20081809 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20090120

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AUG Y 20 06 06
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI6"z&"SANDsAtER, ry
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO Tipp""
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for TIP Project R-2233A, US 221
Widening from the South Carolina State Line to US 74
Bypass, Rutherford County
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on May 10,
2006. The following persons were in attendance:
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Kathy Matthews US Environmental Protection Agency- Wetlands Section
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
John Hennessy Division of Water Quality
Amy Simes NCDENR - Liaison for Transportation
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride Cultural Resources - SHPO
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Heather Renniger H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Gregory Chnsto Isothermal RPO
Brian Skeens Division 13
Roger Thomas Roadway Design
Sandra Stepney Roadway Design
Mike Little Roadway Design
Paul Rochester Roadway Design
Jay Twisdale Hydraulics Unit
Carla Dagnino PDEA/Natural Environment Unit
Brett Feulner PDEA/Natural Environmental Unit
Zach McNeill PDEA/Natural Environment Unit
Gene J. Noderino PDEA/Natural Environment Unit - Mitigation
Teresa Hart Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Andy Hussey Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Beverly Robinson Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
The purpose of this meeting was to gain concurrence on avoidance and
minimization measures (Concurrence Point 4A) for the project.
Proiect Status
The last merger team meeting was held on February 14, 2006. At that meeting,
the team concurred on the Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3).
The project is divided into 5 sections. These five sections were used to evaluate
alternatives. Both east-side and west-side widening were considered in each section. In
addition, both a 23-foot and 46-foot median were considered within Section 5.
At the February meeting, the merger team agreed on the following as the preferred
alternative for the proposed project:
Section 1: West side widening
Section 2: East side widening
Section 3: East side widening
Section 4: East side widening
Section 5: East side widening
The entire project will have a 46-foot median divided typical section.
Meeting Discussion
The following avoidance and minimization measures were made to the project
design following the public hearing:
M The typical section for the proposed project will involve directional crossovers.
This involves providing U-turn bulbs along the proposed project. Several U-turn bulbs
were relocated or eliminated to minimize impacts in the project area following the public
hearing.
In addition, cut sections along the project will allow a saving of 3 feet minimum
as a result of ditch front slopes being reduced from 18 feet to 15 feet. The proposed ditch
typical section and the original ditch typical section were included in the Concurrence
Point 4A handout.
Several y-lines along the project were adjusted. These adjustments minimized
impacts to the project area.
At the last merger meeting, a request was made to evaluate the project for
potential wildlife crossing. Following that meeting, accident data for the last six years
was reviewed. No areas were found that meet FHWA's definition of "hot spot" for
animal collisions. The NCDOT District Office mentioned there have been some deer
collisions north of the Broad River, but not enough to warrant a deer crossing sign.
r

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf site 7 is a North Carolina Heritage Program Registered
Heritage Area. Marella Buncick of the US Fish and Wildlife Service suggested trying to
avoid this site. Mike Little of the Roadway Design Unit mentioned the slope stakes on
the figures do not take into account the headwall for the pipes, therefore, actual impacts
may be less.
All streams, wetlands and dwarf-flowered heartleaf locations identified within the
project limits were discussed at the meeting. As a result of that discussions the following
avoidance and minimization efforts will be investigated:
¦ Stream K will be ditched instead of piped, if possible.
¦ Contact property owners at Heartleaf Sites 1 and 5 to discuss possibility for
conservation easement.
¦ Extend right of way at Heartleaf Site 2 to eliminate invasives.
¦ Revise slope stakes at Heartleaf Site 6, Stream J and Wetland J if possible
once hydraulic design is complete.
¦ Determine if Streams GB and Q upstream are jurisdictional.
¦ Investigate Y-line issues at Wetland Site Q. The suggestion was made to
move the y-line further north. This may increase stream impacts but would
avoid a wetland and reduce heartleaf impacts.
¦ Determine if 1112: l slopes can be used at Streams GA, GB and G.
Site N is a not jurisdictional. There are no impacts associated with Site N
There was discussion regarding possible locations along the project for stream
relocation. Based on the topography of the project area, there are no locations where
stream relocation is feasible.
Jay Twisdale of the Hydraulics Unit mentioned a stream which was not called
jurisdictional in the Natural Resources Technical Report which goes through a 4x4
culvert. During his preliminary review of this stream it appeared as if it could be
relocated, but after further review he did not think relocation was possible. John
Hennessy of the Division of Water Quality asked that this site be reviewed further. Mr.
Hennessy said he thinks the stream could be relocated.
Following the Concurrence Point 4A meeting it was determined that Stream Sites
J, G and M are potential sites for mitigation.
Chris Militscher, USEPA, requested information regarding locations of 2:1 slopes
in the project area be included in the meeting minutes. 2:1 slopes are being used in the
vicinity of the following wetlands and streams in the proposed project:
Stream L Heartleaf Site 5
Stream O Stream UTI
Heartleaf Site 6 Stream GB
Stream J Stream GA
Wetland J Stream G
Heartleaf Site 7 Stream H

Stream M Stream F
Stream P Heartleaf Site 2
Heartleaf Site 5 Heartleaf Site 210A
Stream F Stream D
Stream I Stream C
The signed concurrence form is attached. If there are any changes or corrections
to these minutes please call me at [phone] extension 254.
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Pont No. 4A- Avoidance/ Minimization
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
NCDOT Project: 8.1891001, TIP Project: R-2233A, US 221 widening from the South Carolina
State Line to US 74 Bypass
Minimization
The typical section for the proposed project will involve directional crossovers. This
involves providing U-turn bulbs along the proposed project. Since the public hearing in
September 2005 several U-turn bulbs were relocated or eliminated to minimize impacts in the
project area.
In addition, cut sections along the project will allow a saving of 3 feet minimum as a
result of ditch front slopes being reduced from 18 feet to 15 feet. The proposed ditch typical
section and the original ditch typical section are attached.
Several y-lines along the project were adjusted. These adjustments minimize impacts to
the project area.
Additional Avoidance\Minimization Measures
The Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team concurred on the 10'h day of May 2006 with
the Avoidance/Minimization measures listed above.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers /S
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources - DWQ
Ti'n?lna•nl uinjavrnv A?miaaic+r.?4inn
K/A

