Pm
3 60 112 2 1 _ 12 L1 ) 60 1
W. Wilhemenia Street 1 1-
SR 1260
160
Pm
60 12 2
High Street 3
SR 1535
159
9 -Pe- 60
3
156
?23
2
1 35 l *,?
1
1- 25
,
23) \
Stroud Street
-
9?,o - 6
r2•u
7i 134 1?
SR 1168
30
Rankin Drive
1 Carrie Street
SR 1323
e SR 1182
118
o Q0 e5 5
or Stroud Street
SR 1183
5
123
A A'
9
California Avenue
SR 1170
Sgtewlde Planning Braneh
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
TIP Project R-2643 McDowell County
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) Widening
Legend
D-iJ-
lxyl
0HV . Deri9n HaarlY Val- P9rpntr9a
D . Olra.YOnai so. P-1-9r
an P- Heur a Okol- a NO filer
+ 0- Truce Parwntr9a
Y . TTST Paranrr9a
HHa: II DHV rna 0 era nrl porn, 1PaY era lna rams rr thr OPPPPn9 49.
April toa6 Raoefeon Not To Seale SMet t of 4
FIGURE 5
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001) FROM INTERSTATE 40 TO US 221 BYPASS
R
ESTIMATED 1996 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN HUNDREDS
A -A'
2
e^' 123

`
1
5
70 Am
(~ 6p

117 16
Shady Lane
1? 10
55(1
) SR 1164
r
5
Lukin Street
SR 1193
116

?- 10 2.,60
(1. 1)
6 6
Steppe Street
SR 1169
122
1 g -1?60 1)
/?
i1- 1
1
Meadow Lane
SR 1271
121
Pm
9 (f?60 pm
9 3 55 2,2) 12
20 4

Veterans Drive 11 1 MARION
SR 1191 SHOPPING CENTER
121
Pm
1 19 7, 71) 60
1
° Mill Road
E i
°? ` SR 1189

e 120
Pm
60 (1.1)9
1
1
1~
Condrey Road E e
SR 1190 °? = 119
e
25
8 t 5
8 30 -Z
4 1
5
22 t
/ 11
60 pm 13 243 1-40
(5 j5)
232
254 ?• 22 98
11
so pm 10 24
w)
83

III SUtowide Planning emnoh

F
E Division of Highways
I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
TIP Project R-2643 McDowell County
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) Widening
Legend
l+.Yl
OMV . 0•u9n M•Yrly VOIYT• P•rNn4 q•
0 01r•e••nu SpM Pu pn.•q•
O ?? P••t Heur l 01r•c.on ., F- fl..
r Ouu T,- Peru l•
•
.
r TTST P.reMbp
lYa•: n olrv •n• o m nw a m•r •r• rn• ••.• •• m• s•P•onq lq.
April taa6 potunon Not To Seale Shoot 2 of 4
SR 1001
FIGURE 6
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001) FROM INTERSTATE 40 TO US 221 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN HUNDREDS
Q0 Sugar Hill
R 1001
63 S
?W4
280 58
10 34
WOodlawn Street 34
g 3 24 24
24
i;A1
33 58
0
60)120 1_ 275
260
W Henderson 1- US 221-NC 226
Street 1 Marion Bypass
275
Pm
60'0- 12
(1, 1) 1-
275
60f 12 2 1- 12 P60
3 (1'1) (1'1) 1
W. Wilhemenia Street 1 1-
SR 1260
274
Pm
60"sl 1/2 2 _
High Street 3 y}
SR 1535
273
8 9?1W60
•4
269
0 3
`o
234
1
1- to 41
Stroud Street
Pm 32?
9 (60 10
? 233
SR 1168
42
Rankin Drive
SR 1323 1 Carrie Street
SR 1182
211
o Q? 66
1 5
- °?= 9 Stroud Street
?:- SR 1183
5
216
A A'
12
California Avenue
SR 1170
34tewlde Planning Branch

i Division of Highways

t North Carolina Department of Transportation
roject R-2643 McDowell County
ugar Hill Road (SR 1001) Widening
Legend
O
OMV
Iry/
DNV . 0..19. Volum. P.1-1.9.
0 . 0l1-...I S.I. P.r..n9.
Post Z, S Dk.o.on of Post Flo,o
r 0,11 T-k PM..n1691
r TrST Ps-log.
H.p: a DNV on# a ... ..1 aswn, m.r w n1...Im .t M. epp.vng I.q.
April 1906 Roberson Not To Scale Shest 3 of
FIGURE 7
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001) FROM INTERSTATE 40 TO US 221 BYPASS
ESTIMATED 2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN HUNDREDS
A -A'
0
F'_ 216
Q?
L14

7 ?0 Am
6n

209 21
Shady Lane
PM
55 (??) 10
4i SR 1164

Lukin Street D
SR 1193
207

/?-
4 10 -'M@-- 60
(1, 1)
? 7
7 Steppe Street
SR 1169
214
1
.
9 ( 60
1
Meadow Lane
SR 1271
213
Pm
9 (???60 Pm
11 4 55 2,2)12
24 Veterans Drive 13i 6 MARION
SR 1191 SHOPPING CENTER
213
Pm
1 13 1) 60
1
° ?- Mill Road
I SR 1189
Q 212
Pm
601- 9 1
(11)
1
11
Condrey Road E
SR 1190 al =
de 211
43
10 50 l 9
10 6 ~ 1
1- 9
40 19
p rn 1-40
60 (6 15)
469
511 174
40 19
Pm 101 X43
60 ()
147
SR 1001

-$ Satowldo Planning Branch

?
41 Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
TIP Project R-2643 McDowell County
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) Widening
Legend
DMV?
(+JY
ONV Da..F. all rN Vel Vrna ParNntags
D - Dmraca nal SW Par.....
<r? • Ptak Naar A 0... n of hak Flaw
s DV aI T'... Par rata
y TTST Parplnaga
NeN: 11 DNV ana D era nor ..-rl. Ina era rna urns .. Ina .--q Nq
April 1996 Roberson Not To Seele Sheet ! of !
FIGURE 8
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION OF
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001)
AND RANKIN STREET (SR 1323)
a
Rankin Street
(SR 1323)
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
A
NORTH
FIGURE 9
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION OF
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001)
AND STROUD STREET (SR 1168)

- - - - - - - - - Stroud Street
I;- (SR 1168)
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
•
A
NORTH
FIGURE 10
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION OF
SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001)
AND US 221/NC 226 (MARION BYPASS)

I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I I
I I 1
i I I
I I Il
I i I
I I I
I I
I i
I I
I i
I I
I I
air - ______ US221/NC226
(Marion Bypass)
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)

A
NORTH
FIGURE 11
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION LETTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLYTO October 24, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

2 y u s' 1996
Q

This is in response to your letter of August 7, 1996, requesting our comments on
"Marion, Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass, McDowell County,
Federal Aid Project Number STP-1 001 (13), State Project Number 8.2871101, TIP
Project No. R-2643" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199702055).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Sh ford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
B-1
October 24, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Marion, Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass, McDowell County,
Federal Aid Project Number STP-1 001 (13), State Project Number 8.2871101, TIP
Project No. R-2643" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199702055)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in this city of Marion and McDo-,vell County, both of
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 95
and 175 of the July 1988 McDowell County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is not located within an identified flood
hazard area. This is verified by a review of the pertinent United States Geological
Survey 1:24000 scale topographic map, "Marion West, NC."
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
From a preliminary review of the project, it does not appear that the proposed work
would likely involve the discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of the United
States. However, if there is involvement of any such discharge into waters and/or
wetlands in conjunction with this project, including the disposal of construction debris,
prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required. It is probable, if there are any minor
impacts to waters, including wetlands, from the proposed project, that the work could be
authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Chapin.
B-2
I
OF ?Xu0--l
o?PPt?ENT ry?y?
p United States Department of the Interior
N O
7 ?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ygRCH 3-Aea Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 20, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Proposed widening of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from Interstate 40 to the Marion
Bypass, McDowell County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2643
In your letter of August 7, 1996, you requested information regarding potential environmental
impacts that could result from the subject project for your use in preparing an environmental
document. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will involve the widening of the
existing Sugar Hill Road in Marion from a two-lane to a five-lane facility for a distance of
approximately 2.3 miles. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is familiar with this
particular section of Sugar Hill Road. It is in a primarily urban/suburban area, and available fish
and wildlife habitat is limited and relatively disturbed.
The Service does encourage, however, an evaluation of possible project-related impacts on
federally listed endangered and threatened species and Federal species of concern. We have
enclosed a list of such species for McDowell County. Please note that Federal species of concern
are not legally protected under the Act unless they are formally proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our list to request your assistance in
protecting them.
B-3
The Service's review of the environmental document would also be greatly facilitated if the
document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (the build
and no-build alternatives).
(2) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of
the proposed road improvements.
(3) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as a consequence of the
proposed project.
(4) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e., spanning structures,
culverts) and the rationale for choosing the preferred structure(s).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In any future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-117.
Sincerely,
Nora A. Murdock
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
B-4
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-96-117
.11
McDOWELL COUNTY
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Vascular Plants
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) - Threatened
SPECIES OF FEDERAL CONCERN
Vertebrates
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealis)
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
Southern Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma floridana haematoreia)*
Invertebrates
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis)
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria dana)
Vascular Plants
Roan sedge (Carex roanenis)
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum)**
Rocky shoal spider lily (Hymenocallis coronaria)
Butternut (Juglans cinerea)
Gray's lily (Lilium grayi)
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata)
Northern oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla)
*This represents a historic record; the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
**This represents an obscure record; the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
B-5
FM208 -
0?-3,Af.
MAILED TO:
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANK VICK
PLANK. E ENV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS - ?:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27 -$003
FROM:
I'MRS• CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO SUGAR HILL ROAD IN MARTION9 NC
FROM I-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS; TIP #R-2643
SAI NO 97E42200122 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(?) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
Z
C.C. REGION C DYV 11996
?Sr
9?MErt'r?` i"•
a
x
B-6
State- of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 Affl?awA
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
11,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee v
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0122 Sugar Hill Road Widening, McDowell County
DATE: September 17, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review. More
specific comments will be provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation of the
environmental document, additional information is needed, the applicant is
encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
attachments
RECE VED
SEP 1 81996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
r
t
P.O. Box 27687, N ?`y14 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 r? C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 _ - -__ _ 50°16 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
B-7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
-low
D E H N R
September 13, 1996
To: Melba McGee
From: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Subject: Scoping Request - NCDOT EA Document
Sugar Hill Road Widening
McDowell County, TIP # R-2643
DEHNR No. 97-0122
The Division of Water Quality (WQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the chan ne lized/re located stream
banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? WO requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
r,
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer B-8 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEHNR #97-0122
Marion Sugar Hill Scoping
9/13/96
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from WQ.
1 H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from WQ.
Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review.
The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly banking.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For WQ to concur with an
alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full control of
access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the conditions
of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This
regulation prevents WO from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It is
recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to the
sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant
informs WQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Eric Galamb
mis:970122sc.doc
B-9
e ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DMsion of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
WIllarn W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 97- 012 2 County: Mg' D e%Ale//
Project Name: S.Q /00 /
Geodetic Survey
? This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey.should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic.survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For, more info atio contact the Geodetic urv y office at [phone].
A S rR
ev' wer Da
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
r,
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, AL
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the-Land Quality Section at [phone].
Z w'
Reviewer
M-121941
Date
4
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 276 B_10 • Telephone [phone]
A„ F.,,-I (b..,...+....,+., AFA-r?#;v. Arlin- C......tn?-
I
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 'Ir
August 20, 1996

SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 97-0122, Scoping comments for proposed
widening of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to the Marion Bypass, TIP #R-
2643, McDowell County.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our preliminary review and
comments regarding the subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to widen a 2.3-mile section of Sugar Hill Road to a five-lane, curb and gutter
facility.
Our staff is familiar with the project area. We have not identified any special concerns at
this time. In order for us to provide a meaningful review, the Environmental Assessment
prepared for this project should include the following information:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern animal and plant
species. Contact is the Mr. Steven Hall of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(919/733-7701).
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreages of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be listed.
Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps has been contacted to determine the
B-11
97-0122 Page 2 August 20, 1996

need for a 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Chapin at
704/2714014.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate for
unavoidable habitat losses.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to the NCDOT in the early
planning stages of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville

B-12
11 ?0.'W

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ?;.??
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve Sugar Hill Road from 1-40 to
Marion Bypass, McDowell County, R-
2643, Federal Aid Project STP-1001(13),
State Project 8.2871101, 97-E-4220-
0122
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

ptSG 2 3 1996
D1`JJSJG14 OF
NlG'
`? ??'VtRGN?r??
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
On July 19, 1996, members of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to review photos of structures over fifty
years of age within the project's area of potential effect (APE). We concurred that
none of the structures appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, and all parties signed a concurrence form to that effect.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
C. Bruton
B-13
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # STP - too t CT TIP # X- 2.43 County Me-Dov4
CONCURRENCE FORttiI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description SV- toot (Sut;0.9- kit-L- R.os.e) paoM Z• 4.o -ro "A r-towi
%
?r
? rl PASS
On --%tA6 ; 11 ?'11L representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
,/ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Pa,PaxjnF_-- 4,1 - 41 AMP VIoL40rr Heusc arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Sitancd:
?? _? t 1 ? t 1't V
Reprc OT Date
/ Y/ 12-1
FH% • for the Divisio Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
q to
Repr tative, S-HPO ate
State Historic Preservation Officer to
B-14
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will be ittcludcd.
.
A
d14
r'

