20081809 Ver 1_General Correspondence_20110526

US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Project 8.1891001
WBS Element 34400.1.2
TIP Project R-2233B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
oF NoRrH ?q
9

co
* *
a Z
? o
oQ??
4
?
e
)'-OF TRAN
'
APPROVED:
01 " 'l
D te regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Additional Information regarding this action may be obtained by contacting:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Manager,
Proj ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]

US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Project 8.1891001
WBS Element 34400.1.2
TIP Project R-2233B
STATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
?OF NORT1I Cq
9
?
O
co ?
* *
? z
? o

v?,?? QoQ?
Q
?OF TRANS
MAY 2011
Documentation Prepared by Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
?y???r??r?ui?t?
5 M./! cA?a??
Date J es A. McInnis, Jr., .E. '??4 EsS?ON y?
Project Engineer
sE AL
:
.?
?
?•. ''NC114
E ?
?

5?Z6/1 r

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................................................................... .................... i
SUM MARY ..................................................................................................... .................. iii
S.1 Contact Information ......................................................................... .................. iii
S.2 Description of Proposed Action ....................................................... .................. iii
S.3 Purpose of Proposed Action ............................................................ .................. iii
S.4 Alternatives Considered ................................................................... .................. iii
S.5 Recommended Alternative .............................................................. .................. iv
S.6 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................ .................. vi
S.7 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................ .................. vi
S.8 Actions Required by Other State and Federal Agencies ................. .................. vi
1.0 P URPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................. ................ 1-1
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................... ................ 1-1
1.1.1 Project Setting ........................................................................................ ................ 1-1
1.1.2 History of Project ................................................................................... ................ 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ ................ 1-1
1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................................ ................ 1-1
1.3.1 Summary of Need for Proposed Action ................................................. ................ 1-1
1.3.2 Traffic Carrying Capacity ...................................................................... ................ 1-2
1.3.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................ ................ 1-3
1.3.2.2 Existing Levels of Service ...................................................... ................ 1-3
1.3.2.3 Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................... ................ 1-3
1.3.2.4 Future Levels of Service ("no-build') .................................... ................ 1-3
1.3.3 Accident Data ......................................................................................... ................ 1-3
1.3.4 Travel Time ............................................................................................ ................ 1-4
1.3.5 Roadway Geometry ............................................................................... ................ 1-4
1.3.6 NC Strategic Highway Corridors/Intrastate System .............................. ................ 1-5
2.0 A LTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................... ................2-1
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... ................2-1
2.2 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ................................. ................2-1
2.2.1 Transportation Management Alternatives .............................................. ................ 2-1
2.2.1.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ......................... ................2-1
2.2.1.2 Travel Demand Management (TDM) ..................................... ................ 2-3
2.2.1.3 Alternate Modes of Transportation ......................................... ................ 2-3
2.2.2 Improve Existing US 221 ....................................................................... ................ 2-3
2.2.3 Preliminary Bypass Alternatives ............................................................ ................ 2-3
2.3 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ........................................ ................2-6
2.3.1 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives ........................................... ................ 2-7
2.3.1.1 Alternative 3 (Selected) .......................................................... ................ 2-7
2.3.1.2 Alternative 4 ............................................................................ ................2-8
2.3.1.3 Alternative 6 ............................................................................ ................2-8
2.3.1.4 US 74A Bypass Alternative .................................................... ................2-8
2.3.2 Design Criteriafor Detailed Study Alternatives .................................... ................2-9
2.3.2.1 Design Speed .......................................................................... ................ 2-9
2.3.2.2 Typical Sections ...................................................................... ................2-9
2.3.2.3 Structures .............................................................................. .................. 2-9
2.3.2.4 Proposed Right of Way and Access Control ......................... ................ 2-10
2.3.3 Traffic Operations of Detailed Study Alternatives .............................. ................ 2-11
2.3.3.1 2010/2030 Build Traffic Projections .................................... ................ 2-11
2.3.3.2 2010/2030 Build Capacity Analysis ..................................... ................ 2-11
2.3.4 Safety Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives ..................................... ................ 2-11
2.3.5 Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives ................................... ................ 2-12
2.4 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 3) .................... ................ 2-12
2.4.1 Selection of Alternative 3 .................................................................... ................ 2-12
2.4.2 Alternative 3 Design Changes ............................................................. ................ 2-13
2.4.3 Summary of Environmental Effects of Alternative 3 .......................... ................ 2-14
3.0 A FFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... ..................3-1
3.1 COMMUNITYCHARACTERISTICS ......................................... ..................3-1
3.1.1 Population Characteristics ................................................................... ..................3-1
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics ..................................................................... ..................3-1
3.1.3 Employment ......................................................................................... ..................3-1
3.1.4 Community Facilities and Services ..................................................... .................. 3-2
3.1.5 Community Cohesion .......................................................................... .................. 3-2
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................ ..................3-3
3.2.1 Land Use Plans .................................................................................... .................. 3-3
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................. .................. 3-3
3.2.1.2 Existing Zoning ..................................................................... .................. 3-3
3.2.1.3 Future Land Use .................................................................... .................. 3-3
3.2.2 Transportation Plans ............................................................................ .................. 3-4
3.2.2.1 Highway Plans ...................................................................... .................. 3-4
3.2.2.2 Transit Plans .......................................................................... .................. 3-4
3.2.2.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans ....................................................... ..................3-4
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS ................ ..................3-5
3.3.1 Noise Characteristics ........................................................................... .................. 3-5
3.3.2 AirQuality ........................................................................................... ..................3-5
3.3.3 Farmland .............................................................................................. .................. 3-6
3.3.4 Utilities ................................................................................................. ..................3-6
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ .................. 3-7
3.3.6 Floodplains/Floodways ........................................................................ ..................3-9
3.3.7 Protected Lands .................................................................................... .................. 3-9
3.3.7.1 State/National Forests ............................................................ .................. 3-9
3.3.7.2 Game lands ............................................................................. ..................3-9
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................... .................. 3-9
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources ......................................................... .................. 3-9
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources .................................................................... ................ 3-12
3.4.3 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trai1 .................................... ................3-13
3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS ................. ................ 3-14
3.5.1 Soils/Topography ................................................................................. ................3-14
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ........................................................ ................3-14
3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife .................................. ................3-14
3.5.2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................ ................ 3-14
3.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................ .................3-16
3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife .................................... .................3-17
3.5.2.2.1 AquaticCommunities ................................................... .................3-17
3.5.2.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife ............................................................ .................3-17
3.5.3 Waters ofthe United States ................................................................. .................3-18
3.5.3.1 Water Resources .................................................................. ................. 3-18
3.5.3.1.1 Streams .......................................................................... .................3-18
3.5.3.1.2 Ponds ............................................................................. .................3-22
3.5.3.2 Wetlands .............................................................................. ................. 3-22
3.5.4 Buffer Areas ........................................................................................ ................. 3-25
3.5.5 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................ ................. 3-25
4.0 E NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................. ...................4-1
4.1 COMMUNITY IMPACTS ........................................................... ................... 4-1
4.1.1 Community Facilities & Services ....................................................... ................... 4-1
4.1.2 Relocation of Homes and Businesses ................................................. ................... 4-1
4.1.3 Economic Effects ................................................................................ ...................4-1
4.1.4 Title VI Evaluation ............................................................................. ................... 4-2
4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORATION PLANNING ................. ................... 4-2
4.2.1 Land Use Plans ................................................................................... ................... 4-2
4.2.2 Transportation Plans ........................................................................... ................... 4-2
4.2.2.1 Compatibility with Highway Plans ...................................... ................... 4-3
4.2.2.2 Compatibility with Transit Plans ......................................... ................... 4-3
4.2.2.3 Compatibility with Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans ....................... ................... 4-3
4.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................... ...................4-3
4.3.1 Noise .................................................................................................. ...................4-3
4.3.1.1 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours .......................... ................... 4-3
4.3.1.2 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ..................................... ................... 4-4
4.3.1.3 Summary .............................................................................. ...................4-4
4.3.2 AirQuality .......................................................................................... ...................4-5
4.3.3 Farmland ............................................................................................. ................... 4-9
4.3.4 Utilities ................................................................................................ .................4-10
4.3.5 HazardousMaterials ........................................................................... .................4-10
4.3.6 Floodplain/Floodway .......................................................................... .................4-10
4.3.7 Protected Lands ................................................................................... ................. 4-11
4.3.7.1 State/National Forests .......................................................... .................4-11
4.3.7.2 Game Lands and Preservation Areas ................................... ................. 4-11
4.4 CULTURALRESOURCES ......................................................... .................4-11
4.4.1 Historic Architecture Resources ......................................................... ................. 4-11
4.4.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................... ................. 4-12
4.4.3 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail ................................... ................. 4-13
4.5 NATURALENVIRONMENT ..................................................... .................4-13
4.5.1 Soils/Topography ................................................................................ .................4-13
4.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ....................................................... .................4-14
4.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife ................................. .................4-14
4.5.2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities ............................................... ................. 4-14
4.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................ .................4-14
4.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife .............................................. ........4-14
4.5.3 Waters ofthe United States .......................................................................... ........4-15
4.5.3.1 Water Resources ........................................................................... ........ 4-15
4.5.3.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................... ........ 4-15
4.5.4 Buffer Areas/Impaired Waters ..................................................................... ........4-17
4.5.5 Federally-Protected Species ......................................................................... ........4-17
4.6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................... ........ 4-20
4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .............................................................. ........ 4-22
4.7.1 Visual .......................................................................................................... ........4-23
4.7.2 Noise ........................................................................................................... ........4-23
4.7.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................... ........ 4-23
4.7.4 Utilities ......................................................................................................... ........4-23
4.7.5 Water Quality/Erosion Controls .................................................................. ........ 4-24
4.7.6 Geodetic Markers ......................................................................................... ........ 4-24
4.7.7 Borrow and Disposal Sites ........................................................................... ........ 4-24
4.7.8 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibility ............................................... ........ 4-25
4.7.9 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................... ........ 4-25
4.8 IRRETRIEVABLE & IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES ......................................................................................... ........ 4-25
4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG TERM & SHORT TERM
USES/BENEFITS ......................................................................................... ........ 4-25
5.0 L IST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... .......... 5-1
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
S-1 Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison ..............................................iv
S-2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts of Selected Alternative (Alternative 3)........ vi
CHAPTER 1
1-1 Accident Rates Comparison Two-Lane Undivided US Routes ....................1-4
1-2 US 221 Existing Typical Sections ......................................................1-5
CHAPTER 2
2-1 TSM Improvements ........................................................... ............2-2
2-2 Preliminary Alternatives Comparison ....................................... ...........2-4
2-3 Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison ................................... ............2-7
2-4 Proposed Hydraulic Structures for Detailed Study Alternatives ......... ..........2-10
2-5 Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives (Millions) .............. ..........2-12
2-6 Alternative 3 Environmental Effects ........................................ .........2-14
CHAPTER 3
3-1 Project Study Area Prime Farmland Soils ................................ .............3-6
3-2 Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Corridors ............. .............3-8
3-3 Project Study Area Predominant Soils .................................... ............3-14
3-4 Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area ................ ............3-18
3-5 Wetlands in Project Study Area ........................................... ............3-24
3-6 Federally-Protected Species Listed for Rutherford County ............ ............3-25
CHAPTER 4
4-1 Anticipated Relocations For Detailed Study Alternatives ................... .......4-1
4-2 Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts ................................................ ........4-4
4-3 Anticipated Prime Farmland Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives ...... .......4-9
4-4 Utility Relocation Costs for Detailed Study Alternatives .................... ......4-10
4-5 Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Historic Properties .............. .......4-12
4-6 Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Terrestrial Communities ....... .......4-14
4-7 Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Streams ........................... .......4-15
4-8 Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Wetlands .......................... .......4-16
4-9 Project Effects on Federally-Protected Species ............................... .......4-18
4-10 Indirect Land Use Effect Screening Too1 ........................................ .......4-20
4-11 Adjacent Project Effects ......................................................... ......4-22
LIST OF FIGURES
S-1 Detailed Study Alternatives
1-1 Vicinity Map
1-2 2010/2030 No-Build Traffic Volumes
1-3 2010/2030 No-Build Level of Service
2-1 Preliminary Alternatives
2-2 Detailed Study Alternatives
2-3 Proposed Typical Sections
2-4 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 3
2-5 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 4
2-6 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 6
2-7 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative US 74A
2-8 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 3
2-9 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 4
2-10 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 6
2-11 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative US 74A
3-1 Existing Land Use
3-2 Rutherford County Future Land Use
3-3 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
3-4 Predominant Soils in Project Area
3-5 Potentially Contaminated Properties
3-6 Cultural Resources in Project Area
3-7 Wetlands & Streams in Project Area
4-1 AdjacentProjects
APPENDICES
Appendix A- Comments and Coordination
Appendix B- NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
Appendix C- NEPA/404 Merger Process Information/Concurrence Forms
Appendix D- Comments on the State Draft Environmental Impact Statement
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Project 8.1891001
WBS Element 34400. 1.1
TIP Project R-2233B
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch/Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with local officials as the proposed project progresses
regarding the status of local greenway plans and proposed walking trails.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the National Park Service and local
agencies regarding the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch-Natural Environment
Unit
The project will be resurveyed far the federally-protected dwarf-flowered
heartleaf prior to construction.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants that will be impacted by the project will be transplanted
to the Tate property conservation area
Roadway Design Unit
2:1 side slopes will be used at all stream crossings, wetlands and at
dwarf-flowered heartleaf sites along the project.
Structure DesiLyn Unit
A sidewalk and 42-inch hand rails will be provided on the south side of the
proposed bridge carrying US 64 over the bypass, in order to accommodate the
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail.
Hydraulics UniUNatural Environment Unit
Prior to the Concurrence Point 4B NEPA/404 merger team meeting, the merger
team will review Streams 2UT1C and 1N to determine if additional minimization is
feasible.
State Final EIS-R-2233B Page 1 of 2
May 2011
Hydraulics Unit
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP) for approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each new crossing of a FEMA regulated
stream.
Division 13 Construction
This project involves construction activities on or adjacentto FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain
were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
In the event that unanticipated archaeological discoveries, such as unmarked
cemeteries, are made during construction, the NCDOT Archaeology Group will be
notified and consulted immediately for any necessary resolution or coordination with the
State Historic Preservation Office, priar to any additional construction wark in that area.
Location and Survevs UniURoadwav Desian Unit
Unmarked graves are believed to be located behind the church building on the
Mountain View Baptist Church property. The church is located on 2°d Street in
Rutherfordton. Efforts will be made to locate these graves and avoid them if practicable
during final surveys and design for the project.
Roadside Environmental UniUDivision 13 Construction
NCDOT's native seed mix will be used througout the project in riparian areas,
where possible.
State Final EIS-R-223313
May 2011
Page 2 of 2
11
SUMMARY
S.1 Contact Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this
State Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS):
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
S.2 Description of Proposed Action
The proposed action involves constructing the US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton,
in Rutherford County. The proposed bypass will be constructed as a four-lane roadway
with a 46-foot median. Portions of the bypass will be constructed on new location. Full
control of access will be obtained for new location sections of the bypass. Partial control
of access (one access per parcel with no other access) will be obtained for sections of the
project along existing roadways. The proposed project is approximately 8.5 miles long.
This project is identified as project number R-2233B in the approved 2009-2015
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The initial right of way acquisition
and construction far the project are scheduled for state fiscal years 2014 and 2019,
respectively, in the draft NCDOT 2011-2020 10-Year Wark Program.
S.3 Purpose of Proposed Action
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
S.4 Alternatives Considered
Preliminary alternatives considered for the project included the following:
• No-Build Alternative
• Alternate Modes of Transportation
• Improve Existing Facility
• Construct Bypass
m
It was determined the No-Build Alternative and alternate modes of transportation
would not fulfill the purpose and need for the project. Also, improving the existing
facility through downtown Rutherfordton would have excessive impacts to the
Downtown Rutherfordton Historic District. Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated
from further consideration. Based on the initial evaluation, only the Bypass Alternative
was determined to meet the goals of the proposed project.
A total of nine bypass alternatives were investigated for this project. Of these,
four alternatives were selected for detailed study (see Section 2.3). These four
alternatives are shown on Figure S-1. Table S-1 below presents a comparison ofthe
detailed study alternatives.
Table S-1
Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison
Alternatives
3 4 6 US74A
Residential 99 163 91 88
Relocatees
Business 27 43 26 32
Relocatees
Wetlands Affected
(Ac.) 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.7
(Delineated)
Stream Impacts 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
Ft.
Dwarf-Flowered
Heartleaf Impacts 371.5 172.3 371.5 371.5
(S Ft.)
Impacted Noise 9 0 0 2
Recetors
Length New
Location 7.2 4.3 8.3 3.8
(Miles)
Total Length 8.5 9.3 9.4 8.7
Miles
Total Cost (Million) $223.0 $219.0 $234.0 $200.0
Impacts and costs based on field surveys and design at time of selection of the
preferred altemative (February 2010).
S.5 Recommended Alternative
Alternative 3, described in Section 2.3.1.1 and shown on Figure S-1, is the
recommended alternative for the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass. Alternative 3
was selected for this project far the following reasons (see Section 2.4.1):
• Alternative 3 would affect fewer homes and businesses than Alternative 4.
iv
• Alternative 3 would affect less wetlands and streams than Alternative 6.
Although Alternative 3 would affect more wetlands and streams and relocate
more homes than Alternative US 74A, Alternative 3 has the following advantages over
Alternative US 74A:
• Alternative 3 provides a higher level of service than Alternative US 74A (level of
service B versus D).
• Alternative 3 potentially provides increased safety.
• Alternative 3 will provide a lower travel time for motorists using US 221 in the
project areathan any ofthe other alternatives.
• Alternative 3 has less potential for indirect and cumulative impacts than
Alternative US 74A. No access will be provided along Alternative 3 between
US 74 Business-US 221A and US 64, while one access per property will be
provided in this area with Alternative US 74A.
• Alternative US 74A will relocate 30 percent (9 of 30) of the businesses within the
Town of Ruth and may require the relocation of the largest employer in Ruth.
Alternative 3 will only affectfive businesses within Ruth.
• Most comments from citizens and local officials after the public hearing have
been in favor of Alternative 3.
v
S.6 Summary of Impacts
Anticipated impacts of the selected alternative are shown below.
Table S-2
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
of Selected Alternative (Alternative 3)
Residential Relocatees 122
Business Relocatees 27
Wetlands Affected (Acres)
(Delineated) 0.76
Stream Impacts
(Feet) 9,889
DwarF-Flowered Heartleaf
Impacts (Acres) 0.23
Forested Areas (Acres) 197
Im acted Noise Rece tors 9
Length New Location (Miles) 7.2
Total Len th Miles 8.5
Total Cost (Millions) $203.9
Impacts based on current design and field surveys.
S.7 Unresolved Issues
There are no major outstanding issues related to this project. Coordination with
the public, local officials and state and federal resource agencies will continue as this
project progresses through final design, right of way and construction.
S.8 Actions Required by Other State and Federal Agencies
Due to expected project impacts on wetlands and jurisdictional streams, an
individual Section 404 permit will likely be required. The Corps of Engineers will
determine final permit requirements.
A NC Division of Water Quality Section 401 Major Water Quality Certification
will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
vi
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project involves constructing the US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass in
Rutherford County. The proposed bypass will be constructed as a four-lane median
divided roadway, portions of which will be on new location. The bypass will be
approximately 8.5 miles long. Figure 1-1 depicts the project area This project is
identified as Project R-2233B in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State
Transportation Improvement Program.
1.1.1 Project Setting
US 221 is the primary north-south corridor east of I-26 serving the mountain
region of North Carolina. Rutherfordton is located northwest of Forest City near the
center of Rutherford County. Existing US 221 passes through downtown Rutherfordton.
The alternatives studied for the proposed bypass start south of Rutherfordton on existing
US 221 at the US 74 Bypass. All of the detailed study alternatives bypass downtown
Rutherfordton to the east, crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 221A (Charlotte Road)
and US 64 before tying back into existing US 221 south of SR 1367 (Thompson Road).
1.1.2 History of Project
A US 221 Bypass has been shown on the Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan
since at least 1976. The latest thoroughfare plan, the 1997 Rutherford County Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan, was jointly approved by local governments and NCDOT.
Project development studies far the proposed bypass were initiated in 1999.
1.2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose ofthe proposed project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and
improve travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1.3.1 Summary of Need for Proposed Action
The proposed project is intended to address the following deficiencies of existing
US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton:
Capacity Deficiencies
By the year 2030, traffic volumes along existing US 221 are projected to range
between 11,100 to 18,800 vehicles per day (see Figure 1-2). Portions of existing
1-1
US 221 will be operating at an unacceptable level of seivice (LOS E or F) in the year
2030 (see Figure 1-3).
s Excessive Travel Time
In the year 2030, the approximately ten mile trip fr-om US 74 south of Rutherfordton
to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) north of RutherFordton will take approximately 20
minutes, or double what the trip would take at 55 MPH with no stops.
• Substandard Roadway Geometry
Portions of US 221 in the proj ect area haae narrow lanes and shoulders and vertical
alignments which do not meet a 60 MPH design speed.
1.3.2 Traffic Carrying Capacity
There is no control of access along US 221; numerous residential and commercial
driveways tie into the existing facility. There are four signalized intersections along the
subject section of US 221 and numerous unsignalized inteisections.
1-2
US 221 is a two-lane highway. Shown below is a photograph of existing US 221.
1.3.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in 2010 for US 221 in the vicinity
of Rutherfordton range from 7,000 to 12,700 vehicles per day. Figure 1-2 shows
estimated 2010 average daily traffic for the subject section of US 221.
1.3.2.2 Existing Levels of Service
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of
level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of
a facility to carry traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based
on factors of speed, travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and
safety. Levels of Service range from "A" to "F", with "A" representing free flow (ideal
conditions), and "F" representing forced or breakdown flow (undesirable condition).
A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity (LOS E) when it
is just able to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the
facility's capacity (LOS F), excessive delays occur.
Figure 1-3 presents the 2010 levels of service along existing US 221 in the
vicinity of Rutherfordton. As Figure 1-3 shows, portions of existing US 221 operated at
levels of service E or F in the year 2010.
1.3.2.3 Future Traffic Volumes
By the year 2030, traffic volumes along existing US 221 are projected to range
between 11,100 to 18,800 vehicles per day. Projected 2030 traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 1-2.
1.3.2.4 Future Levels of Service ("no-build")
Figure 1-3 presents the anticipated 2030 levels of service along existing US 221
in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. As Figure 1-3 shows, most portions of existing US 221
in the Rutherfordton area will operate at levels of service E or F in the year 2030.
1.3.3 Accident Data
Accident rates for the section of US 221 in the project area have been calculated
and compared with statewide rates for two-lane undivided US routes. These rates are
presented in Table 1-1 below.
1-3
Table 1-1
Accident Rates Comparison
Two-Lane Undivided US Routes
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
ACC/100MV ACC/100MV
US 221 158.77 0
9/2007-8/2010
Statewide Average 159.45 2.06
(2005-2007)
Critical Rate*
248.74 5.62
(2005-2007)
* Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
The 2007-2010 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton do not exceed the 2005-2007 statewide average or critical rate for similar
facilities. The total accident rate for NCDOT Highway Division 13, which includes
Rutherford, Buncombe, McDowell, Burke, Yancey, Mitchell and Madison counties, is
156.71 (ACC/100MVM). The total accident rate for this portion of US 221 is 158.77
(ACC/100MVM).
During the study period, 110 accidents occurred along US 221 in the project area.
The most common types of accidents included rear-end collisions (34%) and frontal
impact accidents (including angle, head-on and turning crashes) (29%).
Rear-end accidents occurring along this section of US 221 were primarily due to
traffic slowing to make turns or stopped because of congestion and driver failure to
reduce speed. The frontal impact accidents, on the other hand, may be related more to
roadway characteristics (lane widths, median, horizontal curvature).
1.3.4 Travel Time
Existing US 221 passes through the center of downtown Rutherfordton. Speed
limits on US 221 within Rutherfordton vary between 20 to 45 MPH. US 221 through
Rutherfordton is the only portion of US 221 between the South Carolina State Line and
I-40 with a speed limit lower than 55 MPH. In the year 2030, the approximately ten mile
trip from US 74 south of Rutherfordton to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) north of
Rutherfordton will take approximately 20 minutes, or roughly double what the trip would
take at 55 MPH with no stops.
1.3.5 Roadway Geometry
Lane widths along US 221 in the proj ect area vary from ten feet to twelve feet
wide. Shoulder widths also vary. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines generally recommend that lane widths of
twelve feet be provided on rural highways. The guidelines also state that undesirable
conditions (inadequate vehicle clearances) exist on surfaces less than 22 feet wide
1-4
carrying even moderate volumes of traffia Studies have shown that rural highways with
lane widths less than eleven feet wide tend to have higher accident rates than similar
facilities with wider lanes. AASHTO guidelines also state that shoulder widths of six to
eight feet are preferable. Table 1-2 below presents the existing typical sections along
US 221 in the project area
Table 1-2
US 221 Existina Tvnical Sections No. Section L ngth Lanes/Width Shoulder Width

