20081809 Ver 1_Merger Process Documentation_20081003

a f
(an
MICHACI F EAST FY
COVER \OR
STATE
V�Jt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 3 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulator) 1- field Oftice
1 � 1 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville North Carolina 28801 5006
ATTN Mr David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
C) -;?) -- ( `Z 0 C
SUBJECT Clean Water Act /Section 404 Merger Application for the Proposed US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County NCDOT Division 13 State Project 8 1891001
WBS No 34400 1 1 TIP R 2233B
The following application including separate attachments for (1) A Summary Report of
the Clean Water Act/Section 404 Merger Application for the subject project, (2) ENG
Form 4345 and (3) mailing list (labels) is submitted for your consideration As you are
aware this project NAas selected for treatment under Merger 01 At this juncture the
Regulator) Division has provided concurrence on Purpose and Need the selection of
Detailed Study Alternatives and bridge locations and lengths A State Draft
Environmental Impact Statement ( SDEIS) was prepared and signed on August 29 2008
Please issue vour public notice at the earliest opportunity so we can jointly proceed
toward selecting the LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative)
which meets the purpose and need of the project following analysis of public input Once
the LEDPA is selected and approved eftorts will be undertaken to further minimize
impacts to wetlands and riparian buffers in the LEDPA corridor and to propose suitable
compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts
The attached Summary Report information is a summary of relevant project details and is
provided to assist in the Section 404 regulatory review of the project Please note more
detailed information is av- ilable in the SDEIS
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENT R
RALEIGH NC 27699 1548
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
INEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US
LOCATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion improve safety and improve travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor m
the vicinity of Rutherfordton
USE BLOCKS 20 22 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20 Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass will result in roadway fill in wetlands and surface waters
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type In Cubic Yards
Fill from roadway
22 Surface Area In Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see st ct ons)
See Merger Permit Application Letter
23 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No X IF YES DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24 Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners Lessees Etc Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If mo a tha can be ente ed he a please all ch supplemental I st)
See attached mailmg labels
25 List of Other Certifications or Approvals /Denials Received from other Federal State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but Is not restricted to zonina buildina and flood Dlain oermlts
26 Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described In this application I certify that the information in this application Is
complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the apphca i
7
S Ithe URE O PPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The an us t be signed y the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or It may be signed by a duly authorized
agent merit in block 11 has been filled out and signed
18 U S C Section 1001 provides that Whoever in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies conceals or covers up any trick scheme or disguises a material fact or makes any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry shall
be fined not more than $10 000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345 Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW OR)

M
10/3/2008
US Armv Corps of Engineers
Pa&e 2
Enclosed too you will find a completed ENG form 434 mailing labels and
drawings depicting the project This letter and attachments along with the previously
distributed EIS should provide sufficient information for the issuance of a Public Notice
for the project The hearing for this project will be held before December of this year
Thank ) ou fro your prompt attention to this application
It ) ou have any questions or need additional information please contact Ms Jameelah
El Amin at [phone] extension 362 or Mr Brett Feulner at [phone]
Thank you for your prompt attention to this application
Ph
Bran ar hger
Projec Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT /fie
cc w /attachment
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ (7 copies)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Chris Militscher USEPA — Raleigh NC
Marella Buncick USFWS
David Chang PE Hydraulics
Mark Staley Roadside Environmental
Greg Perfetti PE Structure Design
Jay Swain PE Division Engineer
Roger Bryan Division Environmental Officer
Phil Harris Natural Environment Unit
Carla Dagmno Natural Environment Unit
Brett Feulner Natural Environment Unit
Jameelah El Amin PE PDEA
w /out attachment
Scott McLendon USAGE, Wilmington
Mated Al Ghandour Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Art McMillan PE Highway Design
Jay Bennett PE Roadway Design
Jay McInnis PE, PDEA
Drew Joyner PE Human Environment Unit