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 9, 1997
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr ortatio-?n((??
FROM: David Brook G??I?`z1.
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Sugar Hill Road from 1-40 to Marion
Bypass, R-2643, McDowell County, GS
96-0059
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI.
If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Derrick Weaver
B-15
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
.?'" ? G E 1 V F?
r'
G:) ? 1997
C:
g??
DVr1ct 0C.c, 0?-4?
-r+ .
September 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-0700
Dear Mr. Vick:
b
SEP 2 ;
X- 1996
SUBJECT: Marion, Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to the
Marion Bypass, McDowell County, Federal Aid
Project Number STP-100 (13), State Project Number
8.2871101, TIP Project No. R-2643
There are a number of lots along Sugar Hill Road with
drainage problems.
We are assuming this construction work will take care of
these problems.
There are water and sewer lines as far as Rankin Drive,
located off of Sugar Hill Road.
If you have any questions, or need any further information,
please feel free to give me a call anytime.
Sincerely, ,
J. Earl Daniels
City Manager
JED/dwl
r
A
A
A
B-16
P.O. Drawer 700 • Marion, North Carolina 28752

RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. [D CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
W10"=17l OF
RIOT t?' . "RANCH
N94h JCi@oJ9WDepartment of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
10- DEPT. OF iniiiiSPORTATION
PROJECT: 8.2871101 COUNTY McDowell Alternate 1 of 6 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2643 F.A. PROJECT STP-1001 S mmetrical Widening
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1001 (Sugar Hill Road) from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 7 8 15 2 0 9 3 3 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 2 0 2 0 0-20M 1 $ also 0 020M 4 $ also 2
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 20-40M 2 IW250 0 2D 40m 25 150250 7
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 4070M 0 250.400 8 4070M 32 250400 17
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10OM 4 400-600 0 70-t00M 44 400600 g
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP 0 600 uP 0 100 UP 36 600 uP 2
displacement? TOTAL 7 8 141 37
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 2. New Hope Free Will Baptist Church, IS masonry bldg,
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, containing approx. 2,400 SF
Indicate size, type, estimated number of West Marlon Methodist Church Education Bldg.,
employees, minorities, etc. 1S brick bldg containing approx. 1,800 SF
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 4. Good Used Cars (small used car business), 1,300 SF,
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 2 employees, no minorities
families? Anderson Real Estate (real estate and appraisal office),
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 1,200 SF, 4 employees, no minorities
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 8. As necessary in compliance with state law
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 11. Housing Authority of the City of Marion and local
financial means? newspapers indicate that sufficient business and DSS
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list housing properties will be available.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete 12. Brooks & Broadwell Realty (Brady Brooks), Joanne Howie
relocation? 12 Realty (Ken Spencer), Anderson Real Estate (Brent
Anderson), and local newspapers indicate that sufficient
business and DSS housing properties will be available.
14. See Number 12.

01, Z-1
/ Z211911,11 h_n9447 -?
ol/ Reloca io nt Date Approved b Date
10
4
V Forth M4 Revised 02% d
v1g111a1 d 1 %.vpy-. OEMU newcaovn Hgen[
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
B-17
11' RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
MX E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2871101 COUNTY McDowell Alternate 2 of 6 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2643 F.A. PROJECT STP-1001 West Side Widenin
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1001 (Sugar Hill Road) from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 7 10 17 3 0 12 3 2 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 0 $ also 0 0-20M 4 $ also 2
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS 20-40m 3 150-250 1 20-40M 25 150-250 7
Yes No Explain a?? "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 9 40-70M 32 250-400 17
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70.100M 3 400.600 0 70-100M 44 400-600 9
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 36 600 UP 2
displacement? TOTAL 7 10 141 37
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 2. New Hope Free Will Baptist Church IS masonry bldg,
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, containing approx. 2,400 SF
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 4. Westside BP Gas and Convenience (grocery/gas/misc.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? Items) 2,800 SF, 5 employees,) minority
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Brooks-Broadwell Real Estate, (real estate office and
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. moving company) 1,600 SF, 5 employees,1 minority
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 8. As necessary in compliance with state law.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Housing Authority of the City of Marion and local
housing available during relocation period? newspapers indicate that sufficient business and DSS
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within housing properties will be available.
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 12. Brooks & Broadwell Realty (Brady Brooks), Joanne Howie
source). Realty (Ken Spencer), Anderson Real Estate'(Brent
15. Number months estimated to complete Anderson), and local newspapers Indicate that sufficient
relocation? 12 business and DSS housing properties will be available.
14. See Number 12.
A
C 2 S^ c
Relocatio A en Date Approved b Date
15.4 Revised 02/95 d

Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
=X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2871101 COUNTY McDowell Alternate 5 of 6 Alternate
y I.D. NO.: R-2643 F.A. PROJECT STP-1001 60 km/h Desi n $ eed
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1001 (Sugar Hill Road) from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass
11
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities
Residential 2 3 5 1
Businesses 2 0 2 0
Farms 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0
ANSWE R ALL QUEST IONS
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FA-Vi 15.4 F
2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available after
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
relocation? 12
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 3
0 3 1
VALUE OF DWELLING Dss D
Owners Tenants For S ai
0-20M 0 so-150 0 0-20M
20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M
40-70M 0 250.400 3 40-70M
70-100M 2 400-600 0 70-100M
100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up
TOTAL 2 3 1
REMARK S (Resp ond by N un
2. New Hone Free Will Baptist Church, l
containing approx. 2,400 SF
5-50M 1 50 UP
1 0
ELLING AVAILABLE
For R ent
4 $ 0-150 2
25 150-250 7
32 250-4m 17
44 400-600 9
36 em up 2
41 W
e
37
masonry bldg.
3. Will not be disrupted due to the project..
4. Anderson Real Estate (real estate and appraisal
office),1,200 SF, 4 employees, no minorities
Jack Frost Dairy Bar (seasonal ice cream business)
1,350 SF, 5 employees,) minority
8. As necessary In compliance with state law.
11. Housing Authority of the City of Marion and local
newspapers indicate that sufficient business and DSS
housing properties will be available.
12. Brooks & Broadweil Realty (Brady Brooks), Joanne Howh
Realty (Ken Spencer), Anderson Real Estate (Brent
Anderson), and local newspapers indicate that sufficient
business and DSS housing properties will be available.
14. See Number 12.
ADDroved t

& 1 Copy: State Relocation
2 Copy Area Relocation
B-21
RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. E3CORRIDOR [] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2871101 COUNTY McDowell Alternate 6 of 6 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2643 F.A. PROJECT STP-1001 Condre Road Improvements
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Improvement to SR 1190 (Condrey Road), a Y-Line to SR 1001 (Sugar Hill
Road from 1-40 to the Marion Bypass
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 so-150 0 0-20M 4 $ 0-150 2
ANSWE R ALL OUESTIONS 20.40M 0 150.250 0 20-40M 25 150-250 7
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250400 0 40-70M 32 250400 17
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.600 0 70-1OOM 44 400-600 9
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 UP p 100 UP 36 600 up 2
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 141 37
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 8. As necessary in compliance with state law
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. Housing Authority of the City of Marion and local
6. Source for available housing (list). newspapers indicate that sufficient business and DSS
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? housing properties will be available.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 12. Brooks & Broadwell Realty (Brady Brooks), Joanne
families? Howie Realty (Ken Spencer), Anderson Real Estate
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? (Brent Anderson) , and local newspapers Indicate that
X 11. Is public housing available? sufficient business and DSS housing properties will be
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available.
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14. See Number 12.
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
relocation? 12
7 6/25/98 ?a-
Relocation A e Date Approved b Date
7---- .,.,.,., ..
vriymcu o, i ;,upy: oume metocauon Agen[
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
B-22

APPENDIX C
AIR AND NOISE FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE Al
CAL3CHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB: R-2643: SR 1001, McDowell County RUN: SR 1001 - Build - year 2000
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
----------------
--------------
-
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 900. 17.8 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 900. 17.8 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 15.2 m From CL * -9.8 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1

MAX * 3.4
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.40 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
•
TABLE A2
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 2
JOB: R-2643: SR 1001, McDowell County RUN: SR 1001 - Build - year 2020
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ -----------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0
*
Y2
-----------
805.0
-805.0
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG)
----------------
1610. 360. AG
1610. 180. AG
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------
1375. 14.8 .0 13.2
1375. 14.8 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 15.2 m From CL * -9.8 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.7
DEGR. * 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.70 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A

TABLE A3
CAL3GHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VASION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: R-2643: SR 1001, McDowell County RUN: SR 1001 - No-Build - year 2000
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 900. 17.8 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 900. 17.8 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 6.1 m From CL * -4.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 4.4
DEGR. * 4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 4.40 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

11
TABLE A4
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL -VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2643: SR 1001, McDowell County
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: SR 1001 - No-Build - year 2020
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2
------------------------ *----------------------------------------*
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 6.1 m From CL * -4.3 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 6.8
DEGR. * 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.80 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG)
----------------
1610. 360. AG
1610. 180. AG
PAGE 4
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------
1375. 22.5 .0 9.6
1375. 22.5 .0 9.6
v
A
Y
0
r
FIGURE N1
PROJECT LOCATION & AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
MARION-SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001)
FROM I-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP# R-2643 State Project # 8.2871101
END PROJECT
--?= - , • US 22t
MARION %
1
? 1 1
.?? _ ----------

u6yn
/ -
I i ;
10
?f
0CFAKTNIENTOF
w ti'S
I IltlhW L%TAL
MARION SUGAR HILL ROAD ISR 1001).
FROM 1-+0 TO THE MARION BYPASS.
MCDOWELL COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO STP•10011131.
STATE PROJECT NO 0 2$71101.
T 1 P -4O R-.W
A
TABLE N1
r
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
t
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --+---------------------------------------------------------+
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
+-----------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
-------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an
(Exterior) important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences,
(Exterior) motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped Lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
(Interior) hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels NSA)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
a.
f
A

A
t
•
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Widening From Eastbound I-40 to the Marion Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.2871101, TIP # R-2643
SITE LOCATION
1 SR 1001, Just North of Eastbound
I-40 Ramps
2 SR 1001, @ McDowell Co. Head Start
3 SR 1001, in Open Field South of
Rankin Drive
4 SR 1001, a St. Marks Temple of God
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
Grassy 65.8
Gravel 70.0
Soil 67.0
Grassy 63.6
Note: 1. The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic, except site #2 was
measured at 7.5 meters.
TABLE N4 1/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE E XPOSURE S
Sugar Hill Road (S R 1001)
Widening From Eastbound I-40 t o the M ari on Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.28711 01, TIP # R-2643
f
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From I-40 Westbound Ramps to Shady Lane (SR 1164)
1 Residence B SR 1001 25.0 L 64 SR 1001 25.0 L - - * 69 + 5
2 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 it 30.0 L - - * 67 + 4
3 Residence B " 22.0 L 65 is 22.0 L - - * 70 + 5
4 Residence B " 20.0 L 66 of 20.0 L - - * 70 + 4
5 Residence B " 45.0 L 60 It 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
6 Business C " 30.0 R 63 " 30.0 R - - 67 + 4
7 Business C 12.0 R 68 12.0 R - - * 72 + 4
8 Residence B " 16.0 R 67 If 16.0 R - - * 72 + 5
9 Residence B " 20.0 L 66 " 20.0 L - - * 70 + 4
10 Residence B " 17.0 L 67 " 17.0 L - - * 71 + 4
11 Residence B If 15.0 R 67 ° 15.0 R - - * 72 + 5
12 Residence B It 20.0 R 66 If 20.0 R - - * 70 + 4
13 Residence B If 25.0 L 64 If 25.0 L - - * 69 + 5
14 Residence e " 15.0 L 67 at 15.0 L - - * 72 + 5
15 Business C " 20.0 R 66 If 20.0 R - - 70 + 4
16 Residence B " 16.0 L 67 " 16.0 L - - * 72 + 5
17 Residence a 14.0 L 68 " 14.0 L - - * 72 + 4
18 Residence B ° 16.0 L 67 " 16.0 L - - * 72 + 5
19 Residence B It 11.0 L 69 " 11.0 L - - * 72 + 3
20 Residence B " 22.0 R 65 " 22.0 R - - to 70 + 5
21 Residence B It 24.0 R 64 " 24.0 R - - * 69 + 5
22 Residence B " 27.0 L 64 of 27.0 L - - * 68 + 4
23 Business C " 20.0 R 66 If 20.0 R - - 70 + 4
24 Business C at 40.0 R 61 of 40.0 R - - 65 + 4
25 Business C if 20.0 R 66 is 20.0 R - - 70 + 4
26 Residence B " 19.0 R 66 ° 19.0 R - - * 70 + 4
27 Business C If 16.0 L 67 It 16.0 L - - * 72 + 5
28 Business C " 16.0 L 67 " 16.0 L - - * 72 + 5
29 Residence B if 25.0 L 64 ° 25.0 L - - * 69 + 5
30 Residence B 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - * 67 + 4
31 Residence B ° 30.0 R 63 " 30.0 R - - * 67 + 4
32 Residence B If 34.0 L 62 " 34.0 L - - * 66 + 4
33 Residence B " 20.0 R 66 " 20.0 R - - * 70 + 4
34 Residence B ° 32.0 R 63 If 32.0 R - - * 67 + 4
35 Residence B " 12.0 R 68 is 12.0 R - - * 72 + 4
36 Residence B is 25.0 R 64 If 25.0 R - - * 69 + 5
37 Residence B is 37.0 R 61 " 37.0 R - - * 66 + 5
38 Residence B 28.0 R 63 " 28.0 R - - * 68 + 5
a
NOTE: Distances are from center of the exist ing or proposed roadways. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y- => Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exter ior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
J
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Widening From Eastbound 1-40 to the Marion Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.2871101, TIP # R-2643
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
From 1-40 Westbound Ramps to Shady Lane (SR 1164) - Cont.d