US 74 to
Rutherfordton City 3.4 mi. 2/10' 4' grassed
Limits
City Limits to Lynch 1.4 mi. 2/11' 4'-5' grassed
St.
Lynch SL to South of 1.3 mi. 2/11'-12' Curb and Gutter
US 64
South of US 64 to
'
g'-12' grassed
Rutherfordton City 0.3 mi. 2/12 (2' paved)
??
L
City Limits to SR 1529 4.6 mi. 2/12' 12' gravel
The horizontal alignment of existing US 221 is good, and far the most part meets
a 60 MPH design speed along sections of the roadway signed 55 MPH.
The vertical alignment of existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton does not meet a
60 MPH design speed. Many of the vertical curves along the roadway have a 40 or 45
MPH design speed. Several areas along US 221 have grades above six percent. These
steep grades, however, are fairly short.
1.3.6 NC Strategic Highway Corridors/Intrastate System
US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to Linville has been designated part of
the North Carolina Intrastate System. The Intrastate System was established by the North
Carolina General Assembly in 1989. The purpose of the Intrastate System is to provide
high-speed, safe travel service throughout the State by connecting major population
centers both inside and outside the State with four-lane highways. The System is
designed to support statewide growth and development objectives and to connect to
major highways of adjoining states. US 221 connects Rutherfordton with Spartanburg,
South Carolina to the south and Marion to the north.
1-5
US 221 in the project area is also designated a strategic highway corridor. This
section of US 221 is a part of Strategic Corridor 12, which extends from Spartanburg,
South Carolina to Boone using US 221 and NC 105. The strategic highway corridor
vision for US 221 in the project area is that US 221 be improved to a boulevard. A
boulevard is a facility with at least four lanes and a median, which may have signalized
intersections and either partial (one driveway per parcel) or limited (access only from
side roads) control of access.
US 221 is classified as a minar arterial south of Rutherfordton and a major arterial
north of Rutherfordton in the North Carolina Functional Classification System.
1-6
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would make no improvements to existing US 221
through the year 2030, with the exception of regular maintenance such as patching,
resurfacing, regrading shoulders and maintaining ditches.
The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way nor construction costs.
There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources,
nor would there be any residential or business relocations.
However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the
proposed project. TrafFic capacity analyses indicate that by the design year (2030),
US 221 will operate at LOS E except near the US 221/iJS 74 Business-US 221A
intersection, where US 221 will operate at LOS F. The increase in traffic volumes would
result in greater congestion and an increase in the number of accidents. The increased
congestion would diminish the potential for economic growth and development within
the study area.
2.2 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES
2.21 Transportation Management Alternatives
In some cases, transportation management alternatives can be used to improve the
overall operation of an existing roadway netwark. The management tools include
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM).
The following provides a discussion of these tools and their applicability for this project.
2.2.11 Transportation Systems Management (TS1VI)
Transportation Systems Management consists of adding low-cost transportation
improvements to increase the capacity of an existing facility. TSM strategies typically
involve minor roadway improvements that improve the operational characteristics of a
facility while minimizing capital outlay and inconvenience to motorists. There are two
main types of TSM minor roadway improvements: operational and physical. Examples
ofthese improvements are shown in Table 2-1 below.
2-1
Table 2-1
TSM Improvements
OperationalImprovements PhysicalImprovements
Traffic law enforcement Addition ofturn lanes
Turn prohibitions Intersection realignment
Access control Improved warning and information
signs
Speed restrictions New signals or stop signs
Signal coordination Intersection geometric and
signalization improvements
Signal phasing or timing
changes
TSM physical and operational roadway improvements typically are effective in solving
site-specific capacity, safety and use problems in urban areas. As described below, most
ofthese measures would notmeetthe purpose and need ofthe proposed project.
Turn Prohibitions and Turn Lanes: US 221 is a two-lane roadway. A median is needed
to prohibit left-turning movements and additional right of way would be required to
construct the median and relocate one lane. This improvement, while limiting left turns,
would do little to improve the traffic carrying capacity of the existing roadway.
Traffic Signals: Only four of twenty-one intersections along US 221 are currently
signalized. Signalizing other minor street intersections along US 221 would result in
increased delay for US 221 traffic.
Intersection Geometric Improvements: Improving intersection geometry by realigning
crossing roadways might improve safety at some intersections along existing US 221, but
would do little to increase the traffic carrying capacity of US 221 in the project area.
Sneed Restrictions and Law Enforcement: Operational measures such as speed
restrictions and increased law enforcement are often useful in addressing some safety
issues. The existing speed limit along most of US 221 is 45 mph. With the spacing
between signalized intersections and the essentially straight alignment of the highway,
drivers can achieve running speeds in excess of the speed limit. During peak hours,
speed is controlled by the heavy traffic volume. Restrictions on speed would not improve
the traffic carrying capacity of US 221.
Imnroved Sienaee: New and improved warning or informational signs would not be
effective at solving the problems along existing US 221. Accident patterns for US 221
2-2
are indicative of congested conditions rather than motorisYs unfamiliarity with the
highway or prevailing conditions. Additional signs are unlikely to address this accident
trend.
2.2.1.2 Travel Demand Management (TD1VI)
Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies include staggered work hours,
ridesharing and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Staggered wark hours, flex-time or modified workweeks can be implemented by
large employers along the corridor who experience congestion at the entrances to their
businesses. Although the US 221 corridor does contain some large businesses, it is not
expected that such adjustments to work schedules would significantly reduce peak hour
traffic volumes within the study area.
Given the predominantly rural nature of the project area, public transportation or
ridesharing are unlikely to result in substantial reductions in the amount of traffic along
US 221 in the project area
2.2.1.3 Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternate modes of transportation would include bus or rail passenger service.
No intercity bus service is provided to the Rutherfordton area, the nearest bus terminal is
in Asheville.
There is no passenger rail service available in Rutherford County. The abandoned
railroad that runs from Forest City to Rutherfordton has been put into a rail banking
system and is currently used as a walking trail.
The Transit Administration of Rutherford County provides bus service between
Forest City, Spindale and Rutherfordton. Given the predominantly rural nature of the
project area, additional bus transit is unlikely to result in substantial reductions in the
amount of traffic along US 221 in the project area.
2.2.2 Improve Existing US 221
Widening existing US 221 and constructing a one-way pair within downtown
Rutherfordton was investigated as an alternative. This altemative was eliminated because
of the potential impacts to the historic district in Rutherfordton.
2.2.3 Preliminary Bypass Alternatives
Constructing a US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton would meet the purpose and need
ofthe proposed project. A bypass would reduce congestion, improve safety and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
Nine bypass alternatives were initially developed for the proposed project. Six of
these alternatives were presented to the public at a citizens informational workshop held
2-3
on August 23, 2041. Of these, four alternatives were chosen for detailed study by the
NEPA/404 merger team (see Section 2.3). Table 2-2 presents impacts of all of the
preliminary bypass alternatives. The table includes estimates of impacts based on the
total corridor area. Impact estimates were refined as studies progressed. The preliminary
bypass alternatives are shown on Figure 2-1.
Table 2-2
Preliminary Alternatives Compaizson
L?S
Imprave West 74A
Exist. Alt.1 tllt.2 alt.3 A1t.4 Alt.S alt.6 Byp. B.)-p
Residential
108 85 171 151 16' 134 149 115 90
Relacatees
Business 49 11 31 23 19 21 11 ?3
Relocatees
National
Register
1 dish-ict 1 1 1 1 1 1 None None
Listed
Pra erties
Wetlands
Affected (ac.) 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.3 2.4 1.5
(NII- I)
Stream
2,733 14,270 12,148 5,794 5,906 10,497 13,113 12,692 3,834
Impacts (ft.)
Length Nevv
Location 0.2 9.0 9.5 9.1 9.U 9.3 8.6 9.6 3.3
(miles)
Total Lengtli
12.3 12.8 12.3 11.6 12.8 10.9 9.4 12.8 11.6
(miles)
Note: Impacts listed were based on best available information at time, not actual field surveys. Shaded cells
indicate alternatives which were dropped from consideration prior to detailed environmental surveys.
The preliminary bypass alternatives which were dropped from consideration are
described below. Alternatives which were carried forward for detailed study are
described in Section 2.3.1.
Western Bypass Alteinative
The Western Bypass Alternative would widen existing US 221 to four lanes with
a median from US 74 Bypass to just south of SR 1191 (Mountain View Cemetery Road),
then construct a bypass on new location around the western side of Rutherfordton,
connecting with existing US 221 near SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road) north of
Rutherfordton. This alternative is approximately 13 miles long and was eliminated
because it will not serve the towns of Spindale and Ruth as well as a bypass on the
eastern side of Rutherfoi•dton and it would divei-t the least amount of traff'ic from existing
2-4
US 221. Additionally, this alternative would affect a water supply watershed while other
alternatives would not.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would
be widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to north of SR 2194 (Poors
Ford Road). North of SR 2194, a bypass on new location would be built around the east
side of Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 at SR 1376 (Lane Road),
north of Rutherfordton. Alternative 1 would cross SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74
Business/iJS 221 Alternate, US 74 Alternate (Railroad Avenue), US 64 and SR 1520
(Rock Road). This alternative matches the alignment shown for the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass on the 1997 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan. Alternative 1
is approximately 13 miles long and was eliminated because it would impact a proposed
county landfill, would impact the largest amount of streams and would also affect a
property listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would
be widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road), south of Rutherfordton. A bypass on new location would be built around the east
side of Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 near SR 1536 (Old US 221)
north of Rutherfordton. This alternative would tie into existing US 74 Alternate north of
SR 2201 (Thunder Road) and follow the existing alignment of US 74 Alternate until
north of US 74 Business/US 221Alternate. North of US 74 Business/iJS 221 Alternate,
the alternative would continue on new location. This alternative is approximately 12
miles long and was eliminated because it would affect the most homes, would affect a
large amount of streams and would potentially impact an industrial complex.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would
be widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road). A bypass on new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton
connecting back with existing US 221 north of SR 1526 (Edwards Road). This
alternative would cross US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate. North of
US 74 Business/US 221A, the alternative turns eastward, crossing US 74A (Railroad
Avenue) before turning northward. North of US 64, the alternative crosses SR 1520
(Rock Road) passing between the Broyhill furniture plant and Gilbert Town (a National
Register-listed historic district) before tying back into existing US 221. This alternative
was suggested by local officials at the citizens informational workshop for the project.
The local officials suggested this alternative due to concerns Alternative 2 would affect
an industrial site. NCDOT staff evaluated the alternative and presented it to the
NEPA/404 merger team following the workshop. This alternative is approximately
2-5
11 miles long and was eliminated because it would potentially affect the Gilbert Town
Historic District.
2.3 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Followingthe citizens informational warkshop far the project, four ofthe
preliminary bypass alternatives were selected for detailed study. These alternatives are
listed below:
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 6
US 74A Bypass
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with the alternatives to be studied in detail
at a meeting held on April 17, 2002. A copy of the concurrence form is included in
Appendix C.
A comparison of the detailed study alternatives is presented in Table 2-3 below.
These detailed study alternatives are shown on Figure 2-2 and described in Section 2.3.1.
The typical sections ofthe detailed study alternatives are described in Section 2.3.2.2.
2-6
Table 2-3
Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison
Alternatives
3 4 6 US74A
Residential 99 163 91 88
Relocatees
Business 27 43 26 32
Relocatees
Wetlands Affected
(Ac.) 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.7
(Delineated)
Stream Impacts 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
Ft.
Dwarf-Flowered
Heartleaf Impacts 371.5 172.3 371.5 371.5
(S Ft.)
Impacted Noise 9 0 0 2
Recetors
Length New
Location 7.2 4.3 8.3 3.8
(Miles)
Total Length 8.5 9.3 9.4 8.7
Miles
Total Cost (Million) $223.0 $219.0 $234.0 $200.0
Impacts based on field surveys and design at time of selection of the preferred
altemative (February 2010).
2.3.1 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives
2.3.1.1 Alternative 3 (Selected)
Alternative 3 would involve widening a portion of existing US 221 and
constructing a bypass on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to south of SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road). From south of SR 2194 to existing US 221 north of Rutherfordton, a bypass on
new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton. This new location
roadway would cross SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74 Business/iJS 221 Alternate and
US 64 before connecting back with existing US 221 at SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of
Rutherfordton. US 221 would then be widened from SR 1536 (Old US 221) to SR 1366
(Roper Loop Road). The total length of Alternative 3 is 8.5 miles.
Alternative 3 was selected as the recommended alternative far the proposed
bypass. The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with the selection of this alternative at a
merger team meeting held on February 17, 2010. Section 2.4.1 discusses the selection of
Alternative 3.
2-7
2.3.1.2 Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a
"shallow" bypass of downtown Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2271 (Industrial Park Road), just
south of downtown Rutherfordton. A bypass on new location would be constructed from
SR 2271 extending around the east side of downtown Rutherfordton and connecting back
with existing US 221 near the existing US 64 interchange. US 221 would then be
widened from US 64 to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). The total length of Alternative 4 is
9.3 miles.
Although Alternative 4 would affect less wetlands and streams than any of the
other alternatives, Alternative 4 would affect substantially more homes and businesses
than any of the other alternatives. Alternative 4 would also not provide as high a level of
service as some of the other alternatives because the majority of the project would
involve widening existing US 221 with partial control of access. Far these reasons,
Alternative 4 was not selected for the project (see Section 2.4.1).
2.3.1.3 Alternative 6
Alternative 6 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass
on the east side of Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with
a median from US 74 Bypass to south of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road). From south of
SR 2194 to existing US 221 north of Rutherfordton, a bypass on new location would be
built around the east side of Rutherfordton. This roadway would cross SR 2201 (Thunder
Road) and US 74 Business/iJS 221 Alternate. At US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate,
Alternative 6 continues east of the Town of Ruth, crossing US 64 and SR 1520 (Rock
Road) before tying into existing US 221 north of SR 1367 (Thompson Road). US 221
would then be widened from north of SR 1367 to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). The total
length of Alternative 6 is 9.4 miles.
Alternative 6 would affect more wetlands and streams and would cost more than
any of the other alternatives. Far these reasons, Alternative 6 was not selected for the
project (see Section 2.4.1).
2.3.1.4 US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative would involve widening existing US 221 to four
lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to south of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road). From
south of SR 2194, a bypass on new location would be constructed connecting existing
US 221 with existing US 74 Alternate (Railroad Avenue) at US 74 Business/US 221
Alternate. Existing US 74 Alternate would be widened to multi-lanes from
US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate to north of US 64. North of US 64, the bypass would
be extended on new location, connecting SR 1536 (Old US 221) and existing US 221.
US 221 would then be widened to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). The total length of this
alternative is 8.7 miles.
2-8
Alternative US 74A would cost less and affect less homes than any of the
alternatives. This alternative would also have the second lowest stream and wetland
impacts. However, Alternative US 74A would have a very detrimental effect on the
Town of Ruth. Alternative US74A would relocate 30 percent (9 of 30) of the businesses
within the Town of Ruth and may require the relocation of the largest employer in Ruth.
Far these reasons, Alternative US 74A was not selected for the project (see
Section 2.4.1).
2.3.2 Design Criteria for Detailed Study Alternatives
2.3.2.1 Design Speed
A 70 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project on new location.
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project which involve widening
existing US 221. A 50 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the US 74A Bypass
Alternative along existing US 74A.
2.3.2.2 Typical Sections
Figure 2-3 shows the proposed typical sections far the bypass alternatives. The
roadway typical section will be a four-lane roadway with a 46-foot median, with the
exception of portions of the US 74A Alternative along existing US 74 Alternate. A
23-foot raised median and curb and gutter with a ten-foot berm is proposed for portions
of the US 74A Alternative routed along existing US 74 Alternate. Twelve-foot lanes are
proposed for all of the alternatives. Ten-foot grassed shoulders (four-foot paved) are
proposed for portions of the project with a 46-foot median.
2.3.2.3 Structures
Table 2-4 below presents the proposed major hydraulic structures (72 inches or
larger in diameter) for the detailed study alternatives. Figure 3-7 shows the location of
these sites.
2-9
Table 2-4
Proposed Hydraulic Structures for Detailed Study Alternatives
Site No. Stream Alternative Proposed Structures
Retain and Extend Existing
1 B 3, 4, 6, & US 74A
2 5'x 6' RCBC
2 1C 3, 6, and US 74A New 1 72" RCP
3 2B 3, 6, and US 74A New 1 6'x 6' RCBC
3-2C Cleghorn
4
Creek 4 Spanning Structure
2C, 3-2C
Stonecutter Dual Bridges, 36' wide and
5 Creek (also 3, 6, and US 74A 927' long
crosses SR
2201)
Retain and Extend Existing
6 2-F 4
2 6'x 8' RCBC
7 2-G Cleghorn 4 New 2@ 9'x 9' RCBC
Creek
8 1J 3, 6, and US 74A New 1 6'x 7' RCBC
9 2-G Cleghorn 4 New 2@ 9'x 9' RCBC
Creek
11 3X 6 New 1 6'x 7' RCBC
12 3G Hollands 6 New 2@ 9'x 10' RCBC
Creek
13 2K 3& US 74A New 2 8'x 8' RCBC
3F Hollands Retain and Extend Existing
14 Creek 4 2 Tx T RCBC
2.3.2.4 Proposed Right of Way and Access Control
A total right of way width of approximately 300 feet is proposed for new location
portions of the proposed bypass. Right of way widths greater than 300 feet may be
required in some areas with high fill slopes. Narrower right of way widths ranging from
115 feet to 250 feet are proposed for portions of the project which involve widening
existing roads. Full control of access is proposed for new location portions of the project.
Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other access) is
proposed for portions of the project which involve widening existing roads.
2-10
2.3.3 Traffic Operations of Detailed Study Alternatives
2.3.3.1 2010/2030 Build Traffic Projections
Projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the years 2010 and 2030 for
the detailed study alternatives and the surrounding roadway network are shown on
Figures 2-4 to 2-7.
2.3.3.2 2010/2030 Build Capacity Analysis
All of the detailed study alternatives would operate at an acceptable level of
service in both 2010 and 2030. The levels of service for the different alternatives are
shown on Figures 2-8 to 2-11.
2.3.4 Safety Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives
The construction of any of the detailed study alternatives would reduce the
amount of traffic on existing US 221. This reduction in traffic volumes, in turn should
reduce the total number of accidents occurring on the existing roadway. Existing US 221
would continue to have occurrences of accidents. However, the anticipated reduction in
traffic volumes would be expected to have a corresponding reduction in the type of
accidents generally associated with traffic congestion.
Reduction in traffic volumes and conflicts would likely reduce the total number of
accidents occurring on both the urban and rural sections of the existing roadway, leading
to the assumption that property damage and injury severity would be reduced.
Severe accidents associated with high-speeds anticipated on the proposed US 221
new location alternatives are expected to be minimal. The new location roadway would
be a four-lane divided facility designed to accommodate high-speed traffia The
proposed 46-foot median would provide positive separation between opposing traffic,
reducing the likelihood of head-on collisions. Therefore, the new location alternatives
are expected to be safer at higher speeds than existing US 221 and would carry a greater
volume of traffic.
2-11
2.3.5 Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives
Preliminary cost estimates for each detailed study alternative are presented in
Table 2-5.
Table 2-5
Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives (Millions)
Alt 3
Selected Alt 4 Alt 6 US 74A
Alt
Right of Way Acquisition $49.0 $60.0 $45.0 $46.0
Utility Relocation $1.7 $1.6 $2.0 $2.5
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $6.0 $4.3 $7.0 $5.0
Construction $166.0 $153.0 $180.0 $146.0
Total Cost $223.0 $219.0 $234.0 $200.0
Costs at time of selection of the preferred alternative (February 2010).
2.4 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 3)
2.4.1 Selection of Alternative 3
As discussed in Section 2.3.1, Alternative 3 was selected for the proposed bypass.
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with the selection of this alternative at a merger
team meeting held on February 17, 2010. Alternative 3 was selected for this project for
the following reasons:
• Alternative 3 would affect fewer homes and businesses than Alternative 4.
• Alternative 3 would affect less wetlands and streams than Alternative 6.
Although Alternative 3 would affect more wetlands and streams and relocate
more homes than Alternative US 74A, Alternative 3 has the following advantages over
Alternative US 74A:
Alternative 3 provides a higher level of service than Alternative US 74A (level of
service B versus D).
2-12
• Alternative 3 potentially provides increased safety. Full control of access
facilities like Alternative 3 typically have lower accident rates than partial control
of access facilities like Alternative US 74A.
• Alternative 3 will provide a lower travel time for motorists using US 221 in the
project areathan any ofthe other alternatives.
• Alternative 3 has less potential for indirect and cumulative impacts than
Alternative US 74A. No access will be provided along Alternative 3 between
US 74 Business-US 221A and US 64, while one access per property will be
provided in this area with Alternative US 74A.
• Alternative US 74A will relocate 30 percent (9 of 30) of the businesses within the
Town of Ruth and may require the relocation of the largest employer in Ruth.
Alternative 3 will only affectfive businesses within Ruth.
• Most comments from citizens and local officials after the public hearing have
been in favor of Alternative 3.
The selection of Alternative 3 for the proposed bypass was announced to area
residents by a newsletter sent out in March 2010.
2.4.2 Alternative 3 Design Changes
Followingthe selection of Alternative 3, changes were made to the design in an
effort to reduce wetland and stream impacts and in response to comments from the Town
of Rutherfordton.
A grade separation is now proposed between the bypass and Green Street, in
response to a request from the Town of Rutherfordton. Previously, the project design
proposed Green Street to be cul-de-saced on either side of the bypass. The proposed
grade separation will provide connectivity between downtown Rutherfordton and the
Railroad Avenue/Ruth area. Rutherfordton provides fire protection for the Town of Ruth.
A grade separation at Green Street would reduce the effect of the bypass on emergency
response time. This grade separation will not affect any additional wetlands or streams
but will require the relocation of 17 additional homes.
A connector road is now proposed between SR 1520 (Rock Road) and US 64.
Currently, Rock Road intersects US 64 across from US 74A (Railroad Avenue). The
proposed bypass interchange with US 64 will require removing the connection between
Rock Road and US 64. The Town of Rutherfordton asked that a connection between
Rock Road and US 64 be provided. This connector road would require the relocation of
six homes but would not affect any streams or wetlands.
The alignment ofthe proposed connection between SR 1536 (Old US 221) and
SR 1520 (Rock Road) has been redesigned to avoid Holland's Creek (2K), an unnamed
2-13
tributary (LJT2K) and a sewer lift station. This design change will reduce stream impacts
by approximately 288 feet at this location.
2.4.3 Summary of Environmental Effects of Alternative 3
Table 2-6 presents the expected environmental effects of Alternative 3 as
currently proposed.
Table 2-6
Alternative 3 Environmental Effects
Residential Relocatees 122
Business Relocatees 27
Business Employees Affected 102
(Estimated)
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0.76
(Delineated)
Stream Impacts 9,889
(Feet)
DwarF-Flowered Heartleaf 0.23
Im acts Acres
Forested Areas (Acres) 197
Prime/Important Farmland 87
Affected Acres
Impacted Noise Receptors 9
Len th New Location Miles 7.2
Total Length (Miles) 8.5
Total Cost (Millions) $203.9
Impacts based on current design and field surveys.
2-14
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
The demographic area encompasses the towns of Ruth, Rutherfordton and
Spindale. The project study area includes portions of all three towns.
3.1.1 Population Characteristics
Rutherford County's population grew at a relatively slow pace (10.5%) between
1990 and 2000. The demographic area grew somewhat more rapidly than the County
(12.9%). The Town of Rutherfordton experienced 14.2% growth, while the Town of
Spindale lost population (-0.4%), as did the Town of Ruth (-10%). According to the
2000 census, Rutherford County had a population of 62,899 in the year 2000. The Town
of Rutherfordton had a population of 4,131 in 2000. The Town of Spindale had a
population of 4,022 and the Town of Ruth had a population of 329 in 2000.
In comparison to North Carolina, Rutherford County and the demographic area
have much higher percentages of Whites and lower percentages of other racial groups.
The demographic area is 82.9% White, 14.9% African American, 1.1% Hispanic and less
than 1% other races (American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc.). Rutherfordton, Ruth
and Rutherford County have similar racial distributions. The Town of Spindale, on the
other hand, is much more similar to the State's racial distribution, with a higher minority
population.
Demographic assessment does not indicate the presence of a Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) language group which exceeds the United States Department of Justice's
"Safe Harbor" thresholds.
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics
In 2000, the median household income for the demographic area was $32,931.
This is lower than the median household incomes for Rutherfordton ($37,941), but higher
than the median household incomes for Spindale ($23,365), Ruth ($32,083) and
Rutherford County ($31,122).
3.1.3 Employment
The services industry added the most jobs in Rutherford County between 1990
and 2000, with atotal of nearly 1,800 more jobs in 2000 than in 1990. Much ofthis
growth was driven by the health services industry. A total of nearly 2,000 jobs were lost
in the manufacturing sector during the same timeframe, mainly due to the teatile industry,
which declined from 5,894 jobs in 1990 to 3,468 jobs in 2000.
3-1
3.1.4 Community Facilities and Services
There are a number of noteworthy public facilities within the demographic area,
including:
• A Spindale sewer pump station on US 221 across from the Ultimate Teatile
plant
• A Rutherford County waste water treatment facility at Thunder Road and
US 221
• An existing and proposed landfill at the end of Laurel Hill Drive between
US 221 and US 74 Alternate (north of Thunder Road)
• A Veterans Administration out-patient clinic in a shopping center on Charlotte
Road in Rutherfordton
• RS Middle School at Charlotte Road and Railroad Avenue
• Trinity School at US 64 and Deter Court
• RS Central High School at US 221 and Old US 221
• The Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
• A walking path along the abandoned railroad parallel to Railroad
Avenue/Rock Road/US 221
• Several churches are located throughoutthe demographic area
3.1.5 Community Cohesion
Other than the main streets of Rutherfordton and Spindale, land use throughout
the area is predominantly single family residential with some scattered retail and
industrial facilities located along major thoroughfares. Outside of the towns, land is
mostly rural, with only sparse residential development and small commercial businesses
at major intersections.
Most of the neighborhoods in Rutherfordton are older, established neighborhoods
with no clear boundaries or subdivision names. However, there are some named
communities or residential areas which appear to have a more cohesive nature.
Ellington Heights is an older subdivision located north of SR 2101 (Thunder
Road) on the west side of US 74 Alternate. The area along SR 2203 (Laurel Hills Drive),
which is located north and west of Ellington Heights, was identified as a cohesive,
minority and low-income community. The community near Second Street in
Rutherfordton was also identified as a minority and low-income community. The area
along Collett Street and Green Street in Rutherfordton was identified as a cohesive
middle-income community, as was the Thermal Valley subdivision, located north of
Rutherfordton between existing US 221 and SR 1536 (Old US 221).
3-2
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
3.21 Land Use Plans
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use
Rutherford County is predominantly rural. The towns of Rutherfordton and
Spindale are two of the largest towns in the county. Existing land use in the project study
area varies from undeveloped forested or agricultural land to intensively developed
commercial or industrial uses. Most of the land in the study area is residential.
Figure 3-1 presents the existing land use in Rutherford County.
3.2.1.2 Existing Zoning
Existing zoning for Rutherfordton designates the area surrounding the proposed
project as R-2, (7,000 square-foot minimum residential lots), C-2, (highway-related
commercial (along Railroad Avenue) and CI-1, industrial-related commercial (mainly
along Industrial Park Road).
Existing zoning for Spindale designates the land along US 74 Alternate between
Thunder Road and US 74 Business as R-10 and R-20 (numbers indicate minimum
residential lot size). Land along US 74 Business is designated as G-C (General
Commercial). A swath of land along Railroad Avenue is designated as HC-1 (Heavy
CommerciaUIndustrial).
Rutherford County does not currently have countywide zoning.
3.2.1.3 Future Land Use
Rutherford County revised their DraftLand Use Plan 1993-2003 in 2001. The
plan is designed to be a practical guide for organized growth and development, and for
the provision of community needs. Figure 3-2 shows future land use for Rutherford
County.
The Town of Rutherfordton approved a master plan far the Town in 2006. Some
of the goals of the plan were to create sidewalks and trails that connect neighborhoods
and public spaces, encourage a creative and artistic downtown with shops and restaurants,
and to preserve the significant history and heritage unique to the area This plan made
several recommendations for improving downtown Rutherfordton and for proposed land
uses within the Town.
The Town of Rutherfordton also hired a consultant to prepare a corridor study for
the proposed US 221 Bypass in 2006. The purpose of that study was to identify
opportunities for development along existing roadway corridors leading from the bypass
into downtown, determine appropriate future land uses and identify the Town's preferred
alternative for the bypass. The land use recommendations from the Corridor Study were
3-3
made a part of the Town's master plan. Rutherfordton's Corridor Study recommended
the US 74A Alternative (called Alternative 1 in the Town's study) for the proposed
bypass. In 2009, the town council passed a resolution supporting Alternative 3 far the
proposed bypass.
The Town of Spindale does not have a formal plan to date but there are several
funded projects that involve paving walking trails, rebuilding sidewalks and landscaping
that will enhance the surrounding communities.
3.2.2 Transportation Plans
3.2.2.1 Highway Plans
The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by the
Town of Rutherfordton and NCDOT on September 9, 1997 and November 7, 1997,
respectively (see Figure 3-3).
The approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) identifies the proposed project as TIP Project R-2233B. This project is
one of three transportation improvement projects within the study area. TIP Project
R-2233A involves widening existing US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass. TIP Project R-2597 involves widening US 221 north of SR 1366 (Roper
Loop Road) in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County.
3.2.2.2 Transit Plans
There are currently no approved transit plans for the project area.
3.2.2.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans
There are currently no approved bicycle/pedestrian plans far the project area, but
one of the goals of the Rutherford County Comprehensive Arts, Parks and Recreation
Plan is to promote biking on nature trails and in municipalities through the use of bike
lanes. Rutherfordton's master plan shows several potential walking trails in the vicinity
of downtown, including one trail which would be utilized far the Overmountain Victory
National Historic Trail (OMVNHT). The OMVNHT follows the route of Revolutionary
War soldiers through Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina (see
Section 3.4.3).
3-4
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Noise Characteristics
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is
usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drivetrain and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is typically described by its sound pressure. Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C and D). The A-weighted scale is used
almost exclusively in traffic noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on
the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive. Sound levels measured
using A-weighted decibel scales are often expressed as dBA.
Noise measurement sites were selected to represent sensitive land uses within the
study area. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from the
edge of pavement, ranged from 60 dBA to 67 dBA. A background noise level of 49 dBA
was used far this study in areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
3.3.2 Air Quality
Air quality is defined according to criteria established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), these criteria, designated
as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), have been established for six
air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NOz ), sulfur dioxide
(SOz ), particulate matter (PMio) and ozone (03 ). Motor vehicles are known to emit
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, and lead (Pb), listed in decreasing order of emission.
USEPA also regulates Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), which are a subset of
air toxics defined by the CAA. MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles
and non-road equipment.
All areas within North Carolina are designated as either attainment,
non-attainment or unclassifiable with respect to each of the six pollutants under the
NAAQS. Areas that have pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are designated as
attainment; while areas where the NAAQS are exceeded are designated as
non-attainment. In non-attainment areas, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is developed
to bring the area into compliance with the NAAQS. Areas where available data are
insufficientfor classification are designated as unclassifiable. The proposed project is
located in an attainment area.
3-5
3.3.3 Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation ofPrime Agricultural
and ForestLands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils are determined based on criteria
such as crop yield and level of input of economic resources.
Rutherford County adopted a Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program
Ordinance in 2000. Property owners may enter into a conservation agreement with the
County which prohibits non-farm use or development for at least 10 years. Participants
may remove all or a portion of their land from the program by giving notice to the
County Agricutural Advisory Board. The Ordinance also includes a provision that no
state or local public agency may formally initiate any action to condemn any interest in
qualifying farmland within a Voluntary Agricultural District until the agency has
requested the Rutherford County Agricultural Advisory Board to hold a public hearing on
the proposed condemnation.
Table 3-1 presents prime farmland soils in the project area. Figure 3-4 shows the
location of the six most common soils within the project area.
Table 3-1
Pro'ect Stud Area Prime Farmland Soils
Soil Name Soil S bol Cro Yield
Cecil Sandy Clay Loam CaB2 Cotton, corn, small grain,
so beans
Madison Clay Loam MaC2 Corn, small grain, soybeans
Cotton, corn, small grain,
Pacolet Sandy Clay Loam PaC2 soybeans
3.3.4 Utilities
Electric power is supplied throughout Rutherford County by Duke Power,
Rutherford Electric Membership Corporation and Forest City.
The two major water sources in the county are the Broad River (Class IV) and the
Second Broad River (Class IV). There are two major water systems in Rutherford
County, both of which rely on surface water treatment plants for water supply and
production. The water treatment plants that serve the area are the Broad River Water
Authority Plant and the Forest City Water Treatment Plant.
There are three major municipal sewer systems in Rutherford County. The
systems serve Forest City, Spindale and Rutherfordton. The Rutherfordton Wastewater
Treatment Facility is located near the intersection of US 221 and Oak Street. The
3-6
Spindale Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in the northeast section oftown off
Ecology Drive. The Forest City Riverside Drive Water Reclamation Facility is located
on Riverside Drive in Forest City.
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous material sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation Recovery
Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Hazardous materials are generally defined as material or a
combination of materials that present a potential hazard to human health or the
environment.
Geographic Information System (GIS) data was consulted to identify known sites
of concern and a field reconnaissance was conducted along the project corridors in
December 2008. A search of appropriate environmental agency databases and Sanborn
Map data was also performed to assist in evaluating sites identified during the study.
The study revealed 14 sites which may contain USTs, a junkyard and eight
automotive repair facilities within the current study corridors. GIS also identified one
landfill in the project vicinity, the Rutherford County Landfill, located south of
Rutherfordton between US 221 and US 74A on the north side of SR 2201 (Thunder
Road).
GIS also identified one inactive Superfund site within the project corridor. The
Superfund site is listed as Reeves Brothers and is west of Railroad Avenue, between Oak
Street and Reeves Street. Reeves Brothers (now operating as Trelleborg) is an inactive
Superfund site (ID# NC-D08367616). In 1974, a tanker truck overturned on the property,
spilling 5,000 gallons oftoluene. In 1979, 100 gallons oftoluene were spilled on Oak
Street. No documentation could be found from the NC Superfund Section indicating
either of these spills was cleaned up. A ground water incident was also recorded with the
NC Division of Water Quality for this site in January 2006 (Incident # 87678). No
details regarding this incident were available. Based on the information available, it
appears the soil and groundwater are likely contaminated with solvents.
A detailed field reconnaissance survey will be performed within the selected
corridar (Alternative 3) priar to right of way acquisition. Table 3-2 lists potentially
contaminated properties within the project study corridors. The locations of these sites
are shown on Figure 3-5.
3-7
Table 3-2
Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Corridors