N.C. Department of Transportation
,Cv, 161„rr?m,
\O?Or . `19pG
-
o -c
MEMORANDUM
October 9, 2006
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for Improvements to US 221 from the South Carolina State
Line to US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County, WBS Element 34400.1.1, TIP Project No. R-
2233A, State Clearinghouse No. 07-0083
This office has reviewed the referenced docunwA. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. The Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
Document Specific Comments:
1. Section V., D. Avoidance and Minimization discusses that Streams GB and Q will be checked for
jurisdictional status. Has the jurisdictional status of these streams been verified? DWQ is
unaware of any field visits to verify the jurisdictional status of these streams.
General Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins; etc.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the Permiee is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
Noce Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit d ?'uturalll,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http:flh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
VNIVU%.l 1, LVVV
Page 2 of 4
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should
continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
The Permittee should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur
to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
7. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
8. The Permittee is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application.
9. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, the Permittee should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the Permittee and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an
vt,wvci 7, wvv
Page 3 of 4
acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where
appropriate.
14. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
15. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
16. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
17. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
18. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
20. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
vcLvour Y, /-vvo
Page 4 of 4
22. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
23. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used
to prevent excavation in flowing water.
24. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
25. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
26. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
27. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project
by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: Steve Lund, US ACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Marla Chambers, NC WRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Mike Parker, Asheville Regional Office, NC DWQ
File Copy
lLepartill.ellt Ul Ir'Ilvll-U11111c11L allu 1\atul al nGavu, a,ca
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0083 County: Rutherford
Due Date: 10/11/2006
Date Received: 09/07/2006
Project Description: Improvements for US221 from the South Carolina line to US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County:
TIN R-2233A
This Proiect is beinc reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh Solid Waste Mgmt
Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife -DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
T Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
filgk??1'1 8 00
V
S'; 7p X06

1

US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WB S Element 34400.1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
tiQRT,F{
+4

? p

0
F
OF TR

7 a17 06
Da J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
4egory vironmental Management Director, PDEA

US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400. 1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