39 Residence B SR 1001 37.0 R 61 SR 1001 37.0 R
40 Residence B 30.0 L 63 30.0 L
41 Residence B " 17.0 L 67 " 17.0 L
42 Residence B " 22.0 L 65 " 22.0 L
43 Residence B " 22.0 L 65 " 22.0 L
44 Residence B " 35.0 L 62 " 35.0 L
45 School E " 35.0 R 62/40 " 35.0 R
46 Business C If 25.0 R 64 " 25.0 R
47 Residence B " 43.0 L 60 If 43.0 L
48 Residence B if 43.0 L 60 " 43.0 L
From Shady Lane (SR 1164) to Stroud S treet
49 Residence B SR 1001 50.0 L 58 SR 1001 50.0 L
50 Residence B if 40.0 L 60 " 40.0 L
51 Business C " 33.0 R 62 if 33.0 R
52 Business C If 30.0 R 63 of 30.0 R
53 Residence B of 37.0 R 61 of 37.0 R
54 Residence B " 21.0 R 65 of 21.0 R
55 Residence B If 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
56 Residence B " 30.0 R 63 is 30.0 R
57 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 " 36.0 R
58 Residence B If 50.0 R 58 is 50.0 R
59 Residence B " 11.0 R 68 If 11.0 R
60 Residence B of 27.0 R 63 as 27.0 R
61 Church E of 42.0 R 60/40 of 42.0 R
61A Church E is 34.0 R 62/<40 " 34.0 R
62 Church E " 21.0 L 65/40 " 21.0 L
63 Residence B " 14.0 L 67 " 14.0 L
64 Residence B If 17.0 L 66 If 17.0 L
65 Residence B " 32.0 L 62 " 32.0 L
66 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 If 40.0 L
67 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 if 40.0 L
68 Residence B If 17.0 L 66 of 17.0 L
69 Residence B " 31.0 R 62 of 31.0 R
70 Business C " 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R
71 Residence B " 18.0 R 66 " 18.0 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - * 66 + 5
- * 67 + 4
- - * 71 + 4
- - * 70 + 5
- - * 70 + 5
- - * 66 + 4
- - 66/41 + 4/1
- - 69 + 5
- - 64 + 4
- - 64 + 4
- - 63 + 5
- - 65 + 5
- - 67 + 5
- - 68 + 5
- - * 66 + 5
- - * 70 + 5
- - * 71 + 6
- - * 68 + 5
- - * 66 + 5
- - 63 + 5
- - * 73 + 5
- - * 68 + 5
- - 65/40 + 5/0
- - 67/42 + 5/2
- - 70/45 + 5/5
- - * 73 + 6
- - * 72 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - 65 + 5
- - 65 + 5
- - * 72 + 6
- - * 67 + 5
- - 70 + 5
- - * 71 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Alt noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Widening From Eastbound 1-40 to the Marion Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.2871101, TIP # R-2643
AMBIENT
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL
From Shady L ane (SR 1164) to St roud S treet - Cont.d
72 Residence B SR 1001 40.0 R 60
73 Residence B " 42.0 R 60
74 Business C " 45.0 R 59
From Stroud Street to W. Woodlawn Str eet
75 Residence B SR 1001 18.0 L 63
76 Residence B " 30.0 R 59
77 Church E It 27.0 R 60/4
78 Residence B " 30.0 L 59
79 Residence B is 35.0 L 58
80 Residence B It 30.0 L 59
81 Residence B " 35.0 L 58
82 Residence 6 is 30.0 R 59
83 Residence B " 30.0 R 59
84 Residence B " 27.0 L 60
85 Residence B " 30.0 L 59
86 Residence 6 " 30.0 L 59
87 Residence B " 45.0 L 56
88 Residence B " 15.0 L 64
89 Residence 8 It 21.0 L 62
90 Residence 8 It 30.0 R 59
91 Residence B " 15.0 R 64
92 Residence B ° 40.0 R 57
93 Residence 6 It 20.0 L 62
94 Business C of 20.0 L 62
3/3
NEAREST NOISE
PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1001 40.0 R - - 65 + 5
" 42.0 R - - 65 + 5
" 45.0 R - - 64 + 5
SR 1001 18.0 L - - * 72 + 9
n 30.0 R - - * 68 + 9
u 27.0 R - - 69/44 + 9/4
" 30.0 L - - * 68 + 9
" 35.0 L - - * 67 + 9
" 30.0 L - - * 68 + 9
35,.0 L - - * 67 + 9
is 30.0 R - - * 68 + 9
u 30.0 R - - * 68 + 9
of 27.0 L - - * 69 + 9
30.0 L - - * 68 + 9
" 30.0 L - - * 68 + 9
" 45.0 L - - 65 + 9
" 15.0 L - - * 73 + 9
" 21.0 L - - * 71 + 9
30.0 R - - * 68 + 9
15.0 R - - * 73 + 9
" 40.0 R - - * 66 + 9
it 20.0 L - - * 71 + 9
to 20.0 L - - * 71 + 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Widening From Eastbound 1-40 to the Marion Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.2871101, TIP # R-2643
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
From I-40 Westbound Ramps to Shady Lane 70.1 66.0 60.5 16 m 33 m 0 35 3 0 0
From Shady Lane to Stroud Street 70.6 66.5 61.0 17 m 35 m 0 13 0 0 0
From Stroud Street to W. Woodlawn Street 71.3 67.2 61.7 20 m 38 m 0 17 1 0 0
TOTALS
0 65 4 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Section
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Widening From Eastbound I-40 to the Marion Bypass
McDowell County, State Project # 8.2871101, TIP # R-2643
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25
From I-40 Westbound Ramps 0 28 20 0 0 0 0
to Shady Lane
From Shady Lane to Stroud St. 0 0 27 0 0
From Stroud Street to 0 0 20 0 0
W. Woodlawn Street
TOTALS 0 28 67 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
It (2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Increases(1) Criteria(2)
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 7, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Marion, Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to the Marion
Bypass, McDowell County, Federal Aid Project Number
STP-1001(13), State Project Number 8.2871101, TIP Project
No. R-2643
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001). The project is included in the 1997-
2003 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in
fiscal year 2000 and construction in fiscal year 2002.
The project consist of widening Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) in Marion to a five-lane, 19.2-
meter (64-foot), curb and gutter facility from I-40 to the Marion Bypass (see attached map). The
total project length is approximately 3.7 k (2.3 miles).
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by,your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation
of a federally funded Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
September 30, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Derrick Weaver, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 234.
HFV/plr
Attachment
K-PA,
6.
221

S
Al
A 8 CS}/r 9 Littl witzer a r
/ 226 1
`
Wood win
McD 5 EL
1 12 Lake'
Taho 226
5
Nleasant GarOen, 2. '1;w X5+ 70
k 4
GP rion5
S
Q?
9 0 NS 6
-- f r` py"`.. 1 I c r
`afi Imo.- 9 1
57 Glenwood
•Ridgecres !7' 2 t
Sugar Hill a Dysartsville
221 0

END PROJECT
U
'
4
221

1 1 t

i
4 t t

rJ
?? ??"? ` I
'Y e

BEGIN PROJECT

3
?

i
v? f
i

`? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

\ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

t PL
ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
,
`
MARION, SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001),
FROM 1-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS,
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1 001 (13),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2871101,
T.I.P. NO. R-2643
0 KILOMETERS 1
0 MILES 0.5 FIGURE 1
*. --- "? N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: Eric Galamb
DEM-DEHNR-Water Quality Section
FROM: Derrick Weaver
Planning and Environmental
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT. THIS ?' FOR YOUR INFORMATION
PLEASE ANSWER .? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE. REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURES
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE` AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r ?.
Y ?
RECE1VEtj
y xm' JON 4 1996
EWIRON4±ENTAL SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Marion, Sugar Hill Road
(SR 1001), from I-40 to the Marion Bypass, McDowell
County, State Project No. 6.804807, TIP No. R-2643
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 25, 1996 at 10:00 am in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail t.hem to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Derrick Weaver, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 234.
DW/plr
Attachment 0q
I?? ? N+h CAL ?

& -2o
11 - 3 z

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 5/14/96
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2643
Project # 6.804807
F.A. Project N/A
Division 13
County McDowell
Route Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
Functional Classification Rural Major Collector
Length 3.7 km (2.3 miles)
Purpose of Project:
To widen the existing Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to multi-lanes in order to
accommodate the future projected traffic volumes and to improve safety along the
facility.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
The project consist of widening Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a five-lane, 19.5-
meter (64-foot), curb and gutter facility from I-40 to the Marion Bypass (see attached
map).
Type of environmental document to be prepared: SEA
Environmental study schedule: SEA Apr 96 - Apr 97
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Rural Major Collector
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: The existing facility varies from two to five lanes along the proposed
project. The two-lane section consist of 7.3 meters (24 feet) of pavement with 1.8-meter
(6-foot) shoulders. The five-lane section is a 19.5-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter
section.
Interchanges 1 Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed cross section is a five-lane, 19.5-meter
(64-foot), curb and gutter facility.
Traffic: Current 11600-16100 Design Year 20700-27500
% Trucks 3
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 311
Design Speed: 50 mph
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 8,800,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition).. (TIP) $ 2,500,000
Force Account Items ................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ................................ $
Total Cost .......................................... $ 11,300,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ....................................... $ 3,700,000
Right of Way ...................................... $ 2,500,000
Total Cost ........................................ $ 6,200,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( X ) COMMENTS COST
X Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ...................................... $ 1,093,620
Resufacing ................................... $
Milling & Recycling (Removal) .................... $
Turnouts .................................... $
Shoulders: Paved .......................... $
Earth ............................. $
X Earthwork ........................................ $ 1,396,463.25
Subsurface Items ................................... $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ........................... $ 226,680
X Drainage (List any special items) ....................... $ 690,000
Sub-Drainage ...................................... $
X Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ........ $
X New Bridge x ......... $ 1,549,080
Widen Bridge x ........ $
X Remove Bridge x ........ $ 74,144
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls .................................. $
Any Other Misc. Structures ...................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter.(2'-6") ........................ $ 240,000
Concrete Sidewalk .................................. $
X Utilities ............................................ $ 210,000
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............ $
X Erosion Control .................................... $ 95,000
Landscape ........................................ $
X Fine Grading....... ............................... $ 135,000
X Traffic Control ..................................... $ 175,000
Signing: New ................................ $
Upgrading ........................... $
X Traffic Signals New ........................... $
X Revised ........................ $ 105,000
RR Signals: New .............................. $
Revised ........................... $
With or Without Arms ............... $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo X Markers X .......... $ 65,000
Utility Constr. (Water and Sewer) ....................... $
X Other(Mob.andMisc., Clear and Grubbing) ................ $ 1,600,012.75
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 7,655,000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 1,145,000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $
Subtotal: $ 8,800,000
X Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: Medium $
Right of Way Subtotal: $ 2,500,000
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $ 11,300,00
Prepared By: Drew Joyner Date: 5/14/96
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loci & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
ALJ 5-20-9E
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and initial and date after comments.
1-4U
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
MARION
SR 1001 (SUGAR HILL ROAD)
FROM 1-40 TO MARION BYPASS
WDOWELL COUNTY, R-2643
FIG. 1
cl/ /q??
.0.