Site#
T e
Location
Antici ated Contamination Anticipated
Severit
1 UST 500 S. Main St, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
2 UST 100 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
3 UST 201 Charlotte Rd, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
4 UST 367 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
5 UST 509 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
6 UST 531 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
7 UST 657 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
8 Automotive 841 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
9 Automotive 841 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
10 Automotive 841 Railroad Ave, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
11 UST 137 US 64, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
12 Automotive 145 US 64, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
13 Automotive 196 US 64, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
14 UST 228 US 64, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
15 UST 285 US 64, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
16 Junk Yard 280 E. Mountain St,
Rutherfordton Chemical & petroleum contaminated
soils Low
17 Automotive 156 E. Mountain St,
Rutherfordton petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
18 UST 163 E. Mountain St,
Rutherfordton petroleum contaminated soils Low
19 UST 149 E. Mountain St,
Rutherfordton petroleum contaminated soils Low
20 UST 791 N. Main St, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
21 Automotive 2042 Old US 221 N,
Rutherfordton petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
22 Automotive 869 US 221 N, Rutherfordton Petroleum-solvent contaminated soils Low
23 UST 923 US 221 N, Rutherfordton Petroleum contaminated soils Low
24 Industrial 751 Railroad Ave., Rutherfordton Solvent contaminated soils Low to
Moderate
3-8
3.3.6 Floodplains/Floodways
Rutherford County and the Town of Rutherfordton are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program. All of the alternatives will cross floodplains. The floodplain
areas in the vicinity of the stream crossings are rural.
3.3.7 Protected Lands
3.3.7.1 State/National Forests
No State or National Forest lands exist within the project area.
3.3.7.2 Game lands
No game lands exist in the project study area.
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a).
Although no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed project, the
project will require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to federal permit areas
alongthe project. Surveys for historic architectural resources were conducted in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended.
A preliminary survey for Historic Architectural Resources was conducted by
NCDOT in 1999. The survey consisted of a cursory field survey and limited historical
background research. USGS maps were used as guides in the field to identify historic
resources and evaluate their potential for National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
During the survey, a total of 145 resources at least 50 years old were identified within the
Area of Potenial Effects (APE). Of these resources, three are listed on the National
Register and eight were evaluated and determined to be eligible for the National Register.
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with these findings in a letter
dated April 25, 2003 (see Appendix A). These resources are shown on Figure 3-6.
After the detailed study alternatives were identified, a more intensive survey of
historic architectural resources was conducted for these alternatives.
3-9
Properties Listed on the National Regster
Rutherfordton-Spindale Central High School
This property is located at the northwest corner of US 74A Business and US 74
Bypass in Rutherfordton. Constructed in 1924-1925, the Rutherfordton-Spindale Central
High School ranks among the state's notable schools erected during the consolidation era
of the 1920s. Architect, Hugh White, designed this handsome, red brick, Classical
Revival building on a dramatic hilltop site. The prominent landscape architect, Earle
Summer Draper, of Charlotte designed the grounds to emphasize the building's public
presence. According to the 1992 National Register nomination, the school is significant
in the areas of education and architecture.
Main Street Historic District (Rutherfordton)
This site is bounded by Third street (north), Washington street (west), Taylor
street (east), and Court street (south).
The well-preserved historic district encompasses Rutherfordton's commercial
core. The blocks of contiguous, red brick, commercial buildings reflect the town's rapid
growth with the arrival of the railroad during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. According to the 1995 National Register Nomination, the historic district is
eligible for commerce, politics and government and architecture.
Gilbert Town
This site is located on both sides of SR 1520 (Rock Road) approximately 250
yards north of the SR 1539 (Gilbert Town Road) intersection. Gilbert Town was the first
county seat in the 16 western counties of North Carolina. It is also associated with the
Battle of Kings Mountain during the American Revolution. Both the British and
American armies camped at this location within days of each other prior to the battle.
Gilbert Town was added to the National Register of Historic Places in August 2006.
Properties Eligible for the National Register
Proposed Boundary Expansion of Main Street Historic District (RutherFordton)
This site is bounded by North Main, Carnegie, North Washington, and Fernwood
streets. It is recommended that the boundaries of the existing historic district be
expanded to encompass nearby churches and residences that were built during the same
period as the Main Street business district. The boundary expansion contains a notable
collection of churches along the east side of North Main Street. Just north of the existing
historic district, within the 400 block, the First Baptist and the First Methodist churches
were built in the 1920s with handsome, red brick, Colonial Revival designs. St. John's
Episcopal Church (ca. 1848) is located on the 600 block on North Main. This remarkably
3-10
well-preseved frame, gable front church has bold Greek Revival elements. Farther north,
in the 900 block, stands St. Francis Episcopal Church (1898), an impressive, stone,
Gothic Revival building.
Both North Main and North Washington streets feature a variety of nineteenth and
early twentieth centurty domestic architecture. One example is the Queen Anne Greek
Revival Carrier-McBrayer House located on the west side of the 400 block of North
Main. The house was listed in the National Register in 1992. Other Queen Anne houses
are present throughout the proposed expanded historic district. The neighborhood north
of the business district also contains notable Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival houses
and bungalows. The proposed expansion of Main Street Historic District was
recommended as eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for community
planning and development and Criterion C for architecture.
Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church
This church is located on the east side of US 221 near SR 2194. Constructed ca.
1900, Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church is a well-preserved one story, weatherboard
church. A small cemetery associated with the church stands in a grove of trees just east
of the church. This cemetery contains both marked and unmarked headstones that date
primarily from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Dunkard's Creek
Baptist Church is recommended eligible far the National Register under Criterion C for
architecture and meets Criterion Consideration A for religious properties.
Homer and Bertha Sparks House
This house is located on the east side of Railroad Avenue facing the railroad
corridor. The Homer and Bertha Sparks House ranks among the town's finest remaining
early twentieth century residences. The house blends Queen Anne and classically
inspired elements. In addition to the house, the property also includes a 1907 brick
smokehouse and a later, frame garage/storage shed. This property is recommended as
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture.
Robert J. Norris House
This house is located on the southeast comer of Railroad Avenue and US 64 in
Ruth. Built around the 1880s, the Robert J. Norris House is a traditional, two story,
single pile dwelling which has a well-preserved main block decorated with late
nineteenth century sawnwork. The property also includes two frame sheds that appear to
be contemporary with the construction of the house. The Robert J. Norris House is
considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture.
Ruth Elementary School
This property is located on the south side of US 64, 0.2 mile east of US 221. This
well-preserved school was constructed in 1929. The main facility is a one story, red
3-11
brick building with Colonial Revival details. The tree-shaded grounds also include a
1951 gymnasium and a ca 1960 classroom building. The Ruth Elementary School is
recommended eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for education.
Washington Geer House
This house is located on the north side of US 64 at SR 1539. Although now
vacant and in disrepair, the house retains notable original features as well as elements
added in the 1920s. The dwelling's traditional two story, single pile form is distinguished
by the two tiered, engaged porch which appears to be original. The site also contains a
frame corncrib that appears to be contemporary with the house and a twentieth-century
frame shed. The Washington Geer House is recommended eligible far the National
Register under Criterion C for architecture.
Gilboa United Methodist Church
This church is located on the east side of SR 1532, 0.3 mile south of SR 1533.
Constructed in 1886 and expanded in 1925, Gilboa United Methodist Church is a
substantially intact, one story, frame church. A small cemetery stands to the north of the
church, just beyond the abandoned railroad bed. The cemetery includes approximately
200 headstones including many that date from the 1890s into the early twentieth century.
The Gilboa United Methodist Church is recommended eligible for the National Register
under Criterion C for architecture and meets Criterion Consideration A for religious
properties.
This property was evaluated in the survey but is no longer within the projecYs APE.
Yelton's Flour Mill
This property is located on West Main Street in Spindale, just east of US 74 A.
The Mill was built in 1915 and experienced several expansions up into the 1950's. The
core of the complex is comprised of a four-story gable-roof structure which houses
milling and ventilation equipment. It also includes wooden grain bins, grain silos,
offices, shipping and storage rooms. Historic signage is also evident on the building's
corrugated metal exterior sheathing. Three warehouse buildings with gable roofs,
corrugated metal exterior sheathing and open brick pier foundations are also situated on
the site. Yelton's Flour Mill is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion
A far the development of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century milling production
methods and Criterion C for architecture.
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources
An intensive archaeological survey was conducted within the study corridor for
Alternative 3 during 2010.
The archaeological Area of Potential Effect is considered the proposed
construction limits of the project. The intensive archaeological survey covered all of the
3-12
proposed construction limits. Subsurface shovel testing was conducted in areas of high
probability within the proposed construction limits. As a result of the Phase I
archaeological survey along US 221 conducted in 2010, seven new archaeological sites
were recorded within the project APE. These cultural resources are one multi-component
(prehistoric and historic) artifact scaYter (31RF196/196), five isolated finds of prehistoric
lithic material (31RF197-31RF201) and one sparse prehistoric lithic scaYter (31RF202).
These archaeological resources are recommended as not eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. The final archaeological report has been forwarded
to the US Army Corps of Engineers and the HPO for review.
3.4.3 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
The Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (OMVNHT) passes through
the project area. The OMVNHT eatends through portions of Virginia, Tennessee, North
Carolina and South Carolina. The trail follows the route of patriot militia, who were
pursuing a British army in September and October of 1780. The patriot army defeated
the British at the battle of Kings Mountain on October 7, 1780. Both armies camped
within a few days of each other at Gilbert Town (see Section 3.4.1) prior to the battle.
The OMVNHT is managed by the National Park Service. Three routes are
designated for the traiL the primary historic route (the actual route of the Patriot army),
the walking route used by reenactors every year and the commemorative motor route.
The one-mile portion of the Isothermal Rail-Trail between US 64 and SR 1520
(Rock Road) follows the primary historic route. In the project area, the commemarative
motor route follows US 64 east of existing US 221 north of Rutherfordton, existing
US 221 from US 64 through downtown Rutherfordton to NC 108 and NC 108 west of
existing US 221. Figure 3-6 shows the route ofthe OMVNHT in the project area.
3-13
3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.5.1 Soils/Topography
The predominant soils within the project area are shown on Table 3-3 below.
Table 3-3
Project Study Area Predominant Soils
Soil Development Prime
Soil Name Symbol Suitability Crop Yield Slope Farmland?
Well suited for
Cecil urban development Cotton, corn, All areas are
Sandy Clay CaB2 and local small grain, 2_8% prime
Loam roads/streets soybeans farmland
Corn,
Chewacla Unsuited for urban soybeans, No; prone to
Loam ChA development and small grain, 0-2% flooding
local roads/streets vegetables
Suited for urban Corn, g_ Farmland of
Madison MaC2 development and small grain, 15% statewide
Clay Loam local roads/streets soybeans importance
Unsuited for urban Poorly suited, 15-
Madison MaD2 development and because of ZSoo No; slope
Clay Loam local roads/streets erodability issues
Pacolet Suited for urban Cotton, corn, g_ Farmland of
Sandy Clay PaC2 development and small grain, 15% statewide
Loam local roads/streets soybeans importance
Pacolet Unsuited for urban Poorly suited, 15-
No; slope
Sand Cla
?
PaD2
development and
because of
250o
issues
Loam local roads/streets erodability
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife
3.5.21 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.11 Terrestrial Communities
Five plant communities occur within the study area: Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Piedmont Subtype), Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Disturbed-Maintained
Communities, Wetland Communities, and Pine Forest. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
3-14
(Piedmont Subtype) and Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest can be classified as natural
communities.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Under natural conditions, these forests are uneven-aged, with old trees present.
Rare severe natural disturbances allow less shade-tolerant species to become established
and remain in the community. Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and
"weedy" hardwood species.
Scattered throughout the study area, this plant community occurs in many of the
wooded areas along drainageways. Most of these areas remain wooded due to their steep
topography. However, some locations have historically been used as refuse dump sites,
which creates some disturbance in growth of the herbaceous layer. The canopy of this
forest type is dominated by species such as beech, red oak, tulip poplar, red maple and
other mesophytic species. American sycamore and green ash are less-dominant canopy
species that are found in this community.
Drv-Mesic Oak-History Forest
These forests typically occur on mid-slopes, low ridges, upland flats and other
dry-mesic upland areas, especially on acidic soils. Under natural conditions, these foreste
are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Rare severe natural disturbances, such as wind
storms, open canopy gaps and allow increased regeneration of less shade-tolerant species.
Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and "weedy" hardwood species.
Dominance of these species will depend on the amount of disturbance.
Within the study area, this plant community generally dominates the uplands.
This forest can be found on side slopes, upland flats and some lower slopes where natural
vegetation remains. This forest type is dominated by oaks and hickories, with white oak
being the most prevelant. Other dominant species include red oak, black oak, mockernut
hickory, pignut hickory and sweet pignut hickory. Virginia pine, tulip poplar and
sweetgum are also common in disturbed areas.
Disturbed-Maintained Communities
This community includes five types of habitat that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance, including regularly maintained roadside and
railroad shoulders, pastures, utility rights of way, clearcuts and residential and
commercial areas. The majority of these habitats are kept in a low-growing, early
successional state.
The regularly maintained roadside and railroad shoulder is mowed frequently and
is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The pastures within the project area are
dominated by tall fescue, red fescue and red clover. The edges of the pastures are
3-15
dominated by Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, goldenrods, spotted joe-pye weed and
an assortment of other mixed herbaceous species.
The clearcuts within the project area were created in the recent past. Young red
maple, Virginia pine and sweetgum are the most common woody species present. Vines
such as greenbrier and poison ivy may also be prominent.
Wetland Communities
In general, there are three kinds of wetlands present within the study area:
forested wetlands, shrub-dominated wetlands and wetlands dominated by herbaceous
vegetation. In nearly every case, there has been some form of disturbance within the
wetlands, either through clearing of vegetaion, mowing, grazing, or dumping of solid
waste. This disturbance may cause some wetlands to grade from one type into another.
The forested wetlands are located in seepage areas along drainageways. The
dominant tree species include river birch, American sycamore, tulip poplar, sweetgum
and red maple. Invasive exotics such as Chinese privet, multiflora rose and Japanese
honeysuckle are frequently found in these wetland areas.
The two shrub-dominated wetlands within the study area are typically located
along pond margins. These wetlands will more than likely become forested wetlands, if
the vegetation is allowed to mature. These wetlands are dominated by black willow, tulip
poplar, red maple, sweet gum and Chinese privet.
The wetlands dominated by emergent, or herbaceous vegetation are typically
created by the clearing of wetlands that would otherwise be dominated by woody
vegetation. These are the most common type of wetlands near pastures and other
agricultural areas, and are maintained through grazing or mowing. They are dominated
by orange jewelweed, soft rush, Nepal grass and sedges.
Pine Forest
Pine forests are located throughout the study area, including areas of planted pine
and areas of naturally occurring pine. The plantations are generally dominated by white
pine or Virginia pine and are generally greater than five years old. The stands of natural
pine are typically dominated by white pine, and are more than ten years in age. The pine
creates a dense overstory, blocking sunlight and allowing a sparse or absent understory
and herbaceous layer. Understory species may inclue red maple, tulip poplar and
sweetgum.
3.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Species that prefer open areas for feeding and nesting can be found in the
disturbed communities of the study area. The faunal species present in these disturbed
habitats are mostly opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources. The
3-16
European starling and American robin are common birds that use these habitats to find
insects, seeds or worms. Migratory birds that travel in large flocks like the bobolink,
common grackle and red-wing blackbird commonly stop to feed or rest in agricultural
areas.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail prefers a mix of
herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out
in the roadside and residential areas. White-tailed deer will utilize the forested areas as
well as the adjacent open areas. The black rat snake will come out offorested habitatto
forage on rodents in open areas. Indigo bunting and common yellowthroat inhabit dense,
shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. The blue jay, song sparrow, eastern towhee
and Eastern bluebird can be seen utilizing edge habitat all year round.
Forested areas are important habitat for many wildlife species, providing crucial
foraging, nesting, and/or denning areas. Neotropical migratory birds, in particular, are
dependent on these areas. Species such as the Acadian flycatcher and the Louisiana
waterthrush thrive in wooded riparian areas, while the black-and-white warbler, black-
throated green warbler and the red-eyed vireo prefer the upland woods. Species such as
the downy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, Carolina chickadee and the tufted
titmouse are found in wooded areas throughout the year.
In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the northern short-tailed shrew and the
white-footed mouse may be found. The gray squirrel is often observed foraging in
wooded areas, both on the ground and in trees. The spring peeper and the five-lined
skink can be found under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth. The eastern box turtle
is a terrestrial turtle but will often be found near streams in hot, dry weather.
3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.2.1 Aquatic Communities
There are 103 streams and eleven ponds within the study area No distinct areas
containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the channels or
ponds during the field assessment. A visual survey of the ponds and stream banks within
the project study area was conducted to document the aquatic community.
3.5.2.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife
Fish species expected to occur in drainages within the project vicinity include
rosyside dace, bluehead chub, fieryblack shiner, spottail shiner, yellowfin shiner and
creek chub. Largemouth bass, bluegill and channel catFish are typical pond species in the
area.
Mud salamanders, northern cricket frogs, and the four-toed salamander may be
found in forested wetlands. Northern water snakes, snapping turtles and bullfrogs may be
found near larger waterways, while nothern dusky salamanders are in smaller drainages.
3-17
Suitable aquatic habitat exists in the project vicinity to support several bird
species, including wood duck, mallard, great blue heron, belted kingfisher and Canada
goose.
3.5.3 Waters of the United States
Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Actrequires regulation of discharges into "Waters
ofthe United States." Although the principal administrative agency ofthe Clean Water
Act is the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Army Corps of Engineers
(LTSACE) has major responsibility for implementing, permitting and enforcement of
provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
3.5.3.1 Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin (03-08-02) of the Broad River
Basin, (NCDWQ 2002a) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit for the Upper Broad
River (HUC No. 03050105) (LTSGS 1987). A Best Usage Classification is assigned to
waters of North Carolina based on existing or contemplated best usage of various streams
or segments of streams in the basin. The unnamed tributaries present within the project
area have not been individually classified; therefore they carry the same classification as
their receiving streams.
3.5.3.1.1 Streams
One hundred and three streams are located within the project study area, all of
which are jurisdictional. These streams range from intermittent to perennial and are
listed in Table 3-4 and shown on Figure 3-7.
Table 3-4
Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area
Ba°k
Stream ID and
He1ght Channel
Stability
Sinuosity
Substrate Water Stream
Map Code*
feet Width (feet) Clarity Determination
S1igMly
B 6-8 2-4 Stable Moderate Sand
turbid Pereniiial
1B 1-4 3-4 STable Weak Sand Cleu Pereniiial
UT1B 2-6 1-3 Stable Weak Bedrock,sand Cleu Perennial
Moderately Cobble,
A 1-5 2_5
STable Moderate
gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2ZZ 1-10 1-3 Unstable Weak Cobble
sand S1igMly Pereniiial
, turbid
1C 1-2 6-10 Stable Shong Bedrock,sand S1igMly Pereniiial
turbid
UT1C 1-2 1-4 Stable Shong Bedrock,sand Cleu Perennial
2UT1C 1-3 1-4 STable Shong Bedrock,sand Cleu Perennial
3UT1C 1-4 <1 Unstable Weak Sand, silt Turbid Pereniiial
UTNTIC 1-4 1-2 STable Moderate Sand S1igMly Pereniiial
turbid
2A 6-12 0.5-3 STable Shong Bedrock, Cleu Perennial
ravel
c obble, g
3-18
Table 3-4 Continued
Ba°k
StreamIDand
*
He1ght Channel
Stability
Sinuosity
Subs[rate Water Stream
Map Code Width (feet) Clarity Determination
feet