? p

v ?
o

OF TRAMS
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
?4?+aan3aaasgPaaaa
a
Beverly G. Ro i son 44 -%
Project Development Engineer L _
c`wm o ??? ?•
O
.may ?1a •
? ? ici? •°a•??i9 i ??? •• 1
V
??,'
A
W1c?N
`'???
i
•.
.
,+
J es A. McInnis, Jr., E.
> aaoaiaa,n,
Project Engineer 7`4- D6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Project Commitments ..................................................................... ..................................................i
I. TYPE OF ACTION ............................................................ .................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ............................................ .................................................1
III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................ .................................................1
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............ ................................................. 3
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................ ................................................. 3
A. Distribution of Environmental Assessment ......... .....................................3
B. Comments on Environmental Assessment .......... ......................................3
C. Public Hearing .......................................... ............ .......................6
D. Avoidance and Minimization ........................ ......................................7
VI. REVISION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .... .....................................7
A. Project Commitments .................................. .....................................7
B. Federal Species of Concern/State Listed Species .. .....................................7
C. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements ....... ..... ..... ......................8
D. Jurisdictional Streams .................................. .....................................8
E. Figure 4A ............................................... ......................................8
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................................8
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 Proposed Typical Sections
Table
Table 1- Summary of Environmental Effects ............................................................3
APPENDIX
Appendix - Comments Received
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400. 1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
Geotechnical Unit
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 21 potentially contaminated
properties. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent of any contamination
will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the project's
potential effects on the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be conducted prior to
construction of the project.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch - Office of Human Environment
An archaeological survey to identify significant archaeological resources will be
performed prior to construction activities.
State Finding of No Significant Impact R-2233A Page 1 of 1
May 2006
i
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400.1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has determined this
project will not have a significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is
based on a May 27, 2005 State Environmental Assessment (SEA), which has been
independently evaluated by NCDOT and determined to adequately and accurately discuss
the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the project and appropriate mitigation
measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The NCDOT takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the State Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The purpose of the project is to improve travel time, safety and system linkage
along the existing US 221 intrastate corridor between the South Carolina State Line and
US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County.
The proposed project involves widening US 221 to a multi-lane facility from the
South Carolina State Line to the US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County. The project is
approximately 10.9 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled for
state fiscal years 2007 and 2009, respectively, in the TIP.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $87,937,500, which
includes $60,000,000 for construction and $27,937,500 for right of way acquisition. The
cost included in the 2006-2012 TIP is $56,700,000 which includes $5,700,000 for right of
way acquisition and $51,000,000 for construction.
III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
In the State EA (SEA), east-side and west-side widening of existing US 221 was
studied. The project was divided into five sections in order to evaluate alternatives.
Widening both to the east and west side of US 221 were evaluated within each section. A
preferred widening scheme was selected for Sections 1, 3 and 4 in the SEA. The SEA
proposed widening schemes for Sections 2 and 5 would be determined after the public
hearing.
At the public hearing, one alternative was shown for Sections 1, 3 and 4. An east
side and a west side widening alternative were shown for Section 2. Four alternatives
were shown for Alternative 5 to include east or west side widening and a 23 foot or 46
foot median.
Following the public hearing, a NEPA\404 merger team meeting was held to gain
concurrence from the NEPA/404 merger team on the Least Environmentally.Damaging
and Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the proposed project. Concurrence was gained
on the following alternative:
Section 1: West-Side Widening
Section 2: East-Side Widening
Section 3: East-Side Widening
Section 4: East Side Widening
Section 5: East-Side Widening
The proposed improvements would involve widening existing US 221 to a four-
lane 46-foot median divided facility from the South Carolina State Line to SR 1150 (long
Branch Road). From Long Branch Road the typical section will taper to a 16-foot median
across US 74 Bypass and tie into the existing typical section north of US 74 Bypass
interchange.
East-side widening was selected for Section 2 to avoid impacts to Riverstone