SUMMARY REPORT
Clean Water Act /Section 404 Merger Application for the Proposed US 221 Rutherfordton
Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) Ruthertord County NCDOT
Division 13 State Project 8 1891001 WBS No 34400 1 1 TIP R 223313
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to
construct a US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass mostly on new location The proposed project
is approximately nine miles long
The proposed project is included in the approved 2009 2015 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The project is identified as TIP Project
R 2233B The initial right of way acquisition and construction for the project are
scheduled for state fiscal years 2011 and 2014 respectively Four alternatives for the
project are still under consideration (see Figure 2)
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass will be constructed as a four lane
median divided roadway with 12 foot lanes and 10 foot grass shoulders (4 feet paved) A
46 foot median is proposed foi the project A 23 foot raised median and curb and gutter
with a ten foot berm is proposed for portions of the proposed bypass routed along
existing US 74Altemate A design speed of 70 MPH is also proposed for new location
portions of the project
A total right of way width of approximately 300 feet is proposed for new location
portions of the proposed bypass 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 wldemng existing roads Fencing will be placed at
the right of way line between access points
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environments will be minimized for the
proposed project through corridor selection and design shifts within the corridors for the
four alternatives still under consideration
NEPA DOCUMENTATION
A US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass has been shown on the Rutherfordton
Thoroughfare Plan since 1976 Nine alternatives were initially developed for this project
(see Section 2 2 of the EIS)
The state draft environmental impact statement for the project was approved on
August 29 2008

PURPOSE AND NEED
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
The proposed project will address the following needs
• Substandard roadway geometry that does not meet the 60 MPH design speed
requirements
• Projected high tratfic -volumes
• Excessive travel time
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on the purpose and need for the project on
December 14 2000
COST ESTIMATES
Preliminary cost estimates for each alternative still under consideration are
presented in Table 1 These figures include cost estimates for construction right of way
utility relocation and wetland and stream mitigation
Table 1
Protect Cost Estimates (millions)
LOGICAL TERMINI
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass has logical termini The project will
extend from the US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The proposed bypass is a
usable facility and is a reasonable expenditure even if no addi,ional transportation
improvements are made in the area Construction of the proposed bypass will not restrict
consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements
2
ALT 3
ALT 4
ALT 6
US 74A
ALT
Right Of Way Acquisition
$490
$600
$450
$460
Utility Relocation
$1 7
$16
$20
$25
Wetland /Stream Mitigation
$60
$43
$70
$50
Construction
$166 0
$153 0
$180 0
$146 0
Total Cost
$223 0
$219 0
$234 0
$200 0
LOGICAL TERMINI
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass has logical termini The project will
extend from the US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The proposed bypass is a
usable facility and is a reasonable expenditure even if no addi,ional transportation
improvements are made in the area Construction of the proposed bypass will not restrict
consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements
2

ALTERNATIVES
Prelimman Study Alternatives
Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation S) stems 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.
TSM physical and operational roadway improvements typically are effective in
solving site specific capacity safety and use problems in urban areas Most of these
measures are not applicable to US 221 because of existing conditions
Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies include staggered work hours
ridesharing and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
Staggered work 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 studv 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
Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternate modes of transportation would include bus or rail passenger service
Intercity bus sere ice to the Rutherfordton area is provided by Greyhound Lines Inc via a
terminal located in Spindale
There is no passenger rail service available in Rutherford County The abandoned
railroad that runs from Forest City to Rutherfordton is currently used as a walking trail
The Rutherford County Transit Department provides subscription and dial -a -ride
transportation services for authorized residents of Rutherford County No fixed route
transit service is currently provided in the county Given the predominantly rural nature
of the project area bus transit is unlikely to result in substantial reductions in the amount
of traffic along US 221 in the project area