4UT2A 0.5 1 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT2A 2-4 0.5-1 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2UT2A 3-4 0.5 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3UT2A 2-4 1-2 Shble Moderate Cobble, sand Cleu Perennial
5UT2A 2-3 1 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2B upsheam 4-5 0.5 STable Moderate Cobble, sand Cleu Perennial
2B downsheam 6-10 1-3 Stable Shong Cobble,
Cleu
Perennial
gravel, sand
Moderately CObble,
UT2B 4-6 2_3
STable Moderate
gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2UT2B 3-5 0.5-1 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Cleu Perennial
UTIUT2B 2-3 1-2 Stable Moderate Cobble
sand S1igMly perennial
, turbid
1D 2-10 2-4 Unstable Weak Bedrock, clay S1igMly
perennial
turbid
UT1D 6-20 4-6 Unstable Weak Bedrock, clay Cleu Perennial
lE 1-3 4-6 Stable Moderate Rock, cobble Cleu Perennial
UT1E 1 4 Stable Weak Sand,gravel Cleu Perennial
2C (Stonecutter 10-25 1-4 Shble Shong Boulder, rock Cleu Perennial
Creek)
UT2C 2-3 0.5-3 Stable Weak Bedrock, sand Cleu Perennial
UTUT2C 1.5 0.5 Stable Weak Cobble, sand Cleu Perennial
3A 0-1 1-4 STable Weak Sand Cleu Perennial
2F 1-10 3-6 STable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2G downsheam 2-10 6-8 Stable Weak Gravel/sand Cleu Perennial
2UT2G 4-9 3-5 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3-2Cupsheam 2_4 8-20 Shble Moderate Bedrock
sand Cleu Perennial
(Stonecutter Creek) ,
Bedrock
1J 1-6 8-15 STable Shong ,
gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT1J 1-3 2-6 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Cleu Perennial
3-2C downsheam 2_8 20-30 Stable Weak Bedrock
sand Cleu Perennial
(Stonecutter Creek) ,
2UT3-2C 0-1 12-16 Shble Moderate Bedrock, sand Cleu Perennial
3UT3-2C 0-2 0-3 Shble Weak Sand Cleu Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3UT3-2C 6-14 2-16 STable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
Cobble
4UT3-2C 6-20 3-4 Shble Weak ,
gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT4UT3-2C 1-4 1-3 STable Weak Cobble, Cleu Perennial
gravel, sand
3E 12 1-8 Shble Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3-19
Table 3-4 Continued
Ba°k
Stream ID and
*
He1ght Channel
Stability
Sinuosity
Subs[rate Water Stream
Map Code Width (feet) Clarity Determination
feet
UT3E 1-9 3-6 Stable Shong Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3D(NorthofUS Bedrock,