A. 4
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 22I NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
I
APPROVED:
C,
D 4e illiam D. Gilmore, P. E., anager
1 Gl
zyop
Date '???NNic as Graf, Division Administrator
f/F d ral Highway Administration

/0 8
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
T.I.P Project No. R-2643
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
October 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
?tttturrrrrr
?%%`??'(? CA
?? ?.''?FESS/Q• ...
1.
SEAL •
.2 ; 024880
Derrifk G. eave P. .
Project Development Engineer %?F,P••??;GINE;;?' ?Q-
CKrGi?t\14
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
Z
char . Davis, P. E., As tant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Marion
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
From I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass)
McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13)
State Project No. 8.2871101
TIP Project No. R-2643
Division 13 Construction Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis. Branch
NCDOT or its contractors will survey all potential borrow and/or waste locations in order
to avoid wetlands, streams, farmlands, air impacts, and Federally Listed Species impacts.
The location of borrow and/or waste sites` is subject to the proximity of the fill areas,
results of soil tests, and cooperation of property owners. If borrow and/or waste locations
are known prior to the Nationwide Permit Application, an evaluation of these sites will be
included with the application. Prior'to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor -shall obtain a certification from the N.C. Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have no
effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
Finding ofNo;Significant Impact
October 27, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION ........................................................................................ 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................
III. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS ................................................................. . 1
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ......................................... . 2
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ......................................................... . 2
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment .......................................... ..2
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ............................ 2
C. Public Hearing .......................................................................................... ..6
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................ 6
VII. WETLAND FINDING ................................................................................... 12
VIII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING ............................................................................. 12
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................ 12
.X. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................... 13
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial View of Project Area
Figure 3 Condrey Road Alternative A
Figure 4 Condrey Road Alternative B
APPENDIX
Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Public Hearing Press Release
Appendix C Public Hearing Handout
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a multi-lane facility from I-
40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion. The proposed improvement is to
widen the existing Sugar Hill Road to a five-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot), face to face, curb
and gutter facility (see Figures 1 and 2 for location maps and aerial view of the project
area). The proposed right of way width is 30.5 meters (100 feet). This section will
provide a continuous center turn lane and two through travel lanes in each direction. The
project also proposes to remove the ramp access point on the entry ramp from Sugar Hill
Road to I40 west. The ramp would be converted to one way access. Worley Road will
be extended on new location to intersect Sugar Hill Road 90 meters (300 feet) north of
the existing westbound entry ramp to I-40 (see Figure 2). The recommended cross
section is a two lane, 7.2 meter (24 foot) roadway with 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed
shoulders. The total project length is approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles). This proposed
improvement would require the closure of one end of Condrey Road in order to realign
Worley Road on new location.
III. PROJECT STATUS AND COSTS
This project is included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2001 and
construction to begin in FFY 2002. The estimated project cost in the 2000-2006 TIP is
$9,785,000. The current total estimated to cost of the project is $8,805,500, consisting of
$2,505,500 for right of way, $6,000,000 for construction, and $300,000 for prior years
cost.
IV. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
NCDOT will apply for a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14). However,
final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be required prior to the issue of the required permit.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C. Cultural Resources certifying that the
removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer
prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction
regarding the relocation of survey markers along the project.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, on July 22, 1998, and by the Federal Highway
Administration on July 28, 1998. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) indicates a response was received from that agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix A of this document.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Water Quality
Natural Heritage Program
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
Mayor of Marion
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) were received from four
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate:

1. U. S. Department of the Army. Corps of Engineers (USCOE
a. Comment: "We concur with the statement made in the flood hazard
evaluation on page 32 of the FEA that the project does not cross any identified
flood hazard areas and will not have any significant adverse effect on existing
flood plains or floodways."
Response: No response necessary.
b. Comment: "The project is eligible for authorization under Department of the
Army Nationwide Permits 14 and/or 26. The project is located in a trout
waters county, and therefore a predischarge notification (PDN) will be
required. Project design should minimize the length of pipe and culvert
extensions as well as the amount of channel relocations. New pipes and
culverts should be buried below the bottom elevation of the streambeds to
provide for the continued movement of indigenous aquatic species. Multicell
culverts should be designed such that normal flows are diverted through a
single cell in order to maintain aquatic, habitat and allow fish passage through
all regimes."
Response: NCDOT will submit a Nationwide Permit Application (which will
include a PDN) to the Corps of Engineers for review and comments. All pipe
and culvert extensions will be minimized during the hydrologic design.
2. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
a. Comment: "Because of resource concerns from the development of any
actions related to this project, such as contractor borrow sites, we recommend
that you include borrow and/or waste sites within the environmental
assessment and consider the potential impacts to all resources=cultural,
wetland, stream, farmland, and air, as well as Federally Listed Species. Even
though the location and the development of borrow sites is normally left to the
contractor, the sites are often solely for use by the project and should be
considered. We look forward to receiving a list of potential borrow
development sites, with a site-by-site determination of the effects on species
that are protected under the Act. We will provide updated species lists for
Stanly County and/or other potential borrow sites upon request."
Response: The location of potential borrow and/or waste sites cannot be
detailed at this time. The location of borrow and/or waste sites is subject to
the proximity of the fill areas, results of soil tests, and cooperation of property
owners. NCDOT or its contractors will evaluate all potential borrow and/or
waste locations in order to avoid wetlands, streams, farmlands, air impacts,
and Federally Listed Species impacts. If borrow and/or waste locations are
known prior to the Nationwide Permit Application, an evaluation of these sites
will be included with the application. Prior to the approval of any borrow
source developed for use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certification from the N.C. Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of
material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places.
b. Comment: "In the environmental assessment you conclude that the project
will have no effect on the threatened mountain golden heather (Hudsonia
montana). Provided surveys do not identify impacts to listed species at any
borrow or waste sites, we could agree that this project will not likely adversely
affect listed species. In view of this, the Service believes the requirements
under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action."
Response: No new species are listed as Federally-Protected Species in the
project vicinity, nor have critical habitats been encountered in the project
vicinity that may be affected by project construction. However, if any
modifications to the project, new information on the impacts, or new species
are listed, we will reevaluate the project under the Section 7 Guidelines.
c. Comment: "If we are asked to review a wetland permit application for this
project, we will likely recommend that: (1) any disturbance of stream and
wetland areas be avoided to the maximum extent possible (by bridging the
stream and its bankfull width and by altering the route around, or bridging, the
wetland area); (2) stringent erosion and sedimentation controls be installed
and maintained in order to prevent unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources;
(3) a vegetated buffer be maintained between the construction corridor and
any wetland or stream, and (4) temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation
be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of any ground-disturbing activities
in order to prevent soil erosion. The Service will likely recommend that some
form of compensatory mitigation be provided for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and streams."
Response: Hydric soils are not shown as being present on the project site in
the McDowell County soil survey and no jurisdictional wetlands were
identified in the study area. Therefore, no jurisdictional wetlands will be
impacted by the proposed project. Stream impacts will be minimized to the
maximum extend practical.
3. N. C. Department of Environment Natural Resources (NCDENR) Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC)
a. Comment: "We prefer such transportation improvements over construction of
new highway corridors, and. have no objection to development of the road
widening option recommended in Alternative 4. No wetland impacts are
anticipated, and no trout waters are involved; therefore, the NCWRC concurs
with the findings in the EA."
Response: No response necessary.
4
b. Comment: "Because McDowell is recognized as a "trout water county" by the
COE, the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits
required for this project. While we do not anticipate modification of the
project because of trout waters, we will evaluate the extent to which the
project design avoids and minimizes impacts to surface waters. We offer the
following comments:
1. Stormwater runoff from curb-and-gutter structures should be directed to
buffer areas or retention basins and should not be routed directly into
streams.
2. The NCWRC prefers spanning structures at stream crossing to minimize
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Spanning structures maintain
channel integrity, will not impede fish passage, and provide an open travel
corridor for wildlife.
3. All borrow and waste areas should avoid wetland areas and should be
identified in the permit application."
Response:
1. Stormwater runoff will not be routed directly into streams as in accordance
with the design standards of our Best Management Practices.
2. The proposed construction will not result in the construction of any new
stream crossings; however, it will necessitate the widening of the two pipe
crossings and one culvert crossing to accommodate the new facility.
3. NCDOT or its contractors will evaluate all potential borrow and/or waste
locations in order to avoid wetland impacts. If borrow and/or waste
locations are known prior to the permit application, an evaluation of these
sites will be included with the application.
4. N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of
. Water Ouality (DWO)
a. Comment: "The project will involve no fill in wetlands. A culvert extension
at an existing perennial stream crossing will be required. NCDOT has
sufficiently demonstrated avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts. The project, as currently planned, would not require wetland or
stream mitigation. We ask that DOT stipulate that borrow materials will not
be taken from wetlands."
Response: NCDOT or its contractors will evaluate all potential borrow and/or
waste locations in order to avoid wetland impacts.
b. Comment: "Based upon the impacts described in the EA, a General
Certification will be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization may
require formal application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ.
Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent
practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where necessary."
Response: NCDOT will request a General Certification during our permit
application process. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the
proposed project. To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be enforced during the construction phase of the project.
c. Comment: "DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
EA. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost."
Response: No response necessary.
C. Public Hearin
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a combined location and
design public hearing was held June 8, 1999 (see Appendix B for a copy of the public
hearing notice). Approximately 100 citizens and nine NCDOT personnel attended the
pre-hearing open house. Following the pre-hearing open house, a formal public hearing
was conducted and was attended by 60 citizens and nine NCDOT personnel (see
Appendix C for a copy of the public hearing handout). All of the questions and concerns
raised dealt with individual property concerns, as well as questions about the typical cross
section, alignment, noise abatement, construction easements, right of way, relocation
assistance, and the project schedule. Most of these questions and comments were
adequately answered at the hearing. Eleven written comments were received and were
considered in the final design of the project. -A recording device was available for
citizens to make verbal comments as a matter of public record; four were received at the
public hearing. One of the four was a request to reconnect Condrey Road (SR 1190) to
Worley Road Extension (SR 1190) in order to keep both ends of Condrey Road open to
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001).
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Condrev Road Alternatives
At the post-hearing meeting, NCDOT initially agreed to include the Condrey Road
connection to the Worley Road Extension as part of this project, since Condrey Road is a
gravel road needing improvement. Two alternatives were considered for this connection.
Condrey Road Alternative A follows the existing alignment of Condrey Road and
intersects Worley Road 110 feet west of Sugar Hill Road (see Figure 3). There is a
significant elevation change between Condrey and Worley Roads resulting in driveway
connections with a steep grade for a minimal connection. This alignment would require
one additional residential relocation and approximately 48 feet of stream impacts. The
estimated right of way cost for this alternative is $87,000.
Condrey Road Alternative B swings northward on new location, intersecting Worley
Road 390 feet west of Sugar Hill Road (see Figure 4). This alternative was studied to
provide an improved connection to Worley Road and to avoid the residential relocation.
This alignment would impact 279 feet of the stream and .002 acres of wetlands. The
estimated right of way cost for this alternative is $140,500.
Condrey Road Alternative A creates only a minimal connection to Worley Road and
requires the displacement of one additional relocatee. Condrey Road Alternative B
J
requires substantial stream relocation and is cost prohibitive. Since neither Alternative A
nor Alternative B has all of the advantages of desirable design, low cost, and minimal
potential environmental effects, it is recommended that the connection not be made.
Besides, Condrey Road is scheduled to be paved in FY 2000 providing an improvement
over the existing unpaved road.
B. Condrey Road Alternatives Environmental Effects
1. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities previously described in the March 25, 1997 NRTR
were identified in the study area. A list of the two communities and the proposed
impacts resulting from the Y-line improvements are located in Table 1.
Table 1. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities for Condrev Road Alternatives.
Alternative Disturbed Community Floodplain Alluvial Forest
ha (ac) ha (ac)
A 0.50(l.24) 0.06 (0.15)
B 0.53(l.30) 0.36 (0.89)
2. Stream and Wetland Impacts
The project area includes an unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek (Index #
11-32-1) a "Class C" waters of the state. Physical characteristics of the stream
include a 1.5-1.8 m (5.0-6.0 ft) wide and 0.8 m (2.5 ft) deep channel; and a 0.9 m (3.0
ft) wide and 0.3-0.6 in (1.0-2.0 ft) deep stream. The stream substrate is composed of
bedrock, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt.
Additionally, a small jurisdictional wetland was identified in a drainage area
adjacent to the unnamed tributary. The site was dominated by elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese grass (Microstegium
vimineum), and jewel weed (Impatiens capensis). Hydrologic indicators include
saturated soils and oxidized root channels. Soils at the wetland had a hue of 1 OYR, a
value of four, and a chroma of two. Stream and wetland impacts associated with the
proposed Y-line improvements are included in Table 2.
Table 2. Stream and Wetland Impacts for Condrev Road Alternatives.
Alternative Stream Type Stream Impacts Wetland Impact
m (ft) ha (ac)
A Perennial 15(48) 0(0)
B Perennial 85(279) 0.001 (0.002)
3. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of August 15, 1999, the FWS lists the following federally protected
species for McDowell County (Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows, as well as, the appropriate biological conclusion.
Table 3. Federal Protected Species for McDowell County, North Carolina
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Clemmys muhlenbergi bog Turtle T(S/A)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald Eagle T
. Hudstonia montana mountain Bolden heather T
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Name: Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi)
Family: Emydidae
Federal Status: Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (southern population)
Listed: June 4, 1987
The bog turtle is a small semi-aquatic reptile, measuring 7.5-11.4 cm in length,
with a weakly keeled, dark brown carapace and a blackish plastron with lighter
markings along the midline. There is a conspicuous orange or yellow blotch on each
side of the head. This species exhibits sexual dimorphism; the males have concave
plastrons and longer, thicker tails, while females have flat plastrons and shorter tails.
The bog turtle is distinguished from other turtles by its small size and the bright
orange or yellow blotch on each side of its head.
The bog turtle is found in the eastern United States, in two distinct regions. The
northern population, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, southern New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware is listed as Threatened and protected by the
Endangered Species Act. The southern population, occurring in Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia is listed as Threatened Due to
Similarity of Appearance.
Preferred bog turtle habitat consists of fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy
meadows and pastures. Areas with clear, slow-flowing water, soft mud substrate, and an
open canopy are ideal. Clumps of vegetation such as tussock sedge and sphagnum moss
are important for nesting and basking. This species hibernates from October to April,
hiding dust under the frozen surface of mud. The diet consists of beetles, moth and
butterfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, snails, nematodes, millipedes, seeds, and carrion.
J
Mating takes place in May and June, and the female deposits the clutch of 2-6 eggs
in a sedge tussock, a clump of sphagnum moss, or loose soil about a month later. The
eggs hatch in 42-56 days. A female may not nest every year, and probably only
produces one clutch per reproductive year.
The primary threats to the bog turtle are loss of habitat (from increased residential
and commercial development as well as draining, clearing, and filling wetlands) and
illegal collecting for the pet trade. Nest predation and disease may also play a role in
the population decrease.
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore
not protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to
control the illegal trade of individuals from the protected northern population, federal
regulations are maintained on the commercial trade of all bog turtles. No survey is
required for this species.
Name: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Family: Accipitridae
Federal Status: Threatened
Listed: March 11, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major
nesting population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do
occur elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark brown to chocolate brown in color. Immature eagles lack
the white head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color
with blotchy white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles
can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range in length from 69-94 cm and
have a wingspan ranging from 178-229 cm.
Several factors affect eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are found in
proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the
largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle
nests are approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Biotic communities found in the study area do not provide suitable habitat for the
bald eagle. While the site location is located next to a water source, the stream is too
9
small to support food used by the bald eagle. Additionally, an August 24, 1999 review
of the Natural Heritage database found no occurrence of the bald eagle in the project
vicinity. Therefore, no impacts will occur to this species from project construction.
Name: mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana)
Family: Cistaceae
Federal Status: Threatened
Listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: June (mid to late)
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in
color. This shrub usually grows in clumps and retains its leaves from the previous
year, which appear scale-like on the older branches. Leaves appear awl-shaped and
thread-like. Mountain golden heather forms solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers.
These yellow flowers have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit
capsules have three projecting points at the tips and are round in shape.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops, with known
populations found at elevations of 850.0-1200.0 meters (2800.0-4000.0 ft). It can be
found on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds
dominated by Leiophyllum that merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially
shaded areas, but do not appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas. A critical
habitat area for mountain golden heather exists in Burke County.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Biotic communities found in the study area do not provide suitable habitat in the
form of balds and open rock faces. Elevations within the study area ranged from 415 to
427 in (1360 to 1400 ft). Additionally, an August 24, 1999 review of the Natural
Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no occurrence of the
mountain golden heather in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts will occur to
this species from project construction..
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
There are 12 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for McDowell County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are
defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species
were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
10
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state
status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. An August 24, 1999 review of the NC Natural Heritage
Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of
North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for McDowell County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Contonus borealis Olive-sided flycatcher SC No
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR No
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian woodrat Sc* No
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave water slater SR/PE No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR Yes
Carex roanenis Roan sedge C Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC ** Yes
Hymenocallis coronaria Rocky shoal spider lily ' W3 No
Juglans`cinerea Butternut W5 No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C Yes
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla Northern oconee-bells. E-SC No
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated
material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered..
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or
disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a
main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"WI"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well
known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily declining or in trouble.
"W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species that is poorly known in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily considered to be declining.
I1
"W5"--A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat;
populations may or may not be known to be declining.
"/P "--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
*** -- Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
**** -- Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or
disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a
main range in a different part of the country or the world.
VII. WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established a national policy to
avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction wherever there is a practicable alternative.
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics during the
growing season.
Hydric soils are not shown as being present on the project site in the McDowell
County soil survey and no jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the study area.
Therefore, no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project.
VIII. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," were established to avoid adverse impacts due
to the occupancy and alteration of the 100-year floodplain unless that location is the only
practical alternative. It is required that every effort be made to minimize the potential
risks to human safety and property and to minimize negative effects on natural and
beneficial floodplain value. This project will be designed to comply with these orders
and with North Carolina Executive Order 123, "Uniform Floodplain Management
Policy."
This project does not cross any identified flood hazard areas. The proposed
roadway widening will not have any significant adverse effect on existing floodplains or
floodways. Therefore, in accordance with these orders, the project will not create a
significant floodplain encroachment.
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration the project will not have a significant impact upon the quality of
the human or natural environment. No significant impacts on natural, ecological,
12