Business Park and a large dwarf-flowered heartleaf population. East- side widening for
Section 2 will impact a cemetery and a powerline transmission tower on the east side of
US 221. However, the merger team agreed that mitigation costs for wetlands and streams
associated with west side widening for Section 2 along with proximity damages
associated with Riverstone Business Park would be more expensive than building a
retaining wall at the powerline transmission tower. In addition, the costs associated with
impacting the cemetery will likely be minimal.
East-side widening with a 46-foot median was selected as the preferred alternative
for Section 5. Constructing a 46-foot median would provide a consistent typical section
throughout the project corridor. In addition, east=side widening would require fewer
impacts to streams, homes and businesses. Impacts for the recommended alternative are
listed in Section IV below.
2
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Table 1 presents a summary of the anticipated environmental effects for the
recommended alternative.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Residential Relocatees 105
Business Relocatees 20
Wetlands (Acres) 0.1
Streams (Linear Feet) 3,700
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Acres) 0.6
Noise Impacts 37
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of Environmental Assessment
The approved EA was circulated to the following federal, state and local agencies
for review and comments. Copies of the comments received are included in the
Appendix of this document (note: An asterisk indicates those agencies that provided
comments on the EA.)
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
US Geological Survey
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
*DENR-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Rutherfordton
Mayor of Spindale
Rutherford County Manager
B. Comments on Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the Environmental Assessment are discussed below:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: Total stream impacts range between 3,343 linear feet and 3,601 linear feet
(Tables S 1 and S2). Page iii of the EA indicates that the range is between 3,412 and
3,601 linear feet. There appears to be a typographical error on Pager iii, Summary of
Environmental Effects.
3
NCDOT Response: There is a typographical error on page iii, Summary of
Environmental Effects. The range of stream impacts is between 3,343 and 3,601 linear
feet.
Comment: EPA has reviewed Section D, Farmland Impacts on Page 14 of the EA
which addresses North Carolina Executive Order 96. The EA states that US 221 crosses
several areas with prime farmland soils but, based upon field observations, little land
along the existing roadway is used for agricultural. The aerial photographs in Figure 2
would appear to contradict this assessment as there are numerous farms and agricultural
fields along the existing US 221 corridor. EPA is requesting that an analysis and
assessment be conducted by NCDOT to estimate the potential impact to state-wide
important farmlands for the different alternatives and that this information be made
available to EPA prior to or at the Concurrence Point 3 merger meeting.
NCDOT Response: Figure 6 included in the State Environmental Assessment, along
with additional information from the September 13, 2003 Community Impact Assessment
Report was presented to EPA at the Concurrence Point 3 merger meeting on February 14,
2006. No additional information is required regarding this issue.
Comment: The EA identified between 36 and 40 residential impacted receptors due to
highway traffic noise in the project area. Pages 30 and 31 of the EA generally address the
NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy but does not specifically reference which policy (e.g.,
2004) was applied and which cost threshold was utilized for determining the cost
effectiveness of potential noise abatement walls.
NCDOT Response: The NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy was followed
in the analysis conducted for the environmental assessment.
Comment: EPA will defer to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other
natural resource agencies for specific comments on federally-protected species such as the
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (hexastylis naniflora).
However, EPA has noted that Page 18 of the EA references the Acadian flycatcher and
the Louisiana waterthrush under Section b., Terrestrial Wildlife. However, on Page 27 of
the EA, the Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Rutherford County (Table 15),
includes the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean) but does not include either the FSC
Acadian flycatcher or the FSC Louisiana waterthrush. Both FSC are listed for the
Appalachian Mountains but not as one of the Piedmont species. EPA requests that
NCDOT clarify this issue with the FWS.
NCDOT Response: As of April 6, 2006 the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Threatened
and Endangered Species list does not list the Louisiana waterthrush or Acadian flycatcher
as a Federal Species of Concern for Rutherford County.
4
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: We recognize that this project will directly impact individuals of the
federally-threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and have worked
through the merger team in informal consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to the
occurrences of this plant along the project corridor. We anticipate entering formal
consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers to complete their Section 7
obligations regarding this project. In addition to impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf,
there is a green sheet commitment in the EA that is intended to minimize impacts to the
Indiana bat. Although there are hibernation records of the Indiana bat in Rutherford
County, we do not believe tree-clearing needs to be limited only to the winter.
NCDOT Response: The Project Commitment regarding the Indiana bat has been
removed from the list of project commitments.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: Eighteen (page 23) or nineteen (page 19) streams are located in the study