74) 0-8 4-12 Stable Moderate
gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
Intermittent
3Cupsheam 0-2 1-4 Stable Moderate Sand Cleu becoming
Perennial
ock
3Cdownsheam 2-6 4-10 Stable Moderate ,
ana Cleu Perennial
3UT3C 0-2 1-3 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
4UT3C 0-1 1-3 Stable Moderate Sand Cleu Intermittent
3B 0-6 1-4 Stable Moderate Sand Cleu Perennial
3D(SouthofUS 3-4 6-10 Stable Moderate Sand Cleu Intermittent
74) becoming Perennial
UT31) 0-6 1-8 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
lY 2-4 4-6 Stable Moderate Clay, giavel Cleu Perennial
UT1Y 1-2 1-2 Stable Moderate Cobble,sand Cleu Perennial
2UT1Y 0-6 1-10 Stable Weak Silt Cleu Perennial
3UT1Y 1-2 2-6 Stable Shong Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2J 1-2 3 Stable Weak Silt Cleu Perennial
Gravel
sand
1G 3-15 3 Unstable weak ,
,
silt Cleu Perennial
UT1G 4 3-5 Moderately weak Cobble, Cleu Perennial
Stable gravel, sand
2H 20 3-4 Moderately weak Sand Cleu Perennial
stable
UT2H 20 4-6 Moderately
weak
Sand
Cleu
Perennial
Stable
2Gupsheam -10
3 2035 Stable Moderate ?PiaP' Cleu Intermittent
(Cleghom Creek) gravel, sand becoming Perennial
3UT2G 8-12 4 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
4UT2G 420 3-4 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
5UT2G 15 2-3 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
6UT2G 1-18 3-8 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT6UT2G 1-3 3 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3-2UT6UT2G 2-6 1-4 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
33UT6UT2G 2-4 1-4 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3-4UT6UT2G 1-4 2-4 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3-5UT6UT2G 1-2 1-2 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3UTUT317 2-3 4-8 Stable Weak Clay, silt Turbid Perennial
2UTUT317 2-8 1-6 Stable Weak Silt Cleu Perennial
3F (Hollands

Creek) 6 6-15 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3-20
Table 3-4 Continued
Stream ID
and Map
Code* Bank
Height
feet Channel Width
(feet?
Stability
SinuosiTy
Subs[rate Water
Clarity Stream
Determination
UTUT317 2 3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UT317 3-4 3-5 Moderately
Stable weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
2UTUT2K 0.5 1 Stable Moderate Sand Cleu Perennial
UTUT2K 1-5 1-5 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UT2K 1-5 1-3 Stable Weak Sand Cleu Perennial
UT1HC 1-40 2-20 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT3X 2-12 3-6 Stable Shong Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UTUT3X 1-9 3-6 Moderately
Stable weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3X 3-12 8-20 Stable Weak Mud Cleu Perennial
3G (Hollands
Creek) 5-10 10-15 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
UT3G 3-6 3-4 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Cleu Perennial
3UTUT3G 2-8 13 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UTUT3G 13 1-2 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
2UTUT3G 1-4 13 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UT2UTUT3G 1-3 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
2UT1HC 1-2 13 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UT3UTIHC 1-2 1-2 Stable Weak Sand Cleu Perennial
3UT1HC 1-3 1-5 Stable Weak Sand Cleu Perennial
31 2-10 6-40 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UTUTIHC 2 3 Stable Low Sand, silt Slighfly
turbid perennial
UT1HC 2-25 2-10 Stable Moderate Sand, cobble Cleu Perennial
1HC
(Hollands
Creek)
12
4-6 Moderately
Stable
Moderate Cobble,gravel,
sand S1igMly
turbid
Perennial
2K (Hollands
Creek) 2_4 12-18 Stable Weak Silt Cleu Perennial
2UT2K 3-4 5 Stable None Sand, silt Slighfly
turbid
perennial
3UT2K 3 6 Unstable Low Gravel. sand Cleu Perennial
1K 1-2 4-6 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
UT1K 0-3 0-1 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3H 1-8 2-20 Stable Weak Clay, silt Cleu Perennial
2UT1K 0-1 13 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Intermittent
3UT1K 0-1 13 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Intermittent
4UT1K 03 23 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
5UT1K 0-2 23 Stable Weak Sand, silt Cleu Perennial
3-21
Table 3-4 Continued
StreamID Bank

and Map
Height Channel
Stability
SinuosiTy
Subs[rate Water
Stream Determination
* W?dth (feet) Clarity
Code feet
Moderately Cobble,
UT3J Z_q Z_q
STable Low
gravel, clay Cleu Perennial
3J 1S 2-4 STable Moderate Bedrock, sand Cleu Perennial
UT1N 2-8 1-6 STable Moderate Sand Cleu Perennial
1N 2-8 3-8 Stable Low Sand Cleu Intermittentbecoming
Perennial
1M 13 2-4 Stable Low Sand Cleu Intermittentbecoming
Perennial
3M 2-4 23 Unstable Low Sand, clay Cleu Perennial
UT3M 1-4 3-4 STable Low Sand Cleu Perennial
2UT3K 3-20 2-4 Unstable Moderate Clay, silt Cleu Perennial
*UT = Unnamed tdbutary;
All streams in the study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C
or W S-V. Stonecutter Creek, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek are the major streams
in the study area which have a Best Usage Classification of C, C and W S-V respectively.
A Best Usage Classification of C indicates fresh waters designated for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, wildlife and agriculture
(15A NCAC 02B .OlOlI(1)). Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body
contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. A Best Usage Classification of
W S-V indicates waters protected as water supplies which generally drain to Class W S-IV
waters or waters used by industry to supply employees with drinking water or waters
formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses.
3.5.3.1.2 Ponds
There are eleven isolated ponds throughout the study area, eight of which are
jurisdictional. In most cases, the ponds are associated with agricultural or residential
areas and are surrounded by grazed or mowed vegetation. These ponds are shown on
Figure 3-7.
All but two of the ponds in the project area were either excavated or impounded.
Pond 1B was historically created as a millpond; however this mill is no longer
operational. One isolated, non-jurisdictional pond acts as a sediment basin for an
adjacent industrial facility. Forested areas adjoin some ponds; however, most of these
areas contain only canopy trees, as the understory has been removed by grazing livestock.
Grazing livestock contribute to bank erosion and increased sedimentation in many ponds.
Most ponds have a substrate of thick silt and sand, with some gravel present. The depths
of the ponds in the study area are estimated to be 3 to 15 feet.
3.5.3.2 Wetlands
The field assessment of the project study area identified 45 areas meeting the
federal criteria for wetlands. The wetland areas comprise approximately 5.2 acres of the
3-22
study area. The locations ofthese wetlands are shown in Figure 3-7. Table 3-5 lists
information aboutthe jursidictional wetlands within the study area, includingthe DWQ
Wetland Rating score and the overall wetland quality of each wetland within each
alternative study corridor.
3-23
Table 3-5
Wetlands in Pro,ject Stud Area