cultural, or scenic resources are expected. Adequate replacement property will be
available for the twelve residences, four businesses, and one church, which will be
relocated. No significant impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels is
expected. The project is consistent with local plans and will not divide or disrupt a
community. The project will have no effect on any historic properties listed in or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. No known Section 4 (f) properties will be
impacted by the project. The proposed improvements will have no effect on federally-
listed threatened or endangered species. Therefore, it is determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable for this project. An Environmental Impact Statement or
further environmental analysis will not be required.
X. LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Personnel involved in studies for this document are shown below.
R. B. Davis, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (PDEA).
B. S. in Civil Engineering
28 years experience in transportation
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
PDEA
Derrick G. Weaver, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
PDEA
Jennifer Harrison
Transportation Engineering Associate
PDEA
Jay Bennett, P. E. -
Roadway Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Tony Houser, P. E.
Roadway Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Carlos Brown
Roadway Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
M. S. in City and Regional Planning
B. S. in Civil Engineering
26 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
6.5 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
1.5 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
14 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
12 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
5 years experience in transportation
13
Keith Bridgers
Transportation Technician III
Roadway Design Unit
15 years experience in transportation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared the Environmental
Assessment (EA). Personnel involved in studies for the EA are shown below.
R. B. Davis, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
PDEA
B. S. in Civil Engineering
28 years experience in transportation
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
PDEA
Derrick G. Weaver, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
PDEA
Jay Bennett, P. E.
Roadway Project Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Tony Houser, P.E.
Roadway Project Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Carlos Brown
Roadway Design Engineer
Roadway Design Unit
Keith Bridgers
Transportation Technician III
Roadway Design Unit
Matt Smith
Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
PDEA
M. S. in City and Regional Planning
B. S. in Civil Engineering
26 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
6.5 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
14 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
12 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Civil Engineering
5 years experience in transportation
15 years experience in transportation
B. S. in Marine Biology
3 years in wetland delineation, NEPA
investigations, and Section 7 field
investigations
14
If,
Thomas J. Padgett B. A. in Anthropology
Archaeology Supervisor M. S. in Anthropology and Archaeology
Environmental Analyses Unit 28 years experience in archaeological
x PDEA preservation
Harrison Marshall Bachelor of Landscape Architecture
Community Planner M. A. in Planning
Community Impact Assessment Section 14 years experience in Planning
Environmental Analyses Unit
PDEA
Steve Walker
Air and Noise Supervisor
Air Quality and Noise Section
Environmental Analyses Unit
PDEA
A.S. in Civil Engineering
26 years experience in air quality and noise
impact analysis

DGW/
15
FIGURES
??IS
`CAI
_ Lit tl I:el I (i '?•
2? 16?
- WoodTSwn 1 '\\
/ McDCt y,
,? T,:hooni 226 !Neb
Pleasant Garden rRlt
rt / r
I 0 1
' r7 •i' ..? •? Glenwood
2ldgecreF/ (7• ?; -
SugarNdl_ Oysartsvdle
221
e
END PROJECT
n
_i U$.
-- MARION
i _
SIX
r

BEGIN PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I BRANCH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MARION, SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001),
FROM 1-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS,
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1 001 (13),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2871101,
T.I.P. NO. R-2643
KILOMETERS
o MILES o•s FIGURE 1
r
0. 3s I r? ?? 1 _ p r?"
---------- --
II ?II
NIP m
c
J I
I o 1I ? ?` I?_) .
Y ,+ I u J
I I ? - I 1? o°
b o I W a I a oo ..I?f - '#
6£• ? oFQ?? ? a ?,. ? ; ? .,c ° 'I'II III IS
+y? ?? ?o Q VO O ?. I I I I F ? ??- off'.
i
tio? P?5
V '
ss - , f
?`a a 'Ors
Z__'
l
- - = ----------
> I s y
-24
II
/ yU?
J
^:. P
______
/ yam' / ?.... (---
\ /; . HS 33S .. 3NI1H WV
Figure 3
i= M ?a S 33S ...I
Ea'• WC7 v :?.: sG
\ \ M sr_ _ .? ? s 1 o °?4
?9 fit, ? ° o `? «-•::wv? S r ?o s /
1 r "
41
_ ? I I I a 4 0 ? A:.`i
p4NMI.i / I
i'-yl 1
iA
N ; I I g' w
IQI
49t; L
N _
?w ° I 1 h w
I
^II' ZOU
r I, ,
O r'S /' ? I I
°a •/? i is ll? ?'?,,° _-
`?
LL,
? ? 3 Y"r /i ? III
0,2
w ?L , l c r ? 4 1
?0U ©° I
w " ? {/ r/ /?r I 1 ii ?
i I
I
i'
i J
h
H
j
O'
A
... 133 3S ... 3NI1H?IVW
Figure 4
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION LETTERS

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
October 5, 1998
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Webb:
61998
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
?c L
1-7
Re: SCH File # 99-E-4220-0162; Environmental Assessment Proposed Widening of Sugar Hill Road
(SR 1001) from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass); McDowell County; TIP #R-2643
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G. S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,

Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
C
Attachments
cc: Region C
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Af innative Action Employer
A-1
JAMES B. HUNTJR. -
GOVERNOR
WAYNEMCDEVITT
SECRETARY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
r - ..- .,,-,
1998)
N. C': STATE GLEARINGHOUSt.
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
99-0162 EA Widening of Sugar Hill Road,
McDowell County
September 30, 1998
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the subject proposal. This department ask that
careful consideration be given to the attached
recommendations provided by our commenting divisions. The
applicant is encouraged to work directly with our agencies
in addressing their issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
s
A-2
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1 -7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.Nc.us/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 501/, RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs - DENR
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 16, 1998
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 99-E-0162. North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Widening of
Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass), TIP
Project No. R-2643, McDowell County, North Carolina.
This memorandum responds to the subject EA. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to widen approximately 2.3 miles of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
from a two-lane roadway to a multi-lane facility in an area of commercial and residential
development. We prefer such transportation improvements over con. ruction of new highway
corridors, and have no objection to development of the road widening option recommended in
Alternative 4. No wetland impacts are anticipated, and no trout waters are involved; therefore,
the NCWRC concurs with the findings of the EA.
Because McDowell County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the
NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits required for this project. While we
do not we do not anticipate modification of the project because of trout waters, we will evaluate
the extent to which the project design avoids and minimises impacts to surface waters. We offer
the following comments:
1. Stormwater runoff from curb-and-gutter structures should be directed to buffer areas
or retention basins and should not be routed directly into streams.
A-3

99-E-0162 Page 2 September 16, 1998
2. The NCWRC prefers spanning structures at stream crossing to minimise impacts to
fish and wildlife resources. Spanning structures maintain channel integrity, will not
impede fish passage, and provide an open travel corridor for wildlife.
All borrow and waste areas should avoid wetland areas and should be identified in the
permit application.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can fiuther assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE
Mr. Mark Cantrell, Asheville Field Office, USF&WS
A-4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A IT4 ?
D E N R
September 15, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell &U6
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to
US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion
McDowell County
State Project No. 8.287110 1, T.I.P. No. R-2643;
DENR #99E-0162
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve no fill in
wetlands. A culvert extension at an existing perennial stream crossing will be required. NCDOT
has sufficiently demonstrated avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts. The
project, as currently planned, would not require wetland or stream mitigation. We ask that DOT
stipulate that borrow materials will not be taken from wetlands.
Based upon the impacts described in the EA, a General Certification will be applicable to
this project. Final permit authorization may require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision
of wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. DOT is reminded
that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns,
to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's
Water Quality. Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC
Mike Parker, ARO
R2643FON
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-5
t/r
??pENT Op
1M QPP' ? '?...? i
C? tim
vi 9
yigACH ?$
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 15, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.B., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
z '?^uY 1
1999 ?.
Subject: Environmental assessment for the widening of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) from I-40 to
US 221/NC 226, Marion, McDowell County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2643)
We received your letter of December 3, 1998, which included the subject environmental
assessment and notified us that you anticipate a determination of no significant impact upon the
human environment as a result of the subject highway project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is providing the following comments in accordance with the provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Because of resource concerns from the development of any actions related to this project, such as
contractor borrow sites, we recommend that you include borrow and/or waste sites within the
environmental assessment and consider the potential impacts to all resources--cultural, wetland,
stream, farmland, and air, as well as federally listed species. Even though the location and
development of borrow sites is normally left to the contractor, the sites are often solely for use by
the project and should be considered. We look forward to receiving a list of potential borrow
development sites, with a site-by-site determination of the effects on species that are protected
under the Act. We will provide updated species lists for Stanly County and/or other potential
borrow sites upon request.
In the environmental assessment you conclude that the project will have no effect on the
threatened mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana). Provided surveys do not identify
impacts to listed species at any borrow or waste sites, we could agree that this project will not
likely adversely affect listed species. In view of this, the Service believes the requirements under
Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
A-6
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If we are asked to review a wetland permit application for this project, we will likely recommend
that: (1) any disturbance of stream and wetland areas be avoided to the maximum extent possible
(by bridging the stream and its bankfull width and by altering the route around, or bridging, the
wetland area); (2) stringent erosion and sedimentation controls be installed and maintained in
order to prevent unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources; (3) a vegetated buffer be maintained
between the construction corridor and any wetland or stream; and (4) temporary or permanent
herbaceous vegetation be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of any ground-disturbing
activities in order to prevent soil erosion. The Service will likely recommend that some form of
compensatory mitigation be provided for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide these comments. We look forward to
reviewing the additional information on associated borrow/waste sites. In any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-117.
Si y
r
4A Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
A-7

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Services Section
November 17, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
RECE?
ra
rq'-