"No Budd" Alternative
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts anticipated to occur as a
result of the proposed project but would not meet the purpose and need of the project
Construct Bypass
Constructing a US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton would meet the purpose and need
of the 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
Preliminary Bypass Alternatives
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
on August 23 2001 An additional alternative was suggested at the workshop Of these
four alternatives were chosen for detailed study by the NEPA/404 merger team (see
Section 2 3 of the SDEIS) Table 2 presents impacts of all of the preliminary bypass
alternatives Impact estimates were refined as studies progressed The preliminary
bypass alternatives are shown on Figure 3
Table 2
US 221 B ypass Prehmin n Alternatives Com arison
Impacts are based on total corridor width
All impacts presented are based on readily available environmental information no field surve) s were pertormed
mniall�
NW National Wetland Inventory
M
US
Improve
West
74A
Exist
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 6
Byp
Byp
Residential
108
85
171
151
162
134
149
115
90
Relocatees
Business
49
11
31
2,
20
19
21
11
23
Relocatees
National
Register
I district
1
1
1
1
l
I
None
None
Listed
Properties
Wetlands
Affected (ac )
1 6
1 2
22
1 8
2 1
20
1 3
24
1 5
NWI
Streftm
2 733
14 270
12 148
5 794
5 906
10 497
13 113
12 692
3 834
Im
Length New
Location
02
90
95
91
90
93
86
96
3.)
(miles)
Total Length
123
128
123
1 1 6
128
1 0 9
94
128
1 1 6
miles
Impacts are based on total corridor width
All impacts presented are based on readily available environmental information no field surve) s were pertormed
mniall�
NW National Wetland Inventory
M

The NEPA /404 merger team agreed to eliminate Bypass Alternative 1 prior to the
citizens informational workshop 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
Bypass Alternatives 2 3 4 the Western Bypass Alternative the US 74A Bypass
Alternative and Improve Existing were all presented at the workshop Local officials
suggested Alternative 5 at the workshop
Alternative 6 was developed following the informational workshop in order to
reduce the impact of Alternative 5 on the Gilbert Town historic district Alternative 2
Alternative 5 the Western Bypass Alternative and Improve Existing were dropped from
consideration by the NEPA /404 merger team following the workshop These alternatives
are discussed below
Alternative 2 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 was eliminated because it would potentially affect Gilbert Town a
site which is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places
The Western Bypass was eliminated because it will not serve the towns of
Spindale and Ruth as well as a bypass on the eastern side of Rutherfordton and it would
divert the least amount of traffic from existing US 221 Additionally, this alternative
would affect a water supply watershed and other alternatives would not
The Improve Existing Alternative was the one least favored by the public and
local officials This alternative was eliminated because constructing a one way pair
downtown would potentially impact the historic district in Rutherfordton
Based on comments received from citizens impacts associated with these
alternatives and the lengths of the alternatives the merger team agreed to drop them from
the project study
Detailed Study Alternatives
Detailed environmental surveys were performed for four alternatives Preliminary
designs were prepared for the alternatives as well
The four alternatives currently under consideration for the project are discussed
below These four alternatives will be presented at a public hearing for citizen comment
A preferred corridor will be selected following the public hearing All of these
alternatives are shown on Figure 2 Table 3 presents a comparison of the four alternatives
and the alternatives are described individually below
i

Alternative 3
Alternate e 3 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass
This alternative is located on the east side of Ruthertordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road) North of SR 2194 ( Poors Ford Road) a bypass on new location would be built
around the east side of Rutherfordton crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road) US 74
Business /US 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 22 1) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 8 5 miles
Alternati,v e 4
Alternative 4 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a
shallow bypass of downtown Ruthertordton Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2271 (Industrial Park Road) dust
south of downtown Rutherfordton A bypass on new location would be constructed from
SR 2271 (Industrial Park Road) extending around the east side of downtown
Ruthertordton 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 is 9 3 miles
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass
This alternative is 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)
North of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) a bypass on new location would be built around the
east side of Rutherfordton crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road) and US 74 Business/US
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 (Thompson Road) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 9 4
miles
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 SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) North of SR
2194 (Poors Ford Road) a bypass on new location would be constructed connecting
existing US 221 with existing US 74 Alternate 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 is 8 7 miles
6