Wetland DWQ Wetland
Rating Score DWQ
Overall Wetland QualiTy
BA 61 MEDIUM
B 9 LOW
AA 34 MEDIUM
A 44 MEDIUM
2UT1C 24 LOW
2A 47 MEDIUM
2A-C 24.5 LOW
2A-D 22 LOW
2A-E 34 MEDIUM
2A-F 42 MEDIUM
2A-G 38 MEDIUM
2A-H 42 MEDIUM
2A-I 21 LOW
UTUT2C 38 MEDIUM
UT2C 38 MEDIUM
UT1E 19 LOW
lE 43 MEDIUM
lE-B 43 MEDIUM
lEC 39 MEDIUM
1D 37 MEDIUM
2B 30 LOW
2B-B 36 MEDIUM
3A 47 MEDIUM
2UT3-2C 45 MEDIUM
3B 36 MEDIUM
2UT 1 YB 37 MEDIUM
2UT 1 Y 43 MEDIUM
3D 64 MEDIUM
UT3D 64 MEDIUM
2J 36 MEDIUM
3F 22 LOW
UTUTIHC 10 LOW
1HC 45 MEDIUM
1HCX 10 LOW
UT2K 43 MEDIUM
1F 43 MEDIUM
lI 45 MEDIUM
3UTIHC 13 LOW
1HGB 37 MEDIUM
UT2KX 30 LOW
1KA 15 LOW
2UT1K 14 LOW
1KB 15 LOW
1KC 25 LOW
3M 19 LOW
3-24
3.5.4 Buffer Areas
There are no buffer regulations within the project limits.
3.5.5 Federally-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or
Officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.)
As of September 22, 2010, the following federally-protected species are listed for
Rutherford County.
Table 3-6
Federally-Protected Species Listed for RutherFord County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status* Habitat
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Yes (roosting)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T Yes
Small whorled o onia lsotria medeoloides T Yes
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E No
Rock ome lichen G noderma lineare E No
*E (Endangered) - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T(Threatened) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
Indiana Bat
The Indiana bat closely resembles several other bat species including the little
brown bat, gray bat, small-footed bat and northern long-eared bat. The Indiana bat is a
migratory species ofthe eastern central portion ofthe United States. Small populations
are known to occur in North Carolina.
During the winter months, Indiana bat occupy suitable hibernacula (caves and
mines) that are primarily located in karst areas of the east central United States.
Hibernacula have been designated as critical habitat for this species.
The presence of Indiana bat in a particular area within its geographic range
appears to be at least partially related to availability of natural roost structures, primarily
dead trees with loose, exfoliating bark.
Floodplain and riparian forests are considered primary, or optimal, roosting
habitat. Upland forests, old fields and pastures with scattered trees are considered
secondary habitat.
No hibernacula for Indiana bat are present within the project study area; however,
appropriate roosting habitat is present. The closest hibernaculum for a small colony of
3-25
Indiana bat was discovered in 1999 in the Cheoah Ranger District of Nantahala National
Forest in Graham County (LTSFW S 1999). This location is more than 100 miles west of
the study area. No known occurrence of Indiana bat has been reported within the project
vicinity.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
Dwarf=flowered heartleaf is a low-growing, spicy-smelling, evergreen perennial
herb that spreads via rhizomes. Leaves are heart-shaped, alternate, leathery, entire, and
1.6 to 2.4 inches long and wide (LTSFW S 2002a). Each leaf is supported by a long, thin
petiole that rises directly from the subsurface rhizome. The solitary flowers are fleshy,
firm, grow at the end of short stalks, and are often under forest litter and leaves near the
base of the leaf petioles.
Dwarf=flowered heartleafs grow in acidic, sandy loam soils and along bluffs and
nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creek-heads and streams, and along the slopes
of hillsides and ravines. The species is usually found on Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy
loam, ar Musella fine sandy loam soils.
This species is endemic to a nine-county area in the western upper Piedmont of
the Carolinas. In North Carolina, occurrences have been recorded in Cleveland, Polk,
Rutherford, McDowell, Lincoln, Catawba, Burke, Caldwell and Alexander counties. The
species appears to be more common than originally thought, although most populations
occur on private lands.
Suitable habitat is present within the study area and one previously undocumented
population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf was identified within the project study area
Small whorled pogonia
The small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid with a stout, hollow stem. The
leaves are elliptical in shape and measure up to 3 inches by 5 inches.
The habitat of the small whorled pogonia varies widely throughout its range,
although there are afew common characteristics amongthe majority of sites. These
include sparse to moderate ground cover; a relatively open understory; and proximity to
features that create extensive, stable breaks in canopy, such as logging roads or streams.
The pogonia can be found in mature forests as well as stands as young as 30 years old.
Field surveys conducted in 2003 found appropriate habitat for this species in
several areas within the study area, however, no individuals of this species were located.
No known recent occurrence of small whorled pogonia has been reported by the
NC Natural Heritage Program in the project vicinity.
3-26
White Irisette
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously branching stems 4 to 8
inches tall. Leaves at the base of the plant are pale to bluish green and grow to one-third
to one-half the height of the plant.
This species prefers rich, basic soils weathered from amphibolite in clearings and
along the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin, and often where downslope
runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites. White
irisette is endemic to the upper Piedmont of the Carolinas, and is known to occur in
Rutherford County (NCNHP 1992).
No habitat for this species is located within the study area, since no basic soils are
present. No known recent occurrence of white irisette has been reported by the NC
Natural Heritage Program in the project vicinty.
Rock gnome lichen
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The
lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies, which are borne singly or in clusters, are
black in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules.
The rock gnome lichen is restricted to areas of high humidity. These high-
humidity environments occur on high-elevation (4,000 feet) mountaintops and clifffaces
that are frequently bathed in fog, or lower elevation (2,500 feet) deep gorges in the
southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces
where seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times.
There is no suitable habitat present within the study area for the rock gnome
lichen. Elevations within the study area only reach a maximum 1,100 feet, which does
not provide suitable environmental conditions far this species. No known occurrence of
the rock gnome lichen has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program within the
project vicinty.
3-27
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 COMMUNITY IMPACTS
4.1.1 Community Facilities & Services
All four detailed study alternatives are in close proximity to a public school at
some point. There is an existing and proposed landfill located at the end of Laurel Hill
Drive between US 221 and US 74 Alternate (north of Thunder Road). None of the
alternatives will impact these facilities.
4.1.2 Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The number of homes and businesses which would be relocated by the detailed
study alternatives are presented in Table 4-1 below. Information regarding the NCDOT
Relocation Assistance Program and relocation reports are included in Appendix B.
Table 4-1
Anticipated Relocations
For Detailed Stud Alternatives