1998
This is in response your letter dated August 25, 1998, requesting our comments
on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for the widening of Sugar Hill Road
(SR 1001), from 1-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass), McDowell County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-1 001 (13), State Project No. 8.2871101, TIP No. R-2643"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199930064).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects that would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Alex Morrison, Jr. P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
A-8
November 17, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for the widening of Sugar Hill Road
(SR 1001), from 1-40 to US 221 /NC 226 (Marion Bypass), McDowell County, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-1 001 (13), State Project No. 8.2871101, TIP No. R-2643"
(Regulatory Division Action I. D. No. 199930064)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Our comments on flood plains for this project were furnished previously by letter
dated October 24, 1996, a copy of which is contained in Appendix B of the Federal
Environmental Assessment (FEA). We concur with the statement made in the flood
hazard evaluation on page 32 of the FEA that the project does not cross any identified
flood hazard areas and will not have any significant adverse effect on existing flood
plains or floodways.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at (828) 271- 4857
The project is eligible for authorization under Department of the Army
Nationwide Permits 14 and/or 26. The project is located in a trout waters county, and
therefore a predischarge notification (PDN) will be required. Project design should
minimize the length of pipe and culvert extensions as well as the amount of channel
relocations. New pipes and culverts should be buried below the bottom elevation of the
streambeds to provide for the continued movement of indigenous aquatic species.
Multicell culverts should be designed such that normal flows are diverted through a
single cell in order to maintain aquatic habitat and allow fish passage through all flow
regimes.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Lund.
14
A-9
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEARING PRESS RELEASE
NOTICE OF A PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSE
AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF SUGAR HILL ROAD
FROM 1-40 TO US 221/NC 226 (MARION BYPASS)
Project 8.2871101 R-2643 McDowell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above pre-hearing
open house on Tuesday, June 8, 1999 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the National Guard
Armory located at 363 Spaulding Road in Marion. Interested individuals may attend the
open house at their convenience between the above stated hours to become familiar with
the proposed design. A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BE
CONDUCTED IN THE ARMORY BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed location and design, right
of way requirements and procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing wil'
be open to those present for statements, questions, comments, and/or submittal of material
pertaining to the proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a period of 10
days from the date of the hearing to: Len Hendricks, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 2761 "
The project proposes to widen Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001) to a multi-lane highway
from 1-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) - a distance of approximately 2.1 miles. A
five-lane roadway with curb and gutter is proposed. This will provide a continuous center
turn lane and two travel lanes in each direction. The project also proposes to remove the
ramp access point on the entry ramp from Sugar Hill Road to 1-40 West; however, a new
connection from Condrey Road (SR 1190) to Sugar Hill Road will be constructed. Driveway
connections will be allowed along Sugar Hill Road except within interchange areas. The
existing signalized intersections along Sugar Hill Road will remain; however, all other
intersections will remain stop sign controlled. Additional right of way and the relocation of
homes and businesses will be required for this project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of the environmental
document - Environmental Assessment - are available for public review in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's District Office located on NC 226 South near
Marion.
Anyone desiring additional information concerning the. Pre-Hearing Open House or
the Public Hearing may contact Mr. Hendricks at the above address; by telephone at
[phone]; by FAX at [phone]; or by Email at [e-mail].
NCDOT - in compliance with the American's With Disabilities Act - will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled citizens who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the above number to give adequate
` notice prior to the date of the hearing.
B-1
APPENDIX.C
PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT
SUGAR HILL ROAD
s
t
MARION
FROM I-40
TO US 221/NC 226 (MARION BYPASS)
COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
JUNE 8, 1999
C-1
AGENDA
1. WELCOME
II. INTRODUCTIONS
III. HANDOUT
IV. MAP
V. RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
C-2
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity, improve safety,
and reduce accident rates along Sugar Hill Road. This roadway serves the southwestern area of
Marion and provides a major connection between 1-40 and the downtown area. The improved
access to the area, savings in operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel time,
and the general improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the local
community.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's procedure for making you, the
public, a part of the planning process. The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views
on the proposed widening/improvements of Sugar Hill Road from 1-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion
Bypass).
The Department of Transportation's views on the above project are set forth in the environmental
document - Environmental Assessment. A copy of this report is available for public review in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's District Office located on NC 226 South near
Marion.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are urged to participate by making your comments and/or
questions a part of the Official Public Hearing Transcript. This may be done by having them
recorded tonight, writing them on the comment sheet and leaving it with the moderator, or by
submitting them in writing during the 10 days following the Public Hearing.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. L.L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
NCDOT
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
FAX: [phone]
email: lhendricks@doh. dot. state. nc. us
T
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT
THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public
hearings. Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine
the alignment by a majority vote of those present.
C-3
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has ended. This meeting will
be attended by NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Right of Way, Citizens
Participation, and others who play a role in the development of a project. When appropriate,
representatives from the Federal Highway Administration and local governmental officials also oil
attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post
hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers safety, costs, traffic service, social
impacts, and public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may require additional study
and may be reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation Members, and/or the
Secretary of Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the public.
You may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal Funds and
20% State Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance cost after
construction. The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of
the previously mentioned activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed,
constructed, and maintained to Federal Aid Standards.
C-4
?1?{ii
1 {{ I{ ;I; i{
0o aY ?_
fa?:l?ii{II? 11{llr,i.a•I llfi!.:I:It:ll!III?IIIhii `?,_/?, ?I I ? ? _-?s.??(IS?
? $ F ¢ ' ? C (J 3 33
if
/ \ ,Ja ? ? ?. ?, ?. +. ?.a ai9.a `g•e ai;^?` .. ?? I~? 3a??, 1,, ?\?? I i? I `; le>\ _ ??_?'?
`,?.;,v \..,.,?.." ?• ? 'fir - U i? / ` ?l? •? -
3y is p { .i ?. ?<i {
C-5

END PROJECT
?i
s c Lrttl -tze"o
226v \
Wood n
McD WELL s"
l.uA.• ?
T,rnornv 6 ^j)Neb •
Pleasant Garden r
\ IC,PN I 't5.
• 1 ? c31 1
Glenwood
2idgecresT - ?j
?? Sugar HIII 6 Oysartsvdle
?i 221
I.JS 221
MAR ON-
1 i
% i ' I Ij i I
I
?Qi`. ? r? SON
syp
of ? /
SIN rte'
BEGIN PROJECT
\' :4,Vo
C-6

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
MARION, SUGAR HILL ROAD (SR 1001),
FROM 1-40 TO THE MARION BYPASS,
MCDOWELL COUNTY,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1001(13),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2871101,
T.I.P. NO. R-2643
0 KILOMETERS
0 MILES b.s FIGURE 1

r
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 2.090 Miles (3.365 Kilometers)
i-
1
Typical Sections: Five Lanes - Curb & Gutter - Berm
Each Lane 12' Wide Berm 8' Wide
ro'
Right of Way: 100 Feet + Construction Easements
Relocatees: Residences: 15
Businesses: 3
Churches: 1
Total 19
Estimated Cost: Right of Way: $ 2,500,000
Construction : 6,000,000
Total $ 8,500,000
TentativeSchedule: Right of Way: December, 2000
Construction: August, 2002

C-7
O
N ~
i
.N

r
l
1
O r
wL?
r?
C1
r l?
V Q
? Q
Q .?
C'n
p„ r V
C-8
J
J
Z
L ?
L "J
o ?o
F N
? I N
N?? E
1 ,
U
u
u
U
Z
?U
o ?o
h N
r

ahd is a typical erarnpie for a -I- project. The actual process and public tnwlvement opportunities are esmbk&W at an appropriate level for each project based on its complevgt
and may vary in accordance with fedefat and state legal requirements) a -indicates typical public participation opportunities Ganes depending upon specific project)
1. Develop Local Area Thoroughfare Plan
Study Initiation
- Conduct initial field trip
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff
e Conduct goals and objectives survey
. *7 Establish local steering committee (upon local request)
Data Collection
- Collect socio-economic data (land use, population,
traffic volumes and employment data)
- Collect transportation network data
- Research environmental and cultural concerns
e - Receive input from various local area sources (needs,
problems, concerns, etc.)
e - Local area develops future year socio-economic
forecasts
- Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
staff to update 11P
e - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
to the press, public and governments for review.
- Finalize TIP following comments
- Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
e - Metropolitan Planning Organizations receive public
comment and approve local TIP
- Secretary of Transportation approves local TIPS
III. Develop Environmental Documents
Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
• - Hold citizen information workshops
Evaluate comments received at workshops
e - Form citizen's advisory group to get local citizens
involved (upon local request)
Data Analysis Select corridors to be studied
- Model existing transportation network - Identify feasible corridors and evaluate costs and
- Generate design year transportation information environmental impacts
- Conduct deficiency analysis e - Hold information workshop on selected corridors
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boards, Technical - NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens.
Staff, and Public governments and state agencies to prepare a draft
e - Discuss deficiencies with local area Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental

- Discuss possible alternative solutions Assessment (EA)

Plan Development Prepare Draft Environmental Document
• - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
- Develop alternative plans each corridor, available to public and send to review
- Review project impacts agencies and local officials for comment
- Conduct cost-benefit analyses • - Hold public hearing on location of corridor (10-day
- Discus alternatives with local area staff and policy boards comment period follows public hearing)
e - Conduct public information workshop(s)
- Discuss and resolve public comments with local staff
- Select recommended plan in cooperation with local
staff and policy boards
Plan Adoption
e - Local government conducts public hearing(s)
e- Present plan for adoption by local government and the
North Carolina Board of Transportation
Plan Implementation
. Local government enforces land use controls
• - Present project requests through TIP process
11. Develop Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
e Local governments select priorities to include in TIP
e - Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings
statewide to update the previous year's TIP
- Transcribe comments and material received at public
meetings, and sut.nit to Transportation Board
- NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
recommended using technical data and information
received in conjunction with the public hearing
- Notify public of selected corridor
Prepare Final Environmental Document
Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
corridor (1)
- If final EWFinding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
of Administration) and federal'agencies for 30-day
comment period
- Send notification of Final EIS to Review Agencies and
Federal Register
- Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
'comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
e - Hold public hearing on project design (10-day public
comment period follows public hearing) (1)
- Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
design are made if necessary.
t7I These steps am cornh ned with corridor bratm for most smaller projects.
Questi=? GaU Otizen Participation unit [phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C 27611 211196
C-9
Development Process
Highway
Identified in Local Area
Thoroughfare Plan
Included in Local Area's
TIP ,Request
Feasibility Study is Conducted
T Funding Established. in TIP
Project Plans and Environmental
Documents are Prepared
Right of Way-.Plans are Prepared
=Final of Way Acquisition;
sign Plans are Prepared
Construction
C-10
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne,
From: John Hennessy 2
OH WI
NCDENR
Subject: Comments on the FONSI for the improvements to Sugar Hill Road (SR1001) from I-40 to
US 221/NC226 (Marion Bypass) in McDowell County (R-2643), Federal Aid No. STP-
1001(13), State Project No. 8.2871101, TIP Project No. R-2643, DENR Project Number
OOE-0268.
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the FONSI, will
not result in an impact to jurisdictional wetlands. The impacts to streams will be approximately 327 linear
feet. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) At this time, the DWQ concurs with the Finding of No Significant Impact. The proposed impacts
are not of a magnitude and nature to preclude the construction of the project.
B) Prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded
that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and
streams) to the maximum extent practical. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed
1.0 acres,, mitigation may be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC
211.0506 (h)(2)). Based on the impacts described in the document, wetland mitigation will be
required for this project.
C) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) 1, the
Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
D) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
l 2/ 16/99
Page 2
E) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
F) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
wetlands in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
Cr) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
H) There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical,
it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be
required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
I) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams will require a Nationwide Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any
approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mark Davis, NCWRC
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
c )s
C:\ncdot\TIP R-2643\comments\ R-2643 FONSI comments.doc
W A
TF9PG
o?0F
r
o <
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary -
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 6, 2001
McDowell County
DWQ Project No. 011599
Widening of Sugar Hill Road from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Byp.)
F.A. Project STP-1001{13), State Project 8.2871101
TIP Project No. R-2643
APPROVAL of §401 Water Quality Certification with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the auzcbed conditions and those listed below, to
permanently impact 309 linear feet of unnamed tributaries to North Muddy Creek and Nicks Creek in
order to construct the widening of Sugar Hill Road from I-40 to US 22UNC 226 (Marion Bypass) in
McDowell County. The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated,21
September 2001 (received 16 October 2001). After reviewing your application, we have decided that
this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certifies No. 3789 corresponding to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number 14. In addition, you should acquire any other federal,
state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will
expire with the accompanying §404 pmt ualm odxrvwi a speed in the Water Quality
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your prc jert, you most notify us in writing, and you may be required
to send tts a new application. If the property is sold, flee new owner must be given a copy of this
Certfication and approval letter and is for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the_fint) end one act or-if stream impacts, exceed 150 -
linear feet, compensatory mitigation maybe ruldured as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6)
and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must followdw moons listed in the attached _ `-
certification and any additional conditions fioed below. '
L Temporary or permanent herbaceous ve oti slacwd be panted on all bare soil within 15 days
of ground-disturbing activities to prom long terin erosion control. If work is to be performed
during winter months, erosion control sbadl be used around all stream crossings and
adjacent to streams. -
2. All in-stream work shall be performed dming low flow cbonMons.
North Carorma Division of WaiwOo itp, 4. DI's Cerffczl;on Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raletft HC =994M Pda&V Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, HC 27639-22E9 Psxaffian)
915-733-1786 (phone), 918-733 3Vzi?.h errswenc.us/ncwetlandst
I Storm water shall be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and should not be routed directly
into streams. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water
sheet flow.
4. The presence of mechanical equipment in stream channels shall be minimized. Heavy equipment
shall be operated from the bank in order to reduce sedimentation and pollutants downstream.
5. All culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream
profiles are not altered (i.e. the depth of the channel shall not be reduced by a widening of the
streambed). Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of
culverts. Culverts shall be installed one foot below the stream to allow for movement of fish and
other aquatic life. The use of designed natural channel structures to direct flow into one cell of
the culvert is strongly encouraged.
6. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimizers; rather, native vegetation in the riparian
areas is to be planted. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
7. No live concrete shall come into contact with surface waters until it has hardened.
8. Rock silt screens at culvert outlets shall be removed at project completion.
9. Any impacts to waters or wetlands associated with waste or borrow pits from this project may
require additional mitigation and will be the responsibility of NCDOT.
Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hear ngs -6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,N.C. 27699_-_6714. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing. -
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act If you have any questions, please telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919-733-9646
or Mr. Mike Parker of the Asbe` ille Regional Office at 828.251.6208 x256.
i A Director
_ Attachment - ,: , ,, :. T ht ; - t - r -
Pc: Wilmington District Caps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers AshevBle Feld Office _ _,
NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office .
Central Files
File "Copy

Sincerely,
d µ SD17[ u
_. s M ISSUED
FILE COPY.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 21, 2001
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 01 1 4 9 9
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. John Hendrix, NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Widening Sugar Hill Road from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in
Marion. Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13). State Project No. 8.2871101.
TIP Project No. R-2643.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a
multilane facility from I-40 to US 22I NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion, North Carolina. The
proposed project will consist of widening the existing two lane facility to a five lane (64 ft face
to face) curb and gutter facility. The total project length is 2.3 miles and will require a 100 ft
right of way.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
streams
wetland.