area, including the Broad River and Floyd's Creek, all Class C waters. We recommend
floodplain culverts, where appropriate, to reconnect floodplains, spread out flood flows,
and reduce damage.
NCDOT Response: Nineteen streams and two ponds are in the project vicinity.
Currently, nineteen streams and one pond are within the project study area. Of the
nineteen streams, one stream is not jurisdictional.
Floodplain culverts does not appear feasible for this project based on a
preliminary assessment.
Comment: We request that NCDOT identify areas of habitat fragmentation and
investigate the rate of accidents that involve wildlife, such as vehicle collisions with deer.
Wildlife crossings should be considered to improve safety for drivers and reconnect
wildlife populations that will be further fragmented by the widening project. Floodplain
culverts can serve as crossings for smaller wildlife species.
NCDOT Response: Accident data does not indicate a concentrated area of wildlife
collisions. Based on the accident data and thresholds required to justify wildlife
crossings, no wildlife crossing is required along this portion of existing US 221.
Comment: NCWRC is concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts in the
project area. The SEA indicated the magnitude of induced growth is expected to be low
to moderate. The widening project may create opportunities for industrial development
and Rutherford County's lack of growth controls and encouragement of development may
stimulate development along the roadway. We recommend controlling access to the
5
extent practicable to improve safety, maximize the length of time of acceptable level of
service (LOS), and minimize future impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
NCDOT Response: An ICI analysis will be performed and submitted with the
application for the Section 404 Water Quality Certification.
Access along this project will be controlled to the maximum extent practicable by
providing partial control of access (one access per parcel). Full control of access would
be impracticable due to the current development along this project.
Comment: We encourage NCDOT and local authorities to use low impact
development techniques to manage storm water quantity and quality in developed areas.
NCDOT Response: NCDOT will follow Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters during design and construction of this project. In addition, a shoulder
section rather than curb and gutter is proposed for this project. The grassed shoulders
will allow some filtration and absorption of stormwater.
C. Public Hearing
A combined formal public hearing for the project was held on September 27, 2005
at Chase High School in Rutherford County. Approximately 227 people attended this
meeting.
The project was divided into five sections in order to evaluate alternatives. Both
east-side and west-side widening was considered within each section. The following
alternatives were presented at the public hearing:
Section 1- West-Side Widening
Section 2 - West-Side and East-Side Widening
Section 3 - East-Side Widening
Section 4 - East-Side Widening
Section 5 - West-Side and East-Side Widening
Citizens were asked to comment on a preferred alternative for Section 2 and
Sections 5. Three comments were received for west side widening for Section 2.
The majority of the hearing attendees expressed opposition to utilizing directional
crossovers with median U-turns for the project. No full movement at-grade intersections
are proposed on this project except at intersections in close proximity to the US 74
Bypass interchange. Opposition to the directional crossovers were due mostly to the fact
that this concept is new and had not been used in other parts of the state at the time of the
public hearing.
6
D. Avoidance and Minimization (Concurrence Point 4a)
An Avoidance and Minimization meeting was held May 10, 2006 to discuss
avoidance and minimization measures for the proposed project. The merger team
concurred with the following avoidance and minimization measures:
The typical section for the proposed project will involve directional crossovers. This
involves providing U-turn bulbs along the proposed project. Since the completion of the
public hearing in September 2005, several u-turn bulbs were relocated or eliminated to
minimize impacts in the project area.
In addition, cut section along the project will allow a saving of 3 feet minimum as
a result of ditch front slopes being reduced from 18 feet to 15 feet.
Several Y-lines along the project were adjusted. The adjustments minimize
impacts to the project area.
¦ Ditch Stream K if possible.
¦ Discuss possible conservation easement with landowner at Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Sites 1 and 5.
¦ Extend right of way at Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Site 2 to eliminate invasives.
¦ Slope stakes may be revised at Dwarfed-flowered heartleaf Site 6, Stream J and
Wetland J once hydraulic design is completed.
¦ Stream GB and Q will be checked for jurisdictional status.
¦ Investigate possible adjustments to SR 2287 at Wetland site Q to lessen impacts to
wetland.
¦ Use 112:1 slopes at Stream sites GB,GA and G if possible.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Commitments
Page i of the Environmental Assessment, under the Division 13 Construction
heading states " In order to minimize potential effects on the Indiana Bat, the cutting of
dead trees with exfoliating bark will only be performed during the bat's hibernation
period. No dead trees with exfoliating bark will be cut from late March to October."
This statement has been removed from the list of project commitments.
B. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
One Federal Species of Concern (FSC) was added and one species was deleted
from the Threatened and Endangered Species list for Rutherford County as of April 6,
2006. The Mountain heartleaf was added to the list and the Diana Fritillary was deleted
from the list.
7
The common name for several species changed as of April 6, 2006. The Divided-
leaf ragwort was changed to Blue Ridge ragwort and Carolina saxifrage was changed to
Gray's saxifrage. The scientific names for these species has not changed.