Alternative Residential
Relocatees Business
Relocatees
3 (Selected) 99(18) 27
4 163(28) 43
6 91(13) 26
US 74A 88(8) 32
Numbers in parenthesis indicate minority-owned or occupied
homes. None of the alternatives will affect minority-owned
businesses.
Local officials have expressed concern that there is a shortage of comparable
rental housing for moderate to low-income persons. Approximately 19% of the
relocatees far the recommended alternative are tenants. The NCDOT Last Resort
Housing Program (See Appendix B) will be used to provide replacement housing if
comparable replacement housing is not available or is beyond the displacee's financial
means.
4.1.3 Economic Effects
The new and improved access and mobility to be provided by this project are
viewed as a potential positive economic effect. Rutherford County economic developers
are promoting the project to industries throughout the region. Travel time savings for
distributors traveling to and from I-85 in South Carolina and I-40 in North Carolina are
4-1
expected with the completion of the proposed project and other transportation projects in
the area.
The effect of the proposed project on the value of properties near the project will
vary, depending on the type of land use and zoning in the area In residential areas, the
value of properties adjacent to the bypass may decrease, while values of property
adjacentto the bypass in commercial or undeveloped areas may increase. Additionally,
the type of access provided to the properties will also affect their values.
4.1.4 Title VI Evaluation
Although demographic analysis does not reveal any notable minority or
low-income populations, neighborhoods in the vicinity of Second Street and L,aurel Hill
Drive have been identified by local officials as being minority and low-income
communities. Local representatives indicated that effects would be "weighted" similarly
across all of the neighborhoods crossed by the project. At this time, adverse effects do
not appear to be predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population, nor
does it appear that the effects suffered by the minority and/or low-income populations are
appreciably more severe than the effects suffered by the non-minority and/or non-low-
income populations. The North Carolina Department of Transportation adheres to Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act, which provides that no person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded in participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.
4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORATION PLANNING
4.21 Land Use Plans
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass is considered in the Revised 2001
Draft Rutherford County Land Use Plan. The proposed project is compatible with this
land use plan. Two objectives of the Plan are to work with the NCDOT to upgrade and
expand the current road systems to provide safe and efficient transportation, and to
require all new public roads to meet NCDOT standards. One of the recommendations in
the Plan is to insure the transporation plan coordinates with the land use plan and future
land use regulations to enhance economic development and protect the character of the
county.
4.2.2 Transportation Plans
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass is included in the 1997 Rutherford
County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan as a proposed major thoroughfare. The primary
objective of this plan is to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety by eliminating
both existing and projected deficiencies in the thoroughfare system.
4-2
4.2.2.1 Compatibility with Highway Plans
The proposed project is compatible with the state and local transportation plans
for the area. The project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Project Number R-2233B and was first
included in the 1987-1995 STIP.
4.2.2.2 Compatibility with Transit Plans
No passenger rail service is available in Rutherford County; however freight rail
service is available through CSX Transportation. Currently there are no transit plans in
the project area
4.2.2.3 Compatibility with Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans
As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, no bicycle/pedestrian plans have been approved
for the project area. Several possible walking trails were presented in Rutherfordton's
Master Plan, however. NCDOT will coordinate further with local officials regarding
implementation of these walking trails in order to insure the proposed bypass is
compatible.
4.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Noise
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures far the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772 and
the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, which also includes provisions for traffic
noise abatement measures. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or
eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full traffic noise
analysis technical report can be viewed at the NCDOT Century Center Complex, 1000
Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.
4.3.11 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to be
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table 4-2 below. The table includes those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding
the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
4-3
Table 4-2
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise Impacts
Alternative Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total
3(Selected) 9 0 0 9
4 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
US74A 2 0 0 2
The predicted maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours
measured from the center of the proposed roadway are 104 feet and 160 feet,
respectively.
4.3.1.2 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated
include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, buffer
acquisition and noise barriers. For each of these measures, benefits versus costs,
engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other factors
were included in the noise abatement considerations.
The cost of noise abatement is considered reasonable if it does not exceed
$35,000 per benefited receptor plus an incremental increase of $500 per dBA average
increase in the predicted eaterior noise levels of the impacted receptors in the area
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option far this project due to engineering and/or environmental
factors. Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise
abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of
service of the proposed roadway. Acquiring buffer zones for impacted receptors is not
considered reasonable because the cost would exceed the NCDOT abatement cost
threshold.
Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and
noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For
this project, the cost ofthese three types of noise barriers is expected to exceed the
NCDOT abatement cost threshold. Therefore, noise barriers are not considered
reasonable.
4.3.1.3 Summary
Based on the traffic noise analysis, traffic noise abatement is not recommended
for this project because the cost of providing abatement exceeds the NCDOT abatement
threshold. No noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the
4-4
highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise
analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the
project scope, vehicle capacity or alignment.
In accordance with NCDOT TrafFic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge.
The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date
of the State Record of Decision (SROD). For development occurring after this date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility.
4.3.2 Air Quality
Carbon Monoxide
Automobiles are considered the major source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the
project area This project is located in a CO attainment area; therefore, no CO microscale
analysis was performed.
Ozone & Nitrogen Oxide
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways.
Particulate Matter and Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to expect that trafFic on this project will
result in particulate maYter and sulfur dioxide emissions which exceed the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Lead
Leaded gasoline is no longer available. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
made the sale, supply or transport of leaded gasoline unlawful after December 31, 1995.
Far this reason, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead to be exceeded.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as
hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed these in their latest rule on the Control of
4-5
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page
8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile
sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds
with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and
regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM),
formaldehyde, naphthalene and polycyclic organic matter. While the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is
subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.
Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much wark has been
done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered.
In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a
result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to
evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into
project-level decision-making.
The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically
decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an
FHWA analysis using EPA's MOBILE6.2, and/or MOVES 10 models, even if vehicle-
miles travelled (VMT) increases by 145 %, a combined reduction of 72 % in the total
annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050.
NCDOT follows a tiered approach for analyzing MSAT in SEPA documents,
depending on specific project circumstances. Three levels of analysis have been
identified:
1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects;
2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or
3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential
MSAT effects.
For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the seven priority MSAT are analyzed. This
project is included in Leve12 above, indicating a qualitative analysis is appropriate.
For both Build and No-Build alternatives in this air quality analysis, the amount
of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming
that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Regardless of the
alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as
a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT
emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these
national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local
control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are
4-6
likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. Consequently higher levels of
MSAT are not expected from the Build Alternative compared to the No Build.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will
have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses;
therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient
concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No-
Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most
pronounced along the proposed bypass sections that would be built. However, the
magnitude and the duration of these potential increases, compared to the No-Build
alternative, cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in
forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a new highway is
constructed, the localized level of MSAT emissions far the Build Alternative could be
higher relative to the No-Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in
speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions).
Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet
turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause
region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
Information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific
health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of
highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be
influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and
speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly
attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.
The EPA continually assesses human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by
air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a
compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and
their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA, www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html).
Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual
compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation
exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human
health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies
are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source
Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to
MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings;
cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of
asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at
current environmental concentrations (HEI,
http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions
substantially decrease (HEI, httn://pubs.healtheffects.ore/view.php?id=306).
4-7
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling;
dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and deterinination of health impacts. Each step
in the process builds on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All of the
steps are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more
complete differentiation ofthe MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives.
These diff?iculties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 74 year) assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame,
since such information is unavailable. The results produced by the EPA's MOBILE6.2
model, the California EPA's Emfac2007 model, and the EPA's Draft MOVES2009 model
in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent. Indications from the
development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly underestimates
diesel particulate mattei• (PM) emissions and significantly overestimates benzene
emissions.
Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline
CAL3QHC model was conducted in an NCHRP study
(www.epa.gov/scY•am041/dispersion alt.htm#hyroad), which documents poor model
performance at ten sites across the country. The study indicates a bias of the CAL3QHC
model to overestimate concentrations near highly congested intersections and
underestimate concentrations near uncongested intersections. The consequence of this is
a tendency to overstate the air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections.
Such poor model performance is less difficult to manage for demonsti•ating compliance
with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for relatively short time frames than it is
for forecasting individual exposure over an entire lifetime, especially given that some
information needed for estimating 70-year lifetime eYposure is unavailable. It is
particularly diff?icult to reliably forecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine
the poi-tion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location.
There are consideraUle uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of
toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and
translation of occupational exposure data to the beneral population, a concern expressed
by HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.oi•g/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is no national
consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare
for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA
(http:Ilm-m-m-.epa.60t7Irisk,-`basicinformation.htin#5) andthe HEI
(http://Vubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u--395) have not established a basis for
quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The
current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to
determine whether more stringent controls are required to protect public health or to
prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum
achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The
decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a
"safe" or "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no
4-8
greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the
second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1
in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process
do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million;
in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer
risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to
addressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or
unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of
risk greater than safe or acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for
forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between
alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting
the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to
decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such
as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for
emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
The project is located in Rutherford County, which is in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area
4.3.3 Farmland
All of the proposed alternatives for the project will impact prime farmland.
Alternatives 3, 6 and US 74A may affect a farm. Table 4-3 presents anticipated effects of
the detailed study alternatives on prime farmland.
Table 4-3
Anticipated Prime Farmland Effects
of Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative Prime Farmland Soils Affected (Acres)*
3 (Selected) 362.16
4 205.34
6 363.01
US74A 226.76
*Prime farmland soils within alternative study corridors. Actual
impacts will be less.
Table 4-3 above presents the amount of prime farmland soils within the study
corridors for the current detailed study alternatives. Following selection of Alternative 3
as the preferred alternative far the project, the impacts on prime and important farmland
soils of the proposed design for Alternative 3 was examined. It was determined that
Alternative 3 would affect 87 acres of prime and important farmland soil, as determined
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
4-9
Alternative 3 will also require right of way from five properties receiving present
use value property tax deferments, based on agricultural or forestry use. Two of these
properties are farmland preservation parcels, which the County considers the equivalent
of Voluntary Agricultural Districts.
4.3.4 Utilities
The proposed project will require the relocation, adjustment, or modification to
power lines, water lines, sewer lines, telephone poles and cable lines. NCDOT will
coordinate with the utility companies and municipalities regarding utility relocations.
Table 4-4 below shows the cost associated with the relocation, adjustment or
modification to these utilities for each detailed study alternative.
Table 4-4
Utility Relocation Costs
For Detailed Studv Alternatives
Alternative Cost
3 (Selected) $1,687,850
4 $1,575,330
6 $2,025,775
US74A $2,466,730
4.3.5 Hazardous Materials
Five to six known groundwater incidents could be impacted by the current
alternative study corridors. None of the alternative study corridors will impact the
Rutherford County landfill. Alternative 3 and Alternative US 74A may affect the Reeves
Brothers property, which is an inactive superfund site. If property is required from this
site, a site assessment will be performed to determine the actual levels of contamination.
4.3.6 Floodplain/Floodway
NCDOT will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to
determine whether the Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and FMP is
applicable or if approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required for the project. If
required, the Division Resident Engineer will submit sealed as-built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the project was built as shown on
construction plans.
4-10
4.3.7 Protected Lands
4.3.7.1 State/National Forests
As discussed in Section 3.3.7.1, no State or National Forests are located in the
project study area.
4.3.7.2 Game Lands and Preservation Areas
As discussed in Section 3.3.7.2, no game lands are present in the study area.
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Historic Architecture Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a). This
State law requires state agencies to take into account the effect of an agency undertaking
on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Although no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed
project, the project will require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to
federal permit areas along the project. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on
properties included on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opporiunity to comment on such
undertakings.
As described in Section 3.4.1, there are three properties within the Area of
Potential Effects listed on the National Register of Historic Places and eight properties
eligible for listing. The potential effect ofthe proposed project on historic architectural
resources was evaluated in accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic
Preservation Act and is shown in Table 4-5 below.
4-11
Table 4-5
Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Historic Properties
U
Historic Property ALT. 4 ALT. 6 T
Selected AL
Rutherfordton- No No No
Spindale Central Adverse No Effect Adverse Adverse
High School Effect Effect Effect
Main Street Historic
No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
District
No
Gilbert Town No Effect No Effect Adverse No Effect
Effect
No
Main Street Historic No Effect Adverse No Effect No Effect
District Expansion
Effect
No
Dunkard's Creek
No Effect Adverse No Effect No Effect
Baptist Church
Effect
No
Homer and Bertha
No Effect No Effect No Effect Adverse
Sparks House
Effect
No No
Robert J. Norris
Adverse No Effect No Effect Adverse
House Effect Effect
No
Ruth Elementary Adverse Adverse
No Effect Adverse
School Effect Effect
Effect
No
Washington Geer
No Effect No Effect Adverse No Effect
House Effect
No
Yelton's Flour Mill No Effect No Effect No Effect Adverse
Effect
*Gilboa United No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Methodist
*This property was evaluated in the survey but is no longer within this projecYs APE.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations
on June 6, 2008 (see Appendix A for a copy of the concurrence form).
4.4.2 Archaeological Resources
As discussed in Section 3.4.2, archaeological surveys were conducted for
Alternative 3 following its selection as the corridor for the project. No archaeological
4-12
resources were recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. The final archaeological report has been forwarded to the US Army Corps of
Engineers and the HPO for review.
In the event that unanticipated archaeological discoveries, such as unmarked
cemeteries, are made during construction, the NCDOT Archaeology Group will be
notified and consulted immediately for any necessary resolution or coordination with the
State Historic Preservation Office, priar to any additional construction wark in that area.
4.4.3 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
The proposed bypass will cross the portion of US 64 which is designated a part of
the commemorative motor route for the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
(OMVNHT). Although there is no trail currently in place along Cleghorn Creek, the
primary historic route ofthe OMVNHT crosses US 64 near US 74A (Railroad Avenue)
and follows Cleghorn Creektoward Rutherfordton. With Alternatives 3, 4 and 6, an
interchange will be constructed at US 64. With Alternative US74A, the existing at-grade
intersection between US 64 and Railroad Avenue would be upgraded.
NCDOT has coordinated with the National Park Service and local agencies
regarding how the proposed bypass can accommodate the OMVNHT. The selected
alternative, Alternative 3, will carry US 64 over the proposed bypass on a bridge. A
sidewalk and 42-inch hand rails will be provided on the south side of this bridge to allow
pedestrians using the OMVNHT to cross the proposed bypass. NCDOT will continue to
coordinate with the Park Service and local agencies regardingthe OMVNHT.
4.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.5.1 Soils/Topography
The properties of soils, including shrink-swell potential, erosion hazard, risk of
corrosion, and suitability as road fill, can affect the engineering design of a roadway.
Table 3-3 lists the major soil associations in Rutherford County. The three soil
associations located in the project area, Cecil-Pacolet, Pacolet-Saw, and Pacolet-
Bethlehem, range in suitability as road fill from well-suited to unsuited. This is an
indication that the roadbed may need to be undercut in some areas, removing several
inches of the soil, and replacing it with a more suitable soiL These soils generally have a
high risk of corrosion for both uncoated steel and concrete. The shrink-swell potential of
these soils range from low to high. In soils of high shrink-swell potential, surcharging
the roadbed may be required. The expected soil limitations can be overcome through
proper engineering design. Decisions regarding soil limitations and methods to overcome
them will be determined during final design.
4-13
4.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife
4.5.21 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
4.5.2.11 Terrestrial Communities
Project construction activities in or near terrestrial resources have the potential to
impact the biological functions of these resources. Table 4-6 below presents anticipated
impacts of the project alternatives on terrestrial communities.
Table 4-6
Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Terrestrial Communities
Plant Community (acres)
Alternative Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Disturbed/
Maintained Pine
Forests
3
(Selected) 13.9 171.0 310.5 17.7
4 4.2 98.4 147.6 8.5
6 15.2 234.2 324.9 22.0
74A 6.5 64.5 148.8 14.6
4.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Project construction will result in the reduction of available habitat for terrestrial
wildlife. However, due to the existing amount of urban and agricultural development in
the project study area, wildlife habitat is already fragmented. Although some loss of
disturbed habitat adjacent to existing road shoulders will result, these areas are of limited
value to wildlife that may utilize them. Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area
are generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes in this area However, fragmentation
and loss of forested habitat may impact other wildlife in the area by reducing potential
nesting and foraging areas, as well as displacing animal populations. Futhermore,
forested areas provide connectivity between populations, allowing for gene flow, as well
as a means of safe travel from one foraging area to another.
4.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
Water resource impacts may also resultfrom the physical disturbance ofthe
forested stream buffers that are adjacent to most of the streams within the study area.
Removing streamside vegetation increases direct sunlight penetration, which ultimately
elevates water temperatures within the stream. An increase in stream water temperatures
often stresses or reduces the population of aquatic organisms.
Table 4-7 in Section 4.5.3.1 presents the anticipated impacts ofthe project
alternatives on streams in the project area
4-14
Disturbing stream buffers can also create unstable stream banks, further
increasing downstream sedimentation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic
and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial
fauna that rely on them as a food source. The removal of riparian buffer may also
increase the amount of sediment released into the stream. Temporary and permanent
impacts to aquatic organisms may result from this increased sedimentation.
4.5.3 Waters of the United States
4.5.3.1 Water Resources
Stormwater runoff from roadways carries silt, heavy metals, petroleum products,
nitrogen and phosphorous. These materials can potentially degrade water quality and
aquatic habitat integrity. The effects of water quality depend on the size of the
waterways crossed, the number of such crossings and the season of construction.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may
result from construction-related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to
erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of erosion control
measures and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These measures include
the use of dikes, berms, silt basins and other containment measures to control runoff.
Disturbed sites will be revegetated after construction to help reduce erosion.
Table 4-7lists the stream impacts for each alternative in the study area.
Table 4-7
Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Streams
Alternative
3
(Selected)
4
6
US74A
Stream Impacts (Feet) 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
4.5.3.2 Wetlands
Table 3-5 lists the jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. There are no high
quality wetlands in the project area. The wetland impacts ofthe project alternatives are
shown in Table 4-8.
4-15
Table 4-8
Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Wetlands
Alternatives
3
selected
4
6
US74A
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0.8 0.6 1.3 7
The concentration of overland flow into pipes can increase stormwater runoff. In
addition to permanent alterations, temporary adverse impacts also may occur, such as
temporary pond dewatering and stream diversion during the construction of bridges and
culverts, and temporary clearing and filling associated with underground utility relocation
and construction access.
Avoidance and Minimization
During the development of the detailed study alternatives, efforts were made to
avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable. Given the
number of streams and wetlands in the project area, total avoidance of surface waters and
wetlands by this project is not feasible.
The detailed study alternatives far the project were carried forward because they
have lower impacts on wetlands and streams than other alternatives studied. Alignments
within the study corridors for the detailed study alternatives have been developed which
minimize impacts to wetlands and streams within the corridors.
Alternative 3 was selected as the least damaging practicable alternative far the
project over two alternatives that affect less wetland and streams (Alternatives 4 and US
74A), because Alternative 3 has much less impacts on the community. Alternative 3 will
affect fewer homes and businesses than Alternative 4 and fewer businesses in the Town
of Ruth than Alternative US 74A. The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on the
selection of Alternative 3 as the least damaging practicable alternative for the project (see
Appendix C).
During development of Alternative 3, the following changes were made to the
proposed design in order to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams:
The design of the proposed interchange with existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton
was changed from a diamond interchange to a half-cloverleaf interchange. No ramps
are proposed in the northern quadrants ofthe interchange. Estimated impacts
avoided or minimized: 375 feet of streams.
Eatending bridge over SR 2201 (Thunder Road) by approximately 500 feet to bridge
Stonecutter Creek and an unnamed tributary to Stonecutter Creek (Stream lE).
Estimated impacts avoided or minimized: 1,111 feet of streams, 0.02 acre wetlands.
4-16
2:1 side slopes are proposed in jurisdictional areas.
The design of the ramp in the northeast quadrant of the proposed US 64 interchange
has been changed. The ramp will now more closely follow the alignment of the
proposed loop. This change will reduce stream impacts at this location by
approximately 243 feet. This change in the design was made prior to Concurrence
Point 3.
The alignment of the proposed connection between SR 1536 (Old US 221) and
SR 1520 (Rock Road) has been changed to avoid Holland's Creek (2K) and an
unnamed tributary (LJT2K). This design change will reduce stream impacts by
approximately 288 feet at this location.
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on avoidance and minimization measures for the
project at a meeting held on April 14, 2011 (See Appendix C).
Additional minimization measures will be considered as the project progresses.
Compensatory Mitigation
The purpose of compensatory mitigation is to replace the lost functions and values
from aprojecYs impacts to Waters ofthe United States, includingwetlands.
It is expected wetland and stream mitigation will be required for the project.
Final decisions regarding wetland and stream mitigation requirements will be made by
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality. On-site
mitigation will be used as much as possible. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will be used for remaining mitigation requirements beyond what can be satisfied
by on-site mitigation.
4.5.4 Buffer Areas/Impaired Waters
There are no buffer regulations within the project limits and no impaired waters
listed under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
4.5.5 Federally-Protected Species
Although this is a state-funded project, a permit will be required from the
US Army Corps of Engineers due to project impacts on wetlands and streams. Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act will apply to permit areas of the project.
As discussed in Section 3.5.5, five federally protected species are listed for
Rutherford County. Table 4-9 below presents the federally-protected species listed for
Rutherford County and the biological conclusion for this projecYs likely effect on the
species.
4-17
Table 4-9
Project Effects on Federally-Protected Species

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal
Status*
Biolo ical Conclusion
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T NbY Affect-Likely to
Adversel Affect
Small whorled pogonia lsotria medeoloides T No Effect
White irisette Sis rinchium dichotomum E No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E No Effect
*E (Endangered) - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T(Threatened) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
Indiana Bat
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No hibernacula for Indiana bat are present within the project study area, however,
appropriate roosting habitat is present. The closest hibernaculum for a small colony of
Indiana bat was discovered in 1999 in the Cheoah Range District of Nantahala National
Forest in Graham County (LTSFWS 1999). This location is more than 100 miles west of
the study area. No known occurrence of Indiana bat has been reported within the project
vicinity. Due to the presence of appropriate roosting habitat, but the absence of
hibernacula, the proposed project will have "no effecY" on the Indiana bat.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT/ LIKELY TO
ADVERSELY AFFECT
Field surveys conducted in 2003 found suitable habitat and one previously
undocumented population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area. Due
to the presence of this species within and immediately adjacent to the study area, it can be
concluded that the proposed project may affect and is likely to have an adverse effect on
this federally-listed threatened species.
A biological assessment was prepared for project impacts to dwarf-flowered
heartleaf in December 2008. This biological assessment included the effects of the
adjacent widening project south of the proposed bypass (TIP Project R-2233A). The
US Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed NCDOT's biological assessment and issued a
biological opininon regarding the projecYs effect on the federally-protected
dwarf-flowered heartleaf on May 12, 2009. The Service's biological opinion is that the
proposed project will not jeopardize the continued existence of the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
4-18
The US Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinion is based on NCDOT taking
the following conservation measures for the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass:
• 1.5:1 or 2:1 slopes will be used at dwarf-flowered heartleaf sites. NCDOT has
committed to using 2:1 slopes at these sites.
• Use NCDOT's native seed mix througout the corridor, where possible. NCDOT
has committed to using the native seed mix in riparian areas, where possible.
• Resurvey the corridor for dwarf-flowered heartleaf priar to construction. NCDOT
has committed to resurvey the corridor prior to construction.
• Obtain a conservation easement on the Tate property. This conservation easement
was obtained as a part of TIP Project R-2233A.
• Transplant dwarf-flowered heartleaf that will be impacted to the conservation
area NCDOT has committed to transplanting dwarf-flowered heartleaf that
would be impacted.
Small whorled poaonia
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat far this species was found in several areas during field surveys conducted
in 2003; however, no individuals of this species were located. No known recent
occurrence of small whorled pogonia has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage
Program within one mile of the project area. Due to the presence of appropriate habitat,
but no occurrence of the species within the project area, it is unlikely that the proposed
project will affect this federally-listed threatened species.
White Irisette
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for this species is located within the study area, since no basic soils are
present. No known recent occurrence of white irisette has been reported by the
NC Natural Heritage Program within one mile ofthe project area. The proposed project
will have no effect on this federally-listed endangered species.
Rock gnome lichen
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is no suitable habitat present within the study area for the rock gnome
lichen. Elevations within the study area only reach a maximum of 1,100 feet, which does
not provide suitable environmental conditions far this species. No known occurrence of
4-19
the rock gnome lichen has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage Progi•am within one
mile ofthe project area. The proposed project will have no effect on this federally-listed
endanbered species.
4.6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The purpose ofthe proposed project is to reduce congestion and improve safety
along US 221. The project will not directly serve as an economic development tool,
although it could generate indirect land use development (particularly industrial) because
of the improved access and mobility provided by the proposed proj ect. However, as
discussed previously, the area has lost a number of textile jobs and is not growing as fast
as the rest of the State.
Development activity is minimal in the project study area. Most of the new
residential developinent is taking place west of Rutherfordton along the US 64 corridor.
Industrial development has been slow due to textile industry layoffs. Most of the retail
development in the area is along US 74A in For-est City.
An Indirect and Cumulative Land Use Effects Screening Matrix (see Table 4-10)
was developed which qualitatively assesses factors that influence land development
decisions. It rates the influence of each category from high concern for indirect effects to
less concern for indirect effects. The measui•es used to rate the effects from a high
concern for indirect effects potential to less concern for indirect effects potential are also
supported by documentation. Each characteristic is assessed individually and the results
of the table are looked at comprehensively to determine the indirect and cumulative
effects potential ofthe proposed project. The scope ofthe project and change in
accessibility categories are given extra weight to determine if future growth in the area is
related to the project modifications. Further examination of potential indirect and
cumulative effects will be undertaken on projects that have more categories noted as
moderate to high concern.
Table 4-1Q
Indirect Land Use Effect Screening Tool
Indirect Lan(i Uee E1'fects Screening Tool - R-2233B - Rutherfordton ByPass

ating
Scope of

Project
Change in

Accessibility Forecasted

Population

Growth Forecasted

Employment

G rowth
Availabie

Land
WaterlSewer

Availability
Marketfor

Development

Public Policy Notable

Environmental

Features

Result
? sI?QrriinuPe : > 3 33nruaal ub;tantial # of II ?rvices Less stiingent -Tair?etad or -
I?IajarNew YYaVelYitnz pupWatiun fJe?,.iul,s `?uuil+pcresot _.ratin?l
o De?:-t -
Di",v[I
rt ThreaCeiieti
More tncatian.' savirJgs gro?nrth Expected Land a?•;2i121)1e ??tiviql a6undant r??aiiagernprt : P.esou[Ge
Concern '
t X X
: Likely Indirec[ Scenario
Assessment
X
X X
1 X
Less

Concern
: Vary Limrted
No h'avel hme '
No population
No new Jobs or
Limited Land No service
Development PJ?are stnngent, : Features:

Scope :
savings ;
growth or decline
Jo6 Losses
Avaialble available now or
activiry lacking yras.tfi :: incort5aiated in
?
in future fn2nac?grr?er?t . :
loc?l pratec0an : 4-20