Site Station Stream Name Stream
Impacts (ft) Stream
Impacts (ac) Wetland
Impacts (ac)
1 10+80 -SRI- UT 1 to N. Muddy Creek 135 0.0094 0
2 20+90 -L- UT 2 to N. Muddy Creek 66 0.0052 0
3 32+00 -L- UT 1 to Nicks Creek 39 0.0032 0
4 32+40 -L- UT 2 to Nicks Creek 69 0.0030 0.038
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
In accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) mitigation policy of "no net loss of
wetlands," the following-avoidance and minimization strategies were employed during the planning and
design phase of the proposed project. These strategies include:
Stream impacts associated with the project total 309 linear ft (0.021 ac) to four perennial
Wetland impacts associated with the project total 0.038 acres of fill to an existing seep
All wetlands were verified on June 22, 2000 by Steve Lund of the U. S. Army Corps of
70 ;M
C7
-C M
M
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

• Reduction of fill slopes in wetland areas from 4:1 to 2:1.
• Discharge of stormwater into buffer areas prior to entering streams.
• Use of existing corridor for project construction
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
No impacts to federally protected species will occur from construction of the proposed
project. A list of the federally protected species for McDowell County and their relevant
information is included in Table 1. Additionally, an August 29, 2001 review of the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program's data for federally, Threatened or Endangered species revealed no new
populations of these species within the project area.
At the request of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), a June 26, 2001 survey
was conducted for small ;whorled pogonia (Isotria medealoides). No species individuals were
observed. Additionally, an August 29, 2001 review of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program's data
for federally Threatened or Endangered species revealed no populations within the project area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the small-whorled pogonia.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Clemmys muhlenbergi bog turtle T(S/A)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T No effect
Hudsonia montana mountain golden heather T No effect
*Not subject to section 7 consultation.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the forseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In a letter dated August 22, 1996, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(NCDCR) concurred with NCDOT historical staff that no structures located in the area appeared
to be eligible for listing in the Nation Register of Historic Places (Environmental Assessment,
Appendix B, page B-13). Additionally, in a letter dated December 9, 1997, NCDCR indicated
that no known archeological sites exist within the project area and consequently recommended
that no archaeological investigations be conducted (Environmental Assessment, Appendix B,
page B-15).
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Preconstruction Notification (PCN), and
Permit drawings for the subject project. We do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but
propose to proceed under a series of Nationwide 14 permits. Additionally, we anticipate that
comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required
prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter, NCDOT requests
NCWRC review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of
Engineers.
Other approvals required for the project includes the issuance of a North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR
DWQ) 401 Certification. We are therefore providing seven copies of the previously listed
documents to DWQ for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Eric Black at
[phone].
Sincerely,
? William D. Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
cc: W Attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Maryellen Haggard, NCWRC
W/O Attachments
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Design Services
Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Dan Martin, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
i
Office Use Only: q Form Version April 2001
01 .1499
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: F_J
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation PD&EA
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleil?h NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-7337-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The .specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Widening, Sugar Hill Road from 1-40 to US 221NC 226 (Marion Bvvass) in Marion
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): R-2643
3. Pronertv Identifontinn Nlimhar (Tnv ATATI-
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Marion
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 west to exit 81 (Sugar
Hill Road). The project extends north to the US 221 intersection
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or. utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Urban, suburban. and wooded areas
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): See attached cover letter.
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Public Transportation
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
Heavy duty construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Urban suburban. and forested land
IV. Prior Project History .
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID.Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 5 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Site 4 Fill 0.038 No 0 Seep

..- ..-- w1Na..t 3cPaiatCl} mru ,ucnu,y remporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill.
excavation, flooding. ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616. or
online at http:/,%v? 'w.fenia.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh. forested wetland, beaver pond.
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.038 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
I Culvert 135 UT I to N. Muddy Creek 3.0 Perennial
2 Culvert 66 UT 2 to N: Muddy Creek 3.4 Perennial
3 Culvert 39 UT'l to Nicks Creek 3.3 Perennial
4 Culvert 69 UT 2 to Nicks Creek 2.0 Perennial

* L'
ist each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap.
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after. and net loss/gain).
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap. crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616. or online at
X??k%c.usus.sov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g.. %%%N%%.topozone.com.
%% wX%.nrnxlucst.coni. etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet).to all streams on site: 309 ft
Page 6 of 13
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S:
Open Water Impact
Site Number

Indicate on ma
( P)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

---- ---" ""F- -r-1-' ""U 1-"1,,Q «1111301 my iuipacAs. impacts include, nut are not limited to: fill. excavation. dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads. etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction- of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands EJ stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Proposed project will be conducted along existing corridor. The project was redesigned to
minimize stream impacts occurring at Site 1 2.1 slopes are proposed in stream and wetland
areas. Type II clearing will also be used to minimize wetland impacts due to mechanized
clearing.
Page 7 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of .the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://li2o.enr.state.nC.us/ncwetIands/strmRide htni1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is reauired because stream and wetland impacts are below compensatory
mitigation thresholds resulting from avoidance & minimization practices
Page 8 of 13
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401 /Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No F
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify P
Yes E] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 13
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. 'If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
c.vnc I eNMuus OUL w feet perpenwcuiar from near oank of channel: Lone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes [:] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes F? No
Page 10 of 13
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
No fish moratoriums are required for the proposed project
9
Wicant/Agent's Signature 15ate Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery
Clay
Jackson
Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockinham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes'
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort
Currituck
Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Fender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 1 1 of 13
US Fis
US Fish and"Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: [phone]
h and Wildlife Service / National N
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
[arine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 13
Stream Location Information
UT I to North Muddy Creek 35°38'53.37"N 82°02'5.34"W
UT 2 to North Muddy Creek 35°3916.61 "N 82°01'43.39"W
UT 1 to Nicks Creek 35°39'52.28"N 82°01'21.79"W
UT 2 to Nicks Creek 35°39'52.90"N 82°01'21.19"W
J
Page 13 of 13

END PROJECT
MARION
laso
ru
r?vav maovv?
isms
LW arm
151
60 ?9
`Y
SUGAR
H/
.U BEGIN PROJECT
ASHEVIUE
VICINITY MAP
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 .FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC 226
SHEET / OF 6 114101 1
Saga, t 1` V-s
SITE 2 ,
at
m
app',, >
1Z
4i ? w$P?
41yo
A- ST,
BEGIN
F.A. PR
SITE-., MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (8-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC 226
SHEET 2 OF 9 114101

11
LEGEND
---WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• • • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• • • • CLEARING

LIVE STAKES
-- r FLOW DIRECTION
Tom- TOP OF BANK
WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -2-- - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----------- WATER SURFACE
BOULDER
-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
E) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
T::? PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
dch.
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC226
SHEET 3 OF a 1141
z
o
O
a ?
?? ? ?" ? H O p O ?j $ U O
a ?1
8 z ?
%i ? ?'?. , I \ it ? 1? ; i a
? ? t? I y II II ? I ?
?' 1 II I I , ?- -
II it
? ?? j lI I I j; A
CL.
I L:
I
i
1 1U
C\j
T

It

o°
T
3
o ?
c
c
0
O
Y
N LWiJ
}" U 14
Q }
M :D z p d
-A L
°Wcr- at,
azz
z o
z F- I
w ?
Q)
U
C
o
a W

MATCHLINE STA. 21+40 -LREV
z °
o

Z
' L
,
C~

\
M

z
x O
..4
0

o z c $ o

A a w
U
W
z

L

p Y
W
N
W
cr
cz: a?
?o
? p
m:D

o?
Wa?
:2 o
Qz
z
z0
z?

w
a
U

O
O

E

-^3211- O +OZ 'd1S 3NIlHDIVW
z °
E o N
Z
co
vZj CC? ? o? C Ey c? ? '? A
W
U W
o C,
v ? _ 09 +
AAA
I H
W U
C) ill z
I`' II
.U ?
1 E? I U
~ m pd a om? II tf
N 3? ? - .?= ? I Ir I o ?
? o
1 ?- 11 11 I wm
_j LLI
ii it m l
oZ li II
/ C) I I I I I U
°
?I I I I w
/ ? ?
> m
w
/ Z 't W I I I I
N ?3 Z I I I
Y
U I `?`I ii UI w "IT
3pd r?l I I
'?-? zi I I I I ? ?
I ; 0?ISO 009 I I m z
,.3
a pd
J
M
I I I
?- a
PEI
N " ??I I I o
\\ II I I I w o'
Y

r
lb

U ? l9

M ? L
U
H
U
a o
a
?
N
d N O
N
w
LL
LL N
O O O
t17 y O
L
N H
W
O
y
d
N C O
E
c L
W U
d
d O Z
O

E
t _
}} Cl)
F
F-
U Q
O
O
=

Q Q
N N

N O U
a) 2 2 J o
co .y ca M ? 0 3 co
a wU E U. Z O
`"
o
CL a
p
h O F
00
? = o U
d
_
LL j
w
p
a U)
L p
p
Of
d
3 Z LL
w ? o
O
a U)
'D r\
c
?0
0 _ a w
M LL w
N x
V)
3
co
C.
)
N
M
N
(n l0
C j i^y C.
O O
O O
O O
O
O

L
cc
O
O
O
O
Z
} LL

Q v = °
C
G N c -
c'

m m L
L

H
U a
- c
° ° o
Q a 19 m
3 L
Z xx
c
_ W
W = O
3 U.
o. ? L
oEi

N

C ?

O M
_M
?
_ ? L
O O
C

3
LL
m o
?m
U N a
2m ,°? w
U
a
U U a
U U Z
0 o
to
° h o
° °
v ?Q

Q
(
D
J
U
O
c U.
O

fA LL 10 0)) O w

O N M M
? N M O J

fA Z
0
F-

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES .
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 MARGIE P. HAGAN RT. BOX 334
LEICESTER, NC 28748
2 JANET A KELLEY P.O. BOX 1965
MARION, NC 28752
3 JOSEPH L. BROOKS P.O. BOX 1298
CORNELIUS, NC 28031
4 PAUL BIRCHFIELD P.O. BOX 1297
MARION, NC 28752
5 DONNA WOOD P.O. BOX 631
MARION, NC 28752
6 RANDY F. COLLINS 203 MEADOW LANE
MARION, NC 28752
7 RICHARD H. WILSON 526 SHADY LANE
MARION, NC 28752
8 PAUL WOESSNER P.O. BOX 2316
GILLETTE, WY 82717
9 W. C. HALL 1007 STATE ST.
MARION, NC 28752
10 RICHARD A. GURLEY 118 HOLLY HILL RD.
MARION, NC 28752
11 BOBBY R. ROBERTS 706 RICE COVE RD.
MARION, NC 28752
12 LOUISE ROBERTS 425 SUGAR HILL RD.
MARION, NC 28752
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC 226
SHEET OF 114101
r

•??
401. ISSUED
01 1499
. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 21, 2001
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. John Hendrix, NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Widening Sugar Hill Road from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in
Marion. Federal Aid Project No. STP-1001(13). State Project No. 8.2871101.
TIP Project No. R-2643.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a
multilane facility from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion, North Carolina. The
proposed project will consist of widening the existing two lane facility to a five lane (64 ft face
to face) curb and gutter facility. The total project length is 2.3 miles and will require a 100 ft
right of way.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Stream impacts associated with the project total 309 linear ft (0.021 ac) to four perennial
streams. Wetland impacts associated with the project total 0.038 acres of fill to an existing seep
wetland. All wetlands were verified on June 22, 2000 by Steve Lund of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Site Station Stream Name Stream
Impacts (ft) Stream
Impacts (ac) Wetland
Impacts (ac)
1 10+80 -SR1- UT 1 to N. Muddy Creek 135 0.0094 0
2 20+90 -L- UT 2 to N. Muddy Creek 66 0.0052 0
3 32+00 -L- UT 1 to Nicks Creek 39 0.0032 0
4 32+40 -L- UT 2 to Nicks Creek 69 0.0030 0.038
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
In accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) mitigation policy of "no net loss of
wetlands," the following avoidance and minimization strategies were employed during the planning and
design phase of the proposed project. These strategies include:
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
C-)
rn ?