Table 3
Detailed StudN Alternatives
Impacts based on field surveys
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Impacts and Mitigation
Jurisdictional Streams
Waters of the United States will be impacted by the proposed project Streams
within the project area are part of the Broad River Basin Three mayor stream systems
Stonecutter Creek Cleghorn Cieek and Hollands Creek flow through the project area
The project is located within the NC Division of Water Quality sub basin 03 08 02 and
US Geological Survey sub -basin 03050105 These streams are shown on Figure 2
Streams in the study area are described in Table 4 below
7
US 74A
ALT 3
ALT 4
ALT 6
ALT
Residential
99
163
91
88
Relocatees
Business
27
43
26
32
Relocatees
Wetlands
Affected
08
06
1 3
07
(ac )
NWI
Stream
Impacts
12 063
8 734
13 113
9200
ft )
Dwarf Flowered
Heartleaf Impacts
4120
1723
371 5
371 5
(sq ft )
Length New
Location
9 1
3 5
86
3 3
(miles)
Total
Length
8 5
93
94
87
miles
Total Cost mil
$223 0
1 $219 0
1 $234 0
1 $200 0
Impacts based on field surveys
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Impacts and Mitigation
Jurisdictional Streams
Waters of the United States will be impacted by the proposed project Streams
within the project area are part of the Broad River Basin Three mayor stream systems
Stonecutter Creek Cleghorn Cieek and Hollands Creek flow through the project area
The project is located within the NC Division of Water Quality sub basin 03 08 02 and
US Geological Survey sub -basin 03050105 These streams are shown on Figure 2
Streams in the study area are described in Table 4 below
7

Table 4
Ctrc-amc in Project Study Area
Stream ID
Bank
Height
feet
Channel
Width (feet)
Stream
Determination
B
68
2 4
Perennial
I B
1 4
3 4
Perennial
Ul 1B
2 6
1 3
Perennial
A
1
2 -1
Perennial
2ZZ
1 10
1 3
Perennial
IC
1 2
610
Perennial
UTIC
1 2
14
Perennial
2UTIC
1 3
14
Perennial
3UT1C
1 4
<1
Perennial
UT 2UTI C
1 4
1 2
Perennial
2A
6 12
05 3
Perennial
411T2A
0.)
1
Perennial
U f2A
2 4
05 1
Perennial
2U f2A
3 4
0 D
Perennial
3U F2
2 4
1 2
Perennial
5UT2A
2 3
1
Perennial
213 upstream
4 5
05
Perennial
213 downstream
6 10
1 3
Perennial
UT213
46
2 3
Perennial
2UT213
3 )
05 1
Perennial
Ul 1 UT213
2 3
1 2
Perennial
I D
2 10
2 4
Perennial
UT1D
620
46
Perennial
I E
1 3
46
Perennial
UT1 E
1
4
Perennial
2C (Stonecutter
Creek)
10 25
1 4
Perennial
UT2C
2 3
05 3
Perennial
UTUT2C
1 5
05
Perennial
3A
01
1 4
Perennial
21-
1 10
3 6
Perennial
2G downstream
2 10
68
Perennial
2UT2G
4 9
3 5
Perennial
3 2C upstream
(Stonecutter Creek)
2 4
8 20
Perennial
1 J
1 6
8 15
Perennial
UT1J
1 3
2 6
Perennial
3 2C downstream
(Stonecutter Creek)
2 8
20 30
Perennial
2UT3 2C
0 1
12 16
Perennial