Despite relatively slow population and job growth, the scope of the project,
change in accessibility, availability of land and less stringent growth management
policies suggest that further evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects is warranted.
Substantial time savings are anticipated with this new location bypass and more than
5,000 acres of land is available in the future land use study area. A land use scenario
assessment was completed for the project due to the moderate to high concern for indirect
and cumulative effects.
In order to qualitatively assess the type of development that might occur in the
future land use study area both with and without the project, six probable development
areas were examined. Development pressures and regulations, proximity to
transportation infrastructure, availability of water and sewer service and proximity to
population and employment centers were considered in this assessment.
Residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use development are expected to
continue at a slow pace in the future land use study area both with and without the
project. Following recent trends, most residential units will likely be constructed in areas
outside the future land use study area Some infill residential development, as well as
commercial and industrial development, is anticipated in the area of proposed
interchanges, and less so along widening sections. While some land use change may
occur as a result of the project, the densities and scale of development is not expected to
change substantially unless the economy and development trends change. Detailed
qualitative analysis of the probable development patterns in the future land use study area
suggest that the proj ect will have little to no effect on future storm water runoff or water
quality in the watersheds the project passes through.
Alternatives 3 and 4 seem to have the most potential for indirect effects, although
the indirect effects of these alternatives will be limited due to the current economy and
development trends. Alternative US74A could result in more land use changes along
existing US 74A (Railroad Avenue) because this alternative has a long section on
existing alignment with partial control of access. Alternative 6 appears to have the least
potential for indirect effects.
It is expected that growth accelerated by the project is consistent with adopted
land use plans. Given the minimal indirect effects ofthe project, the projecYs
contribution to cumulative effects resulting from current and planned development
patterns should be minimal.
Two adjacent projects are proposed for US 221 on either end ofthe proposed
project. These projects are shown on Figure 4-1. TIP Project R-2233A will widen
existing US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to north of US 74. TIP Project
R-2597 will widen existing US 221 from north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) to
SR 1153 in McDowell County.
Table 4-11 below presents the potential environmental effects of TIP Projects
R-2233A and R-2597.
4-21
Table 4-11
Ad,jacent Pro,ject Effects
TIP Project R-2233A Effects
Resource Project Effect
Residential Relocations 105
Business Relocations 20
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0.1
Streams Affected (Linear Feet) 3,700
Affect Federally-Protected Species? Yes
TIP Project R-2597 Effects
Resource Potential Project Effect
Residential Relocations 20
Business Relocations 4
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0.12
Streams Affected (Linear Feet) 2,413
Affect Federally-Protected Species? No
A cumulative effect of these three projects is that they will improve mobility and
reduce travel time along the US 221 corridor more than the proposed bypass by itself.
This increased mobility may accelerate residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use
development in the Rutherfordton area. This development is consistent with locally
adopted land use plans, however.
The biological assessment prepared for the federally-protected dwarf-flowered
heartleaf considered impacts of both the subject project and Project R-2233A on the
species.
It is believed that the cumulative effect of the subject project and adjacent projects
will be limited to the sum of the three project's effects. It is not believed the projects will
have a synergistic effect beyond the sum of their effects.
4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project may cause temporary adverse impacts to the
local environment. Construction impacts are generally short-term in nature and can be
controlled, minimized, or mitigated through the use of Best Management Practices and
standard NCDOT procedures. The No-Build Alternative would not generate any
construction impacts.
Potential construction-related impacts are briefly summarized below.
Construction along the selected alternative, Alternative 3, is expected to be of shorter
duration than construction along Alternatives 4 and US74A due to the requirement for
maintaining traffic flow along existing US 74A and US 221.
4-22
4.7.1 Visual
Construction, staging and stockpiling operations will be visible from adjacent
properties and will result in temporary visual impacts. The contractor will be required to
remove all excess materials and equipment following project construction and to reseed
any disturbed areas.
4.7.2 Noise
Heavy construction equipment generates noise and vibration. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach noise levels of 67 dBA to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Although
the detailed study alternatives traverse primarily low-density residential areas,
neighboring communities will be temporarily impacted by construction noise. The
duration and level of noise differs with each phase of construction. Typically ground
clearing and excavation generate the highest noise levels.
NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq
in noise sensitive areas adjacentto the project. NCDOT may also monitor construction
noise and require abatement where limits are exceeded. NCDOT also can limit work that
produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours.
4.7.3 Air Quality
Temporary degradation of the air quality in the project area may result from
construction ofthe projectwithin any ofthe detailed study alternatives. The contractor
will be responsible for controlling dust at the project site and at areas affected by the
construction, including unpaved secondary roads, haul roads, access roads, disposal sites,
borrow sources and production sites. Dust control measures may include the following:
• Minimizing exposed earth surface
• Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching
• Watering of working areas and haul roads during dry periods
• Covering, shielding or stabilizing material stockpiles
• Using covered haul trucks
Emissions from construction equipment are regulated. Burning of cleared materials
will be conducted in accordance with applicable state and local laws, regulations and
ordinances and the regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air
Quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
4.7.4 Utilities
The proposed project will require some adjustment, relocation or modification to
existing utilities. Any disruption to utility service during construction will be minimized
4-23
by phased adjustments to the utility line. All modifications, adjustments or relocations
will be coordinated with the affected utility company.
4.7.5 Water Quality/Erosion Controls
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities could affect drainage
patterns and water quality. In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 4B.0001-.0027), an erosion and sedimentation control
plan will be prepared for this project.
The erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the selected alternative
in accordance with the NCDENR publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Design and NCDOT's Best Management Practices forProtection ofSurface Waters.
These Best Management Practices include, but are not limited to the following:
• Use of berms, dikes, silt barriers and catch basins
• Revegetating or covering disturbed areas
• Conforming with proper clean-up practices
NCDOT standard specifications require proper handling and use of construction
materiaL The contractor will be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution
throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of any water body. Pollutants
such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage and other harmful wastes shall
not be discharged into any body of water. Contractors will not be allowed to ford live
streams with mechanical equipment unless construction is required in the streambed, such
as stream rerouting, channel improvements or culvert construction.
Excavated materials will not be stockpiled or disposed of adjacent to or in areas
where stormwater runoff may cause erosion of the material into surface waters. If
material storage in these areas is unavoidable, the contractor must implement measures to
prevent runoff. Contractors also must provide sanitary sewer facilities for employees
during project construction.
4.7.6 Geodetic Markers
The proposed project could impact several geodetic survey markers. The NC
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of
monuments which will be disturbed. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a
violation of NC General Statute 102-4.
4.7.7 Borrow and Disposal Sites
The contractor will be responsible for locating borrow and disposal sites for the
project. Priar to approval by NCDOT of any proposed borrow source and the removal of
any material, the contractor will have to provide certification from the State Historic
Preservation Office that the removal of the borrow material from the borrow source will
4-24
have no effect on any property eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
In addition, borrow sources will not be allowed in any area under the jurisdiction
of the US Army Corps of Engineers until the contractor has obtained a permit for the
borrow source. Waste materials, as well, may not be placed in wetlands or streams unless
a permit is obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
4.7.8 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibility
Maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction will be planned and
scheduled so as to minimize construction-related traffic delays. Traffic will mostly be
maintained on-site during project construction. Lane closures may be required at times
and temporary detours may be needed for existing roadways crossing the proposed
bypass, but it is not expected that temporary detours would result in unacceptable delay
or congestion along detour routes.
4.7.9 Bridge Demolition
No existing bridge structures will be removed with any of the alternatives for the
proposed bypass. It is unlikely any materials from existing structures will be dropped
into Waters ofthe United States during project construction.
4.8 IRRETRIEVABLE & IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Construction of any of the detailed study alternatives would require certain
irretrievable and irreversible commitments of natural resources, manpower, materials and
fiscal resources. Lands within the proposed right of way will be converted from their
present use to a transportation use. Use of the lands is considered an irreversible
commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However,
if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed,
the land can be converted to another use.
Considerable amounts of fuel, labor and highway construction materials such as
concrete, aggregate and bituminous material will be expended to build the proposed
project. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources will be used in the
fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not
retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use would not have an
adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction will also
require a substantial one-time expenditure of State funds that is not retrievable.
4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG TERM & SHORT TERM
USES/BENEFITS
The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the proposed project
will occur during land acquisition and project construction. Most short-term
4-25
construction-related impacts will occur within or in close proximity to the proposed right
of way.
Existing homes, farms and businesses within the selected alternative's right of
way will be displaced. However, adequate replacement housing, land and space are
available for homeowners, tenants and business owners to relocate within the study area
Improved access within the study area will contribute to long-term residential and
business growth.
Short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to earthwork, road improvements
and exhaust from construction vehicles will occur during project construction. Short-
term noise impacts will be unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment.
Implementation ofthe NCDOT Best Management Practices forProtecrion of
Surface Waters will minimize potential water quality impacts. In addition, the NCDOT
will consult with the appropriate Federal and State environmental resource and regulatory
agencies to identify measures to minimize these impacts.
The local, short-term impacts and use of resources by the proposed action will be
consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
Construction of the proposed improvements will add a vital link to the long-range
transportation system far the region. The project is consistent with long-range
transportation goals and objectives ofthe NCDOT State Transportation Improvement
Program, the Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Draft Rutherford
County Land Use Plan. It is anticipated the roadway will enhance long-term access
opporiunities in Rutherford County and will support local and regional commitments to
transportation improvement and economic viability. Benefits of the proposed project will
include decreased congestion on existing US 221, improved roadway safety on existing
US 221 and improved high-speed regional travel along the US 221 intrastate corridor.
4-26
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This Final State Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. The following personnel were involved in the
preparation ofthis document.
NCDOT Project Development Unit
Name Qualifications
Teresa Hart, PE Project Development Unit
Head; 24 Years Experience
James McInnis, Jr., PE Project Engineer; 19 Years
Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Planning and environmental
analysis
Project Development Co-
Proj ect Manager
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Name
Tyler Stanton
Brett Feulner
H.W. Lochner
Name
Ken Roeder, Ph.D.
Qualifications
Environmental Supervisor; 7
Years Experience
Environmental Specialist; 7
Years Experience
Qualifications
Primary Responsibilities
Heather Renninger
Natural resources
investigations
Natural resources
investigations
Primary Responsibilities
Biologist, NC Licensed Soil Natural resources
Scientist; 22 Years Experience investigations
Biologist; 5 Years Experience
Natural resources
investigations
5-1
NCDOT Human Environment Unit
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Gregory Smith, PE Traffic Noise & Air Supervisor; Traffic Noise and Air
4 Years Experience Quality Investigations
Ric Cox Traffic Noise Engineer; 38 Years Traffic Noise Analysis
Experience
Bobby Dunn Traffic Noise Engineer; 19 Years Air Quality Analysis
Experience
Mary Pope Furr Historic Architecture Supervisor; Historic Architecture
16 Years Experience Investigations
Steve Gurganus, AICP Community Studies Team Community Impact Data
Leader; 13 Years Experience Collection and Analysis
Tristram Ford Community Planner III, 5 Years
Experience
HNTB
Name Qualifications
Susan Fisher Paschal, Community Planner; 10 Years
AICP Experience
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Name Qualifications
Rekha Patel, PE Project Engineer; 25 Years
Experience
Brian Robinson
Sterling Ragland
Project Design Engineer; 16
Years Experience
Transportation Engineer; 19
Years Experience
Community Impact Data
Collection and Analysis
Primary Responsibilities
Community Impact
Assessment, Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Screening
Primary Responsibilities
Roadway Design Co-Project
Manager
Roadway Design Engineer
Roadway Design Engineer
5-2
NCDOT Division 13
Name
Rick Tipton, PE
NCDOT Trans]
Name
Richard Tanner
Qualifications
Division Construction
Engineer; 20 Years Experience
)ortation Planning Branch
Qualifications
Transportation Engineer; 7
Years Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Division Co-Project Manager
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Name Qualifications
John W. Twisdale, Jr., PE Project Manager; 21 Years
Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Traffic Forecast
Primary Responsibilities
Hydraulic Design
NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Benjetta Johnson, PE Congestion Management Review of Traffic Analysis
Regional Engineer; 11 Years Report
Experience
PBS&J
Name Qualifications
Andrew Lelewski, PE Civil Engineer; 11 Years
Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Traffic Analysis Report
5-3
?
/
U j
1 , ..
2 ?
n?
- ? 74
74
. . .: . .... .. ? ? ... .. .........
f \
,- 0 0.5 1 2 ?
U?
Miles
?
?
64
?
? ? ?._ '_ _. . .. ? ..
14 0,
Ruth
\ ;. \ `..
?I y
?' -
- ?? Spindale
.
ALi Z2?
%
74
?
??.
. N
t
?.
BEGIN
PROJECT ?
?

OFNOATNCq9 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?
99
pP PROJECTDEVELOPMENTAND
ReNt01 TRPN54o ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 221
RU THERFORDTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
?Y? APRIL2011 Bv:J.roRroReLLa FIGURE 1-1
3
2 ?

4 ?
w
?
,?
p?
? Yn `n
98
FORD RD. iipM W
- ?(32)
2
?
= N
m CA
d ? _
74 `n Z
N
O
,aa I ?s - s
248? I aV ?3
5
5
71 ? ?hl ?
?ZZ \ A
V =
5
?? IN
Tr
?
ZS
on
? 33 i
'7? 1 N
'2 0
i ? B
5N
162
zeo
O N 2 `-
2?N 0p Yi+ 97 1 -?
11 PM
? (?
781? 1 ?
? I \ 9 9?
?38 12?
9 vxi \ 18 9?? O
O p x ZB ?9? ?o-oAA
s{t? O? ; p ?
64 p?
83 170 114 -1 ? .O
m A p N _ - - - - ? ? \ zz zzi na ?s o
ii 31 2?15 _'' 114 ?7 ?t.? ??epq SR?? ?? s
,,° ?p? ?apMehG??
? 102 a zs y a 182 10
O 180 33 q n'?1 B as
11?? aa ? N 1?o az ?? 1e ?2?Qs hR? ?
6 ?
ZS aS? ?28 ?
(3, ?? ?? 36 ?7 121 ?? 141 ?46
? ???Gys,?' ?1 ? e iea 108 ?
-i `t
? ao-? ,,'°?a??°i ? 2e
az 1
SS ?? yh
102 59 ?ea ? ? 5 s g 19 41 ? ?O.
1
1 r ? ,o e ?
27 „
?- -?' -7 15?''
v-m 42
18 ?O ? A?N 1 39 1 16 --? 24 54 ? S VS ?? ?^i `'
?5 gq w 3 A?? (3, 1) ?' 71 PM 55 ? 20 17 PM 55 34 ? ??,01Q ?Q}?
? SR 21 5_7
2 -1 17 POORS FORD RD. (`211) 120 ?
4 11 P ?? ? a m I= vi 178
? 'Z ? ? I
93 25 RUTHERFORDTON y
749 I ,? (3,2) 1 ? 18 135 W a N 64 1T
?}? ly 208I ? U'
gli
eus &
221 ? / r ? 74 28?
3 34 nL7 ?i ?
70.
? - , ,---'.
'
4
?
?
?
w^ C l r ` ? ?
? SPINDALE \
pW I ?
O I
S
G \
7 %DHV\ /%DIRECTIONAL
? /
/
_ _- - - - ? ? i
2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
2030 IN HUNDREDS
PEAK HOUR DIRECTION
10 PM BO _
(4,13)
%DUAL/ ? %rrsr NOT TO SCALE
a"^'•= NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
2010/2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
NO BUILD FIGURE I-2
--E?f
74
„
?
?
?
m
a ?
? ,oe 1 ?
1
?
paa- 0??
RUTHERFORDTON ? O4 I

J 1 "

`t
f v. 8<
S i

? SPINDALE i
? SIOINLIZED IN7ER9ECTION
? INTERCIiAN(3E'
LEVFl OF 9ERVICEA
.`... LEVEL OF 9fAVICE B
?? LEVFlOFSERVICEC
LEVEL oF sExAcE o
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
?? LEVEL OF SFRVICE F
I `
I /
?
ONFRE2NWY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
No-suiLo
2010 LEVEL OF SERVIGE
E ?
/ 74
?
?
g

? RUTHERFORDTON
O4
? ?
sxt / r 1

SPINDALE `
?
g
? sioriwzeo irrrErtsecnoH
? iuTEncnnraoe
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
?? LEVELQFSERVICEB
?? LEVELQFSERVIGEG
LEVEL QF SERVICE 0
?LEVELQFSERVIGEE
}? LEVELpFSERVICEF
<
108 1
l
a9
I `
/
I ?
?

4EVEL OF SEf1VICE REPORIEO FOR INTERCFMNOEB
ISLOJVESr LEVELOFSERNCEFORRAMP7ERMINALS
ONFREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE

TIP PRUJECT R-2233B
NO-BUILD
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 1-3

??-
?
t^
? f
,
--
?
/
I / / -

j {
1 ?
\
?
L
r? 0 l J 74 .
? --? V
,
,
a ?ILOME 2RS 3
MILES 2
NORTH CAROLJNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
UryI510N dF HIGHWAYS
v?f ??ry PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMEMAL ANALY5IS BRANCH
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
FIGURE 2-1
? A L T E R N A T I V E I
'
A L T E R N A T I V E 2
?-- /
Mt.Yernon A L T E R N A T I V E 3
-••• A L T E R N A T I V E 4
A L T E R N A T I V E 5
--- • A L T E R N A T I V E 6
U S 7 4 A B Y P A S S
° ?1 y A L T E R N A T I V E

? W E S T E R N A L T E R N A T I V E
IMPROVE EXISTING
?-- IJS 221 A L T E R N A T I V E

J4??

NDALE

or
ti ? - ?
t' ? I
FD
t
f
,-- ?
? ssi
ALEXANDE
,< MILLS
?-
r
,
.