• Reduction of fill slopes in wetland areas from 4:1 to 2:1.
• Discharge of stormwater into buffer areas prior to entering streams.
• Use of existing corridor for project construction
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
No impacts to federally protected species will occur from construction of the proposed
project. A list of the federally protected species for McDowell County and their relevant
information is included in Table 1. Additionally, an August 29, 2001 review of the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program's data for federally Threatened or Endangered species revealed no new
populations of these species within the project area.
At the request of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), a June 26, 2001 survey
was conducted for small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medealoides). No species individuals were
observed. Additionally, an August 29, 2001 review of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program's data
for federally Threatened or Endangered species revealed no populations within the project area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the small-whorled pogonia.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Clemmys muhlenbergi bog turtle T(S/A)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T No effect
Hudsonia montana mountain golden heather T No effect
*Not subject to section 7 consultation.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the forseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In a letter dated August 22, 1996, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(NCDCR) concurred with NCDOT historical staff that no structures located in the area appeared
to be eligible for listing in the Nation Register of Historic Places (Environmental Assessment.
Appendix B, page B-13). Additionally, in a letter dated December 9, 1997, NCDCR indicated
that no known archeological sites exist within the project area and consequently recommended
that no archaeological investigations be conducted (Environmental Assessment, Appendix B,
page B-15).
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Preconstruction Notification (PCN), and
Permit drawings for the subject project. We do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but
propose to proceed under a series of Nationwide 14 permits. Additionally, we anticipate that
comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required
prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter, NCDOT requests
NCWRC review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of
Engineers.
Other approvals required for the project includes the issuance of a North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR
DWQ) 401 Certification. We are therefore providing seven copies of the previously listed
documents to DWQ for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Eric Black at
[phone].
Sincerely,
'`' William D. Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
cc: W Attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Maryellen Haggard, NCWRC
W/O Attachments
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Design Services
Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Dan Martin, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
01 149 9
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation PD&EA
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleieh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to 'be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:_ Widening Sugar Hill Road from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass) in Marion
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): R-2643
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Marion
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 west to exit 81 (Sugar
Hill Road). The project extends north to the US 221 intersection
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Urban suburban. and wooded areas
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): See attached cover letter.
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
t,
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Public Transportation
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
Heavy duty construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Urban, suburban, and forested land
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application, date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this- work from the current
application: No
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 5 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Site 4 Fill 0.038 No 0 Seep

* Lt h'
Is eac Impact separateh and Identify temporary Impacts. Impacts include. but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading. fill.
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM). or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616. or
online at http:/%\\ \\ \\.fenr,I.<'ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh. forested \vetland, beaver pond.
Carolina Bav. bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.038 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or .
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Culvert 135 UT I to N. Muddy Creek 3.0 Perennial
2 Culvert 66 UT 2 to N. Muddy Creek 3.4 Perennial
3 Culvert 39 UT I to Nicks Creek 33 Perennial
4 Culvert 69 UT 2 to Nicks Creek 2.0 Perennial

* Lh '
1st eac Impact separately and Identity temporary impacts. Impacts include. but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap.
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding). relocation (include linear feet before and after. and net loss/gain).
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap. crib wall. gabions. etc.). excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
w\\\\.usss.?ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g.. \\,c\v.topozonecom.
N'\\\\.milpglleSt.com. etc.). '
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 309 ft
Page 6 of 13
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.-
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name
applicable) Wat)
(if ap Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impart cN nn-tr lu -4 ;.l-;A, .
-- ----- ----r--• -r°• w••? •???•?•.? LCMporaty impacts. impacts include. but are not limited to: fill. excavation. dredging.
flooding. drainage. bulkheads. etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction- of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands [] stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building' ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable,- discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Proposed project will be conducted along existinp- corridor. The project was redesigned to
minimize stream impacts occurring at Site 1 11 slopes are proposed in stream and wetland
areas. Type II clearing will also be used to minimize wetland impacts due to mechanized
clearing.
Page 7 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
littp://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetIaiids/strmgide.htni1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is required because stream and wetland impacts are below compensatory
mitigation thresholds resulting from avoidance & minimization practices
Page 8 of 13
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No F1
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify P
Yes E] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 13
J
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. 'If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
c.vuc I cMcuuN uut Ju reel perpenucuiar from near nanK of cnannel. Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edee of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
Page 10 of 13
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
No fish moratoriums are required for the proposed project
0e d d
tcant/Agent's Signature ate
Agent's signature is valid only i f an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes.
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett
Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 1 I of 13
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National N
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[arine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2 7699-46 1 7
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 13
Stream Location Information
UT l to North Muddy Creek
UT 2 to North Muddy Creek
UT 1 to Nicks Creek
35°38'53.37"N 82°02'5.34"W
3503916.61"N 82°01'43.39"W
35°39'52.28"N 82°01'21.79"W
UT 2 to Nicks Creek 35°39'52.90"N 82°01'21.19"W
Page 13 of 13

END PROJECT
MAR/ON
rus
r?vav wruaoF
trrrs
rnl
? ue9
SUGAR
HI
4 BEGIN PROJECT
ASHEVILLE
VICINITY MAP
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC 226
SHEET / OF b 114101 1
t
/ /C
SITE 2
C Q
s°
I? fi
Sv ^cpP?
Oy? 10y0
(4
SR??s
-L- SL
BEGIN
F.A. PR
SITEAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 82871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221/ NC 226
SHEET I OF 9 114101
,i
f
a
---WLB---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
® FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• • • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
••` ••• CLEARING
-,*- - FLOW DIRECTION
Tom- TOP OF BANK
WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- ??- - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE_ TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-------- --- WATER SURFACE
OISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC226
SHEET 3 OF 6 1141
LEGEND
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
c7m=D VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
z
o ?
?o
MCP oc
0
a a H
t 1 I i
L
kx \\ 11 II I oil
??1 II I I , ?- -
11 I I
o ( / ' /I I I
Q? S.
111W
T
t

MATCHLINE STA.
21+40 -LREV-
' Ili - I II _
? I l
II

c II I
I
o m II I
? ? I l i i 5 ( m
-? ? I I I
z °
o

o
x U o N
A c a -4
CO
04
0 0 0 4 0 0

a
S ? O `n F ?
A a
w

z

I w
lad
w
w
Nw Lij I I I
w
Q}-?? I
I I I 1 °
ac,
:D
CID ?p I I 1
?o rpd m ?`? 0 0
az v CD
0

i
?
L
p Y
NW
W

ar
F-o
:o
m
= 7r>
F-

°
wo:?
:2o
Qz
z
zo

- !-
-
1 ? II I IIi ? w ? a
1

?

_C
1 IIII
I

? I 1 ?o
1 IIII
? ?'
w IIII I
o
_ W
I I I I I\
1
1 I
I I I i
\

-ARl- 09+0Z 'V1S 3NI1HJiVW O
E

zo. "? I I ?.. bpd
? II I I /
II
w I II II I I / bpd
I II III II //
I I I I `? III i
w ` I III I
z °
? c o
?ui ? x ~ ? 5
o o ? U
Z mQ o
c i v o
ui 7- 09+1c -VIS
m FA
Q A
1 H
LL
LLJ
,? I IN 11
0
C\, AV? ad A om? ? 11 - ,,
Li
F- ?_, 11 11 I m ?_ a
I I I r m l
° z I I I I ?'
/ L)o II II i?
/ I I I I a .?
LUJI > / m cZD I I (I 1 w
I
/ o o W I I I I
Y Z ?I I I
000 Sad "hl I I ?
'H°?? ai I I I I ? ?
I ; CL 009 I I m L
to
\ Ii II I w g o
Z \ WAS I

0

N L

U

N L °
K N 0
N
W
U.
U
N
.
O
O
co
O
m O
N L
CC
_ ?O O ? O
y C
O
U
L
W U
? _
d d O Z
p
8 M E ¢ > (QUO

Ix U
N L Z N
1 Q
C
0
= O
O N
- '
(? (?
O) N y R N ' N m Z= J O
U X L a E O
I
- wU
o
Q m
O O
v
= o a j U
3 O O
ri u
j
L a/?
O
o
j F C Z a
>

w
° O
U
5 0 F-
LLJ
LL w
(n =
(n
CD (") N
(n A
C O
O O
O C.
O O
O O
O
- L c. O C) n ci
} LL Z

Q 'O
N r
C C '
L O O L L
C.) U
C)
F
U a

- c
°
c o
L
x
G Z X
w
W LZ °
3 " o
G d L
d3

N
C In ?
_ L O

LL ?N
S O

m U 0
O
CD
'5 N 0-
2 <q ,°? w
y
U U a a C7
C? Ix V U Z
0 o
?
(D u?
co O
o O
cn
.- m v
U
O LL
C J J J O
(n LL 0 0 0 0 O
+ + +
C14
_O N M ?
N f7
J
m O
(n Z
O

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES

1 MARGIE P. HAGAN RT. BOX 334
LEICESTER, NC 28748
2 JANET A KELLEY P.O. BOX 1965
MARION, NC 28752
3 JOSEPH L. BROOKS P.O. BOX 1298
CORNELIUS, NC 28031
4 PAUL BIRCHFIELD P.O. BOX 1297
MARION, NC 28752
5 DONNA WOOD P.O. BOX 631
MARION, NC 28752
6 RANDY F. COLLINS 203 MEADOW LANE
MARION, NC 28752
7 RICHARD H. WILSON 526 SHADY LANE
MARION, NC 28752
8 PAUL WOESSNER P.O. BOX 2316
GILLETTE, WY 82717
9 W. C. HALL 1007 STATE ST.
MARION, NC 28752
10 RICHARD A. GURLEY 118 HOLLY HILL RD.
MARION, NC 28752
11 BOBBY R. ROBERTS 706 RICE COVE RD.
MARION, NC 28752
12 LOUISE ROBERTS 425 SUGAR HILL RD.
MARION, NC 28752
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871101 (R-2643)
SR 1001 FROM I-40
TO US 221 / NC 226
SHEET S OF 114101
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hendrix, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 30, 2001
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Widening of Sugar Hill
Road from I-40 to US 221/NC 226 (Marion Bypass), Federal Aid Project No.
STP-1001(13), State Project No. 8.2871101, TIP Project No. R-2643, McDowell
County, North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a concurrence
letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Biologists on staff with the NCWRC have reviewed the
proposed improvements and are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.).
The NCDOT proposes to widen approximately 2.3 miles of Sugar Hill Road (SR 1001)
from a two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter facility in an area of commercial and
residential development. The project will require fill in a 0.038-acre seep wetland associated
with a tributary to Nicks Creek. Stream impacts to different unnamed tributaries to N. Muddy
Creek and Nicks Creek total 309 linear feet. No trout waters are involved. We will not object to
the project as proposed provided that the following conditions are implemented:
Disturbance of the stream channel must be limited to only what is necessary to
extend the pipes. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather
than in the stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the
likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
TIP No. R-2643, Widening Sugar Hill Road 2 October 30, 2001
2. Pipes 48" or larger should be buried approximately 1' into the streambed. Smaller
pipes should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than 20% their size. If the pipe is
installed properly, drop outlets will be eliminated and the pipe bottom should not be
visible but covered by natural streambed materials. These materials can be salvaged
during pipe installation and then placed back in the pipe. The dimensions, pattern,
and profile of the stream above and below the pipes should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Where disrupted,
natural floodplain benching and aquatic life passage should be restored.
3. Use of riprap to armor the inlet and outlet ends of culverts should be kept to a
minimum. NCDOT should utilize onsite native vegetation and materials for
streambank stabilization. Vegetation provides bank stabilization, as well as shade
for cooler water temperatures, and riparian edge habitat. If riprap is used, it must be
limited to the lower 1/3 of the streambank. If placed in the stream channel, the
riprap must be pressed into the streambed so as not to impede aquatic life passage.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion. Temporary or permanent herbaceous
vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground disturbing
activities to provide long-term erosion control.
5. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's
water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
6. Stormwater runoff from curb-and-gutter structures should be directed to buffer areas
or retention basins and should not be routed directly into streams.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Eric Black, NCDOT
Z
O

n
m
z
c
3
W
m
M
o
OD _
Z
? N O
0 -0

N m

° v
D
m
o?
z D
?m
1

? n
? m

1 o a
p
o C

O "
rA
n
O
C
z

m
X
m
0
x

z
m,

N a
3
O O

O C
z
O ?
O
G
iU
Z
O
J
W
Ln
W
z
n
v
m
n
3z
mo
z;o
;u
?m
1
-1;0
c
Zz
?z
08
O
D
1
O
z
v
a?
(D
0
0
N ,
°
i
N
O
O
N
LO
O
M'
O
O
CV
.-A