Stream ID
Bank
Height
feet
Channel
Width (feet)
Stream
Determination
3U F3 2C
0 2
0 3
Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3111 3 2(
6 14
2 16
Perennial
4113 2C
6 20
3 4
Perennial
U F4U I'3 2C
1 4
1 3
Perennial
R
12
1 8
Perennial
U 13F
1 9
3 6
Perennial
3D (North of US
74)
08
4 12
Perennial
3C upstream
02
1 4
Intermittent
becoming
Perennial
3C do«mtrLam
2 6
4 10
Perennial
3UT3C
0 2
1 3
Perennial
4UT3C
0l
1 3
Intermittent
3B
0 6
1 4
Perennial
3D (South of US
74)
3 4
6 10
Intermittent
becoming Perennial
UT3D
06
1 8
Perennial
I Y
2 4
46
Perennial
UTIY
1 2
1 2
Perennial
2UTIY
06
1 10
Perennial
31JTIY
1 2
2 6
Perennial
2.1
1 2
3
Perennial
1 G
3 15
3
Perennial
UTIG
4
3 5
Perennial
2H
20
3 4
Perennial
UT21-1
20
46
Perennial
2G upstream
(Cle horn Creek)
3 10
20 35
Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3UT2G
8 12
4
Perennial
4UT2G
4 20
3 4
Perennial
5UT2G
15
1 2 3
Perennial
6U1 26
1 18
3 8
Perennial
UT6UT2G
1 3
3
Perennial
3 2U r6UT2G
2 6
1 4
Perennial
3 3UT6UT2G
2 4
1 4
Perennial
3 4UT6UT2G
1 4
2 4
Perennial
3 5UT6UT2G
1 2
1 2
Perennial
3UTUT3F
2 3
4 8
Perennial
2UTUT3F
2 8
1 6
Perennial
3F (Hollands
Creek)
6
6 15
Perennial

Stream ID
Bank
Height
feet
Channel
Width (feet)
Stream
Determination
UTU 131
2
3
Perennial
1113F
3 4
3
Perennial
2117 U1 2K
0-,
1
Perennial
UT1112K
1 5
1 5
Perennial
UT 2K
1 5
1 3
Perennial
UTIHC
1 40
2 20
Perennial
UT3X
2 12
3 6
Perennial
UTUT3X
1 9
3 6
Perennial
3X
3 12
8 20
Perennial
3G (Holland5
Creek)
5 10
10 1�
Perennial
UT3G
3 6
3 4
Perennial
3UTU 13G
2 8
1 3
Perennial
UTUT 3G
1 3
1 2
Perennial
2UTUT3G
1 4
1 3
Perennial
UT2U FUT3G
1 3
1 3
Perennial
2UTIHC
1 2
1 3
Perennial
UT3UTIHC
1 2
1 2
Perennial
3UT I HC
1 3
1 5
Perennial
31
2 10
6 40
Perennial
Ul UT I IC
2
3
Perennial
UTIHC
2 2D
210
Perennial
IHC
(Holland~
Creek)
12
46
Perennial
2K (Hollands
Creek)
2 4
12 18
Perennial
2UT2K
3 4
5
Perennial
3UT2K
3
6
Perennial
I K
1 2
46
Perennial
UTIK
0 3
0 1
Perennial
3H
1 8
2 20
Perennial
211TIK
0l
1 3
Intermittent
3UTIK
0l
1 3
Intermittent
4U rl K
0 3
2 3
Perennial
5UT1K
0 2
2 3
Perennial
UT3J
2 4
2 4
Perennial
3.1
1 5
2 4
Perennial
UT1N
2 8
1 6
Perennial
IN
2 8
3 8
Perennial
2UTIN
2 3
2 3
Intermittentbccommg
Perennial
a