In the EA, the scientific name for the Carolina saxifrage was listed as "saxifraga
millefolium". This is a typographical error. The correct scientific name for this species is
"saxifrage caroliniana".
C. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements
The SEA listed several intersections to be realigned or closed as a result of the
proposed project. Since the completion of the SEA, the design has been revised and the
intersection of SR 2169 with US 221 will not be closed. The intersection of SR 2236
and US 221 will be closed. SR 1113 will be realigned with the proposed project but was
omitted from the list of intersections to be realigned.
D. Jurisdictional Streams
Page 23 of the SEA states "Eighteen jurisdictional streams and one pond are
located within the study area." Page 19 however, states "Nineteen streams and two ponds
are located with the project study area." Nineteen streams and two ponds are in the
project vicinity. Currently, nineteen streams and one pond are within the project study
area. Of the nineteen streams, one stream is not jurisdictional.
E. Figure 4A
Figure 4A in the SEA only presents a 23-foot median facility for Section 5. A 23-
foot and a 46-foot median were studied for Section 5. Figure 4A has been revised and
presents the recommended cross section for the proposed project.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate state, and
local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that
the proposed action will have no significant impact upon the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be required.
Additional information concerning this proposal can be obtained by contacting the
following person:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
8
MILES
1 0 1 2 3
1 0 1 2 3 0 5
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
t OF TRANSPORTATION
G? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LINE
TO US 74 BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
116
TIP PROJECT R-22,
FIGURE 1
LS.
fi ' yhw; Mfe art. st.rya F R
jr }t-y yF ` f a ?y i FS r.
'{ i + ate' i { a?' # 3
1: s i` ?y 9 y
°? A,? e. lYi f 4?'? t *.: (111 ?r?? 2? '-7"'?1• 4A Z x",
4 _
=+E '` tel: t Y`,r Yr t<. ? '8 ?E ` -. I
1 ! +Dr?t
t
t
IV- 31?-
W O r q rl ir• e`k w ia. y? y r a tX???n "?$$ ^?
f 1 S S'? 3, 4y -f
4ii
a
J -:',`r? P ?? R`J'R ., ? r •i a ? ! tSx ? ? ?,ra i °`
?ou k-.4, ` ??, - i
Q, 0
75re N s< t a Y:r f a A.?ii.? -
t a? + - tL t '}s' q1 LL-
W W r
L a t `.iFit 4 LLl
,. -, x..o .? W W ? Y `.? Yt'?{ ?`?."t?3 t?` ??'? S$ •?? 'T ;fit 'T?;:' i ?-
LLJ
° a { t }t F Y YE ,? Y LLI lJ
.
r j s ?r ?}? g t i $ ; Y I J z^ z L LJ O
M,? s'-. - :y 4t 4;??Y r ga+ {,d?•:'Y 1?+ .`.!¢ }?'? ?4! - ttt4 CJ ".
I J w x
y el - '._ J a'L 0Z-?, w Q LL
YI % 3
C) w
C) 0?
qr ?? imcMr?c, O
QiifYr:T iyf q SC ya a i ? I
ro?fyataseypt ?Yxt?att?r?riwrIIS.rnrcgsa??r€arrazal.egAygrrtX?i s6se3a5C"'acisevc?:$zsmax„9ara7q
? qi r?rit t O O (n J €
.
g O
N V4
s r a _ - ?? yy s r tJ LLJ LLI LLJ O VC7 LL
?' ht> - ;K ° \I I ?. V Q
0 0 0 w V-
`y,'! J
Rft ire. t {?? ? k w
-v, CL a_
V) Cl
-WR
} t t ?t f
•5: ;y } S t Ni Y`?j'k`k' ¢?. { ! i+ n ( Sxf e'}E. ?` { F?
-
D -? O O O °d P" a..+ 1, 4..r o..,., 4B? s; p Y '; i '? .. ,. ' } o-y,
SrA
rn r- -p -6 -p
C> L
LA C)
LA 4
,?t t Jf '?? .T ?`? l A w, ? /? T T T ?? !? X 3 'k I
d D.
IM ILA LA
r _
o m z
O S7+
r.., f r
--t D Z m
r
m m -a
V { L;
?'? R /? t' ? ? h .,?''? •'?i'r ?Ai ! r?? ?? .yf$t ? ? r ? .
D ??
?_ J? •r p r .?a, ,' r l p r ' t s °+6 , } '
F
1B9-r'EIBB "! y , i'.
- -r4
B,
t ,`• I ??: X?x?? ' ?.? ?$;?:. 'M--: A ? n e a ?' ? %?"?' ?- ` 1.
r
44
ou?o
?• t ?. .w? ?? ???? ? ?. ? gyp'
s ? ? ° ? f h, 'X , ? Z YJ
? "? ?_ ? _•y? `?'i ? ' }.. ?T? 'x ,k - ? ?iiie ? '- ?C 1?il',??,?f sYo-;?j J{ -?1''
?"' '.3 ''?' _ ?^` ? "?' k #'-r' 's?} ' 4? •y i°', ? r .??y' ?t ? ?, ' _ . c w,1?j ? r ¢`'Yd ,Sh.. '` t?,:.,
CO
?Ak
Ck'
".161.11 Z
-fe
;> 3 ? /)
^ T
? ?" .,f - Br 4F Tt, M6? I 1 ? ffi? cd, ewe
W , Al
++' '
8 J r 1 a \ a a` 'a'r i% y ?s f "
?a
LAJ
to } ?4 T ? y F °Y 111E
?` 1 sS0 S I a ?' .?, -A,
?' -akr Nj??
M N74i?.i
C ° .w` ? A w-?.uY ? ???' ? b4? e?t_, „d•??;.: •r?t?(T??'?ya4 r*"C 4 'ti +•
jt6
m -0 --j Z
V.
2 Z ;v c? o
PTO o Y !f '^`t ?..t s - '
T..? - O O _
r.q
'T 91
M N i
z 7,
o ® T sV y >
© o 0 C: D 5 1
1i y?
% t$B?iy 7p
CD >
_< tA rn 33S3"
z 41 13
0 -0 -4
LA Z
C-) woo
woo
ix- T
z '
m A-9
N 1?., d
•_ ,. „? ? y1? `5jY ,?? er "'tl `*?',r "' r P. ?` `?< ' ? l+?,sy fit, `yam
i ? • A.? WT7, F a
„{a, l?? ?.." 7?7 a 1 '7, ? J ? ?T'aR y; ?' 4a? ,.? ? ,s n 1r?„g,? x ?//\//?/??? ?a • a
?? :"' ? f _ ,.',. ":? ,t e?? """-?• dr` §x :C 8' Ltd '? ' \ ? ?, ? '?
TI D D O O O " ?' ? : a ; ' . , :? ? -ra•. ? y F ??? ? :v';'s4""
v+?-? yk 4 Y t T G .E * s a fix. ..
V) V)
-n ,y vv .?. - a $'? } iX mot; ''t,Yr} ''.b ? -
cn o m m m
ftV
m :70 0 r 1R'y ate: ' ?, •.y y> 1 ?i
m m CD D^ m s• • M 5 ` 1'.? Ai
T r-- m i n _''"i'.., ;ry jr fi; { :%[ l ?/yh t ,y`?t'a•
N ?- V , T ks 1 L Y ?' Y`n * ai 1 + ' ? r? tq? ?1.
m z m
omz? z
D D O m b, '.4. ? r 7 r +; y 1 ?"F'"rr r ,:7'v? '1ti??"i } .'?' ?e. a i. ?? 1
m =
A -o
D ?' r g r? ?y,?f
D ?y r}u f yr< 7 g=?? t Y ?k
/' T t ie
y
? ar?`{.. ,?l ?`<,t '. Ss ,•-? 4r?' ,?:_ y '? 1, '? tit U^{-{` ?y v.> ? ? 1
J* I
a ?? ?? t •..e t?- r ' ?? k} awl ,r ??.iT?`,
Ilk
,fit':. ? ' 1' ?{ i- ?•,f ?F 3 ?+..
? ? t - `?' ix p E k ?y
='bY} ?1 j,. afi'T it
00
.'d3 ±} P ?,?. - .9 t S ?d .5, } ra i yw- 5 y I
t
tc .Y ,
f UR r ' lJ
Aft?
Al? z ?.
ss l ;' '`- _?,,iii--??ii-- irk Spy r ;., 1 f::.. A t•
VP A
ti rfYF,. ?,, _ 5 ??` ? ?. hi '°°' -'` '-:? mar;. 4' ?'sr:•+`= r` .x J6?.x?: ,a,`?ss ? ?: ,a, '. `? -
45
T { J j jT,tffi
V + 4 J„ o ? ???? t , 3 rf'? ,n ? r ?"iya? ? h v ., k 4 _ '. 5 •? .
fTl Ir. of are T? ax a?' ?F.p
1 i V ,7 r} "J '4 s "rt'':?i e t Fy + S - 3s ?{' . 3` rY N ?t - 3
+1?, c5y j i 1 ''?4 ?' -•? Ci`S may, -.t5 'h`?
- ? -? ??i' .. - j ? ?':;€ - _?'? "? 7f ? ?:'•J ;? w?: K„y's?; . Y .'r.r" ?.q'?+ ?. ?1's i ..itr ?,'
Z ;o s?r
a i
14 ?V
n m/4;0
0 r) fJ 1 -? ? r a g .ak rfy'a r -0 :c
_ z--1O
O 70 (,o 34 i4v
<.
C) F7-
> r- 0
'o P7
_7 0 V,
CD >
r :.
xf,
O- r m r? R i r( y` ?e ? i as t# a ?'
Z Vr r s {.X
N Z t. 1 i t t t r .. f,3 ;'t, O ,a r.' r
> s a ?' {
C7 m
W pp > _? a j. ref a ,f sr? , b P.
D -< rn §? iYltr# a'„ y„'' M' „^t? Ky t ?kr ;W jh
IVA!
.t..g?. ?,- ?•'.. ,_.Aip.\. u? ?M y's Pily ':? ,t t??`.a ?x{ Yi .+,? .rn:
0*
C
Id
?W-