All streams in the study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C
or WS V Stone( -utter Creek Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek are the mayor streams
in the study area which have a Best Usage Classification of C C and WS -V respectively
Anticipated impacts to streams of the current study alternatives are presented on Table 5
below
Table 5
Anticipated Effects on Streams
Bank
Channel
Stream
Stream ID
Height
Width (feet)
Determination
8 730
(feet)
9 200
Intermittent becoming
I M
1 3
2 4
Perennial
3M
2 4
2 3
Perennial
UT3M
1 4
3 4
Perennial
2UT3K
3 20
2 4
Perennial
All streams in the study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C
or WS V Stone( -utter Creek Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek are the mayor streams
in the study area which have a Best Usage Classification of C C and WS -V respectively
Anticipated impacts to streams of the current study alternatives are presented on Table 5
below
Table 5
Anticipated Effects on Streams
Wetlands
Wetlands in the project study area were field delineated using the current Corps of
Engineers methodology The anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the project
study area shown on Table 6 and Figure 2
Table 6
Anticipated Effects on Wetlands
Alternative
3
4
1 6
US74A
Stream Impacts (Feety
12 063
8 730
1 13 113
9 200
Wetlands
Wetlands in the project study area were field delineated using the current Corps of
Engineers methodology The anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the project
study area shown on Table 6 and Figure 2
Table 6
Anticipated Effects on Wetlands
Floodplains
Rutherford County and the Town of Rutherfordton are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required
for the project
Alternative
3
4
6
US74A
Wetlands Affected (Acres)
08
06
13
07
Floodplains
Rutherford County and the Town of Rutherfordton are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required
for the project

Mitigation
NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts and to provide
compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional impacts
Avoidance
Given the number of streams and wetlands in the project area total avoidance of
surface waters and wetlands by this project is not feasible
Minimization
Most of the alternatives still under consideration for the project have been retained
because they have the lowest impacts on wetlands and streams Alignments within the
study corridors have been developed to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams The
NEPA /404 merger team has concurred on wetland areas which should be bridged by the
alternatives Impacts to wetlands and streams will be considered in the selection of the
preferred alternative for the project Additional minimization measures will be
considered as the project progresses
Compensatory Mitigation
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
FEDERALLY- LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of January 31 2008 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
five federally protected species are listed for Rutherford County Table 7 lists these
species and their federal status
12

Table 7
FPl1Pra11v_PrntPPtPd-I Cneciec in Rutherford Countv
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
Status*
Biological Conclusion
Indiana bat
Mons sodahs
E
No Effect
Dwarf tloweied heartleaf
He- castihs naniflota
T
May Affect Likely to
Adverse) Affect
Small whorled pogonia
Ivotria ntedeolotdes
T
No Effect
White insette
Sisvrinchwni dichotoinuin
E
No Effect
Rock gnome lichen
Gymnodernia lineare
E
No Effect
*E (Endangered) — A taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a sign iticant 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
Field survevs for the project were performed in May July August and September
2003 No habitat exists in the project area for white irisette and rock gnome lichen
No hibernacula for the Indiana bat are present within the project study area
however appropriate roosting habitat is present No known occurrence of Indiana bat has
been reported within the project vicinity
Habitat for the small whorled pogonia is present in several areas within the study
area however no individuals of this species was located
Habitat for the dwarf flowered heartleaf is present within the study area and one
previously undocumented population was also identified within the project study area
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be
conducted on the project s effects on the dwarf flowered heartleaf prior to completion of
the final environmental document
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Resources
An intensive level historic architectural survey was conducted within the area of
potential effect (APE) of all the detailed study corridors for the proposed project The
APE included areas that may be physically and /or visually affected by the proposed
project
Three properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located
within the APE of the project Eight properties in the study area were determined to be
eligible for the National Register
13

Properties Listed on the National Register
The Ruthertordton 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 buildings public presence According to the 1992 National
Register Nomination the school is significant in the areas of education and architecture
The Main Street Historic District (Rutherfordton) is a well preserved historic
district encompassing 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 is a historical site in Rutherfordton It is 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
The Proposed Boundary Expansion of Main Street Historic District
(Rutherfordton) is a site bounded by North Main Carnegie North Washington and
Femwood streets It is recommend 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
Dunkard s Creek Baptist 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 dust east of the church
The Homer and Bertha Sparks 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 Robert J Norris House is located on the southeast corner 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
Ruth Elementary School 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 brick building with Colonial Revival details
14