C
N
V
A
W
a
a
O
m
O
Cl)
m
v
0
r
U)
m
0
i
O
z

L
rn

N
N
W
W
a
V
??Sw rFs.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Yw REGION 4
i Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
?? X02 61 FORSYTH STREET
+''4< PRO1161 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
September 20, 2005
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager Director, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
F`
???+VTAL A? ?
SUBJ: EPA Review of the State Environmental Assessment for the Widening of US
221 from the South Carolina State Line to US 74 Bypass, Rutherford
County, TIP Project R-2233A
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed the referenced North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Widening of US 221 from the South Carolina State Line
to the US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County. This proposed 10.9 mile widening project has been in
the NEPA/404 Merger process. The primary alternatives remaining under consideration include
a four-lane divided facility with center median.
EPA has no outstanding issues regarding the project's overall purpose and need and the
general widening alternatives carried forward for further study. There are 5 sections to the
proposed project (i.e., Sections 1 - 5). Sections 1, 3, and 4 have one remaining build alternative
(i.e., West, East and Eastside widening, respectively), Section 2 has both East-side and West-side
build alternatives and Section 5 has four build alternatives remaining under consideration
including East-side and West-side with either 23-foot or 46-foot median widths. EPA offers the
following specific comments on the EA.
? AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
* Wetlands and StreaMS - Total wetland impacts range between 0.10 and 0.13 acres. Total stream
impacts range between 3,343 linear feet and 3,601 linear feet (Tables Sl and S2). Page iii of the
EA indicates that the range is between 3,412 linear and 3,601 linear feet. There appears to be a
typographical error on Page iii, Summary of Environmental Effects.
* Prince Azl-icuhural Lands - EPA has reviewed the Section D, Farmland Impacts on Page 14 of
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable rill Hased Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EA. Should you have questions
regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-
856-4206.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
?..: :il
appreciate the opportunity to provide: these continents. If you have questions about our
conuile(lts, Please contact Ms. ivlarella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any
iZii:t?r f:C1IT`e517(1I? Tt? li' c(;uiceX.x?.ing (his prO:lGct, please reference our Log Nwnber 4-2-02-5! 1.
Sincerely,
1
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
wj t::l.)
Cc:
i'rts. Beverly G. Robinson, Project Development and Enviroiunental Analysis Branch, North
Carolina Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service C enter, Raleigh, NC
2 ,'699-1598
N4.::_ ,Aada l. Chaunbers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinato.c, North Carolina Wildlife
Resc ,i,,es C:cnarnission, 4614 W'ilgrove-Mint Hiil Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 2822',
y r. Steve Lund, fps 'ncville Regulatoq Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151. Patton
z`ive..nu., Ro4arn. x:08, Asheville, NC. 28801--5005
)-ir. Brian Wreivi, Non-th Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crshisee
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Chris Militscher, oho Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agtncy, Terry S miord FF.&iai Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Roorn 206,
1i a1eiglh, NC 2' "1 61--J' 1
R-2233A, US 221, SC State Line to US 74 Bypass
Broad R. & Floyd's Creek, Rutherford Co. -2- April 27, 2006
collisions with deer. Wildlife crossings should be considered to improve safety for drivers and
reconnect wildlife populations that will be further fragmented by the widening project.
Floodplain culverts can serve as crossings for smaller wildlife species.
NCWRC is concerned about secondary and cumulative impacts in the project area. The
document indicated the magnitude of induced growth is expected to be low to moderate. The
widening project may create opportunities for industrial development and Rutherford County's
lack of growth controls and encouragement of development may stimulate development along
the roadway. We recommend controlling access to the extent practicable to improve safety,
maximize the length of time of acceptable LOS, and minimize future impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. We also encourage Rutherford County to manage growth and use low impact
development techniques (see www.lowimpactdevelopment.org for information) to manage
stormwater quantity and quality from development and there should be no net gain in flood
stage. Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found in the Guidance
Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (Available at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Christopher Militscher, USEPA
r
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 28, 2006
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
APR 0, 3 ?Or,
DSftS -QUAuTy
-""?WTERBR?
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment for TIP Project No. R-2233A,
Carolina State Line to US 74 Bypass,
Improvements to US 221 from the South
Rutherford County, North Carolina, WBS Element 34400.1.1
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have review
the State Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject project. The following comments a
provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 1973, alt amended (16 16 U .S.C.
661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1531-1543). nort
h to The NCDOT is proposing to widen US-221 from the South Carolia state line to the exitshe US 74 adjacent Bypass in Rutherford County, North Carolina. Widening will occur
alignment, and no new location sections are proposed. provided comments a1 gnment and de ignwe
are members of the Merger Team and have through the Merger Team meetings. Therefore, our comments on the EA are limited primarily to
endangered species concerns for the project.
We recognize that this project will directly impact
worked through the Merger Team in
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and have
of the
informal consultation to avoid and minimize impacts to the occurrences of this plt along
project corridor. We anticipate entering formal consultation with the U.S. Army Corps
Engineers to complete their section 7 obligations regarding this project. In addition to impacts to
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, there is a green sheet commitment rnation records of the Indiana bat in
minimize impacts to the Indiana bat. Although there
Rutherford County, we do not believe tree-clearing needs to be limited only to the winter.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have questions about our
comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939,. Ext. 237. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-02-511. .
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Beverly G. Robinson, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North
Carolina Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1598
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 28227
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Chris Militscher, c/o Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206,
Raleigh, NC 27601
t
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 30, 2006
Mr. Vincent J. Rhea
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Rhea:
4
? qA C?
,per /?.
O
Subject: Bridge Replacement No. 120 on SR 1963 over Scaly Bark Creek, Stanly County, North
Carolina (TIP No. B-4279)
We have reviewed the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for the subject bridge
replacement project and are providing the following comments in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Fish and Wildlife Resources - According to the information in the NRTR, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is considering several alternatives for replacing the
existing bridge over Scaly Bark Creek. At least two of those alternatives consider replacing the
existing bridge with a culvert. We strongly recommend that the existing bridge be replaced with
a bridge, and we request that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for this
project address an alternative of replacing the.existing bridge with a new one. If an alternative
other than the replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge is chosen (such as replacing
the existing bridge with a culvert), we request that the NEPA document include an evaluation as
to why an alternative of replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge was not chosen.
We recommend that the design of the new bridge include provisions for the roadbed and deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching Scaly Bark Creek. This buffer
should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the runoff of storm water and
pollutants. The design of the bridge should not alter the natural stream or the stream-bank
morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside the bank-full
width of the stream. The bridge and its approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will
result in the damming or constriction of the channel or floodplain. If spanning the floodplain is
I
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of the approaches in order to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and to reduce high velocities of
floodwaters within the affected area. Measures to control erosion and sedimentation should be in
place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come
into contact with the stream. Equipment should be inspected daily to ensure that there are no
equipment leaks that could enter the stream. Construction material should not enter the water
during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge. In most cases we
prefer that bridges be replaced in place by constructing new bridges through staged construction
or by detouring traffic to existing off-site routes.
When reseeding/revegetating disturbed areas, we strongly recommend that only native plant
species be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found, that noninvasive species (such as
annual rye) be used until native plants can reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic
plant species typically used in erosion-control and reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to
some wildlife species, we now know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any
short-term erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species, including tall
fescue (native to Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza (eastern Asia species), redtop (a
Eurasian species), Sudan grass and Bermuda grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass
(native to Eurasia and northern Canada), choke out native vegetation and often result in
monocultures that prove to be of little benefit to wildlife and can be very detrimental to the
ecosystem as a whole.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking,
killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle),
their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the
Interior. To avoid impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of
the bridge and any other migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the
migratory bird nesting season--March through September. If migratory birds are discovered
nesting in the project impact area, including on the existing bridge, the NCDOT should avoid
impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season (March through September). If
birds are discovered nesting on the bridge during years prior to the proposed construction date,
the NCDOT, in consultation with us, should develop measures to discourage birds from
establishing nests on the bridge by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs, or
the NCDOT should avoid construction and demolition activities during the nesting period.
Federally Listed Species - The information provided states that no suitable habitat exists within
the project area for the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). We agree
that there does not appear to be suitable habitat for the bald eagle within the project area. The
information provided states that the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database was reviewed for the presence of the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) and that no records were reported within the project vicinity.
According to our records, the NCNHP database does list an occurrence of Schweinitz's
sunflower approximately 3 miles east of the project area. Using a Stanly County soil survey
report, the NRTR concludes that the appropriate soil types for Schweinitz's sunflower are not
present within the project area. While it is true that Schweinitz's sunflower is generally found
growing on soils derived from mafic rocks, Schweinitz's sunflower can be found on a variety of
soil types; therefore, the presence or absence of soil type alone should not be used to determine if
this species is present within a project area. The NRTR also states that the historic habitat of a
prairie-like environment for Schweinitz's sunflower is not present within the project area. While
historic habitat may not be present, Schweinitz's sunflower currently inhabits roadsides, power
line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings, and other sunny or semi-sunny situations. This
type of disturbed habitat is present within the project area; therefore, we recommend that an
on-the-ground survey be conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower during its flowering period of
late August through October within all areas of suitable habitat that will be disturbed by the
project to ensure that no adverse effects occur to this species.
If we can be of assistance or if you have any questions about these comments, please contact
Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-06-188. .
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 28227
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
C? q
DA &
BLDG.
REF. NO. OR ROOM, LDG.