The Washington Geer 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
Gilboa United Methodist 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 dust beyond the abandoned railroad bed This property was evaluated
in the survey but is no longer within the project s APE
Yelton s Flour Mill is located on West Main Street in Spindale dust east of US
74 A (Railroad Avenue) 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
Project effects on historic properties are shown on Table 8 below
Table 8
Ffferk nn Histnrie Prnnerties
*This property was evaluated in the suvery but is no longer within the project s Art
Ruth Elementary School would be adversely affected by Alternatives 3 and 4
because they would require land from the school
15
US 74A
Historic Property
ALT 3
ALT 4
ALT 6
ALT
Rutherfordton-
No
No Adverse
No Adverse
Spindale Central High
Adverse
No Effect
Effect
Effect
School
Effect
Main Street Historic
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
District
Gilbert Town
No Effect
No Effect
No Adverse
Effect
No Effect
Main Street Historic
No Effect
No Adverse
No Effect
No Effect
District Expansion
Effect
Dunkard's Creek
No Effect
No Adverse
No Effect
No Effect
Baptist Church
Effect
Homer and Bertha
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Adverse
Sparks House
Effect
Robert J Norris
Adverse
No Effect
No Effect
No Adverse
House
Effect
Effect
Ruth Elementary
Adverse
Adverse
No Effect
No Adverse
School
Effect
Effect
Effect
Washington Geer
No Effect
No Effect
No Adverse
No Effect
House
Effect
No Adverse
Yelton's Flour Mill
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
Effect
*Gilboa United
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
No Effect
Methodist
*This property was evaluated in the suvery but is no longer within the project s Art
Ruth Elementary School would be adversely affected by Alternatives 3 and 4
because they would require land from the school
15

The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with these findings on
June 6 2008 The related correspondence and concurrence forms are included in
Appendix A of the SDEIS
Archaeological Resources
Due to the number of detailed study alternatives and the recent inclusion of
Gilbert Town on the National Register of Historic Places an intensive archaeological
survey has not been initiated A thorough archaeological investigation will be conducted
atter the selection of the preferred corridor
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on research utilizing the Geographic Information System (GIS) five to six
known groundwater incidents could be impacted by the current study corridors GIS also
identified one landfill and one Superfund site within the project corridor The Rutherford
County Landfill is located south of Rutherfordton between US 221 and US 74A on the
north side of SR 2201 (Thunder Road) The Superfund site is listed as Reeves Brothers
and is west of Railroad Avenue between Oak Street and Reeves Street Reeves Brothers
is an inactive Superfund site (ID# NC D08367616)
A detailed tield reconnaissance survey will be performed following selection of
the preferred corridor
REGULATORY APPROVAL
The NCDOT hereby submits a merger application form for R 2233B so public
review of this project for regulatory purposes can commence This submittal is in
accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
a

- I
a
,I
( 9a
•�,.., ��
�: �i'�, •.mss
fig i/-F5 --.,
KILOMETERS
•
0.
VI NON
•�,.., ��
�: �i'�, •.mss
fig i/-F5 --.,
KILOMETERS
•

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710 -003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should
require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202 -4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 - 0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction
over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine
Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE F ILLED BY THE CORPS
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
ITEMS BELOW TO BE F LLED BYAPPLICAN
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. W /AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOs. W /AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919- 733 -3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to fumish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions
Proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass in Rutherford County, NC
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Stonecutter Creek, CleRhorn Creek and Hollands Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Rutherford County NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
Proposed bypass would extend from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Please see attached vicinity map and cover letter.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project. include all features)
Construct a US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass as a four -lane median divided facility on multi -lane right of way mostly on new location in Rutherford
County. It will cross several wetlands and streams.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW -OR)

END PROJECT] ----- -
221
f64
64 C,
T
*CA"
t
F�KuznerrqrcFwn---
LN
Splificiale
NJ
221
�Z-
Forest,Clty
221 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I(
BEGIN 74 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROJECT ~ 74 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
0 0.5 1 2 RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-22338
Miles]
-:A] FIGURE I