A TION
? NOTE AND IL ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ?
FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?
y
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r
r
µ ?Eo?
„yam
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IV"
?lT
MqR 1
z w'qr,C& Q? ?
sro?M?4 l y
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ArERec?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 8, 2006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Beverly Robinso't? k!1?` ?J ifL
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for TIP Project
R-2233A, US 221 Widening from the South Carolina State
Line to US 74 Bypass, Rutherford County
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on February
14, 2006. The following persons were in attendance:
Steve Lund
Christopher Militscher
Marella Buncick
Brian Wrenn
Marla Chambers
Sarah McBride
Heather Renniger
Gregory Christo
Ricky Tipton
Roger Thomas
Sandra Stepney
Mike Little
Brian Robinson
Paul Rochester
Rick DeCola
David Chang
Paul Atkinson
Ed Lewis
Carla Dagnino
Teresa Hart
Jay McInnis
Steve Brown
Kim Gillespie
Beverly Robinson
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
US Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville
US Environmental Protection Agency- Raleigh
US Fish and Wildlife Service teleconference
NC Division of Water.Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cultural Resources - SHPIO
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Isothermal RPO
Division 13 - teleconference
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Hydraulics Unit
Hydraulics Unit
PDEA/Human Environment Unit - PICS
PDEA/Natural Environment Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS/TE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

The purpose of this meeting was to gain concurrence on the least environmentally
damaging and practicable alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3) for the project.
Proiect Status
Concurrence was reached on purpose and need and alternatives to study in detail
in August 2002. Concurrence Point 2A (bridging decisions) was reached on December
17, 2003. At this meeting the project was broken into six sections. Following the
Concurrence Point 2A meeting, Sections 5 and 6 were combined to form Section 5. East
side and west side widening alternatives were studied for all sections along the proposed
project. The east side widening alternative was eliminated from the study for Section 1.
West side widening was eliminated from the study for Sections 3 and 4.
The environmental assessment was approved on May 27, 2005. The public
hearing for the proposed project was held September 27, 2005.
Meeting Discussion
NCDOT recommended the following LEDPA for the project:
Section 1: West side widening
Section 2: West side widening from the end of Section 1 to north of the Broad River
and east- side widening from north of the Broad River to the end of Section
2.
Section 3: East side widening
Section 4: East side widening
Section 5: East side widening
The entire project would have a 46-foot median divided typical section.
Impacts for NCDOT's recommended alternative are as follows:
Section Stream
Impacts
ft Wetland
Impacts (ac) Dwarf-flowered
Heartleaf Impacts
ac Relocatees

Homes Businesses
Section 1 224 0.02 0.01 6 2
Section 2 1091 0.025 0.3 5 0
Section 3 1022 0 0 21 6
Section 4 873 0.05 0.07 13 2
Section 5 592 0.04 0 64 10
Total 3802 0.135 0.38 109 20
Chris Militscher of the US EPA had concerns about the impacts for the combined
widening alternative for Section 2. The team discussed the challenges with widening all
to the east and all to the west. West side widening from the beginning of Section 2 to
north of the Broad River was recommended by NCDOT to avoid impacting a powerline
transmission tower and a cemetery on the east side of the roadway along this portion of

Section 2. East side widening from north of the Broad River to the end of Section 2 was
proposed as the recommended alternative by NCDOT to avoid impacts to Riverstone
Industrial Park. A large dwarf-flowered heartleaf population would also be impacted
with west side widening along this portion of Section 2. Mitigation costs along with
possible proximity damages to the industrial park, wetland and stream impacts for the
combined widening alternative for Section 2 would be higher than that of all east side
widening. Ricky Tipton, NCDOT Division 13, commented that constructing a retaining
wall at the powerline transmission tower because of east side widening for this portion of
Section 2 is acceptable and may be less expensive than impacting the industrial park. The
team decided on east side widening as the preferred alternative for Section 2.
The merger team agreed on the following as the preferred alternative for the
proposed project.
Section 1: West side widening
Section 2: East side widening
Section 3: East side widening
Section 4: East side widening
Section 5: East side widening
The entire project would have a 46-foot median divided typical section. Impacts
for the preferred alternative are presented in the table below:
Section Stream
Impacts
ft Wetland
Impacts
ac Dwarf-flow red
Heartleaf
Impacts ac Relocatees

Homes Businesses
Section 1 224 0.02 0.01 6 2
Section 2 666 0 0.33 1 0
Section 3 1022 0 0 21 6
Section 4 873 0.05 0.07 13 2
Section 5 592 0.04 0 64 10
Total 3377 0.11 0.41 105 20
At the next meeting, information regarding avoidance and minimization for the
subject project will be presented to the merger team. Additional information requested by
the merger team for the next meeting include the following:
Wildlife passage areas
Possible floodplain piping areas
Possible stream relocations
More detailed Dwarf-flowered heartleaf information
The signed concurrence form is attached. If there are any changes or corrections
to these minutes please call me at [phone] extension 254.
Section 404\NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3
Selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA)
Project Description/TIP No./Project No./WBS Element:
NCDOT Project Description: US 221 Widening from the. South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass, TIP Project No.: R-2233A, State Project No.: 8.189
WBS Element: 34509.1.1
The Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative for the proposed
project is:
Section 1
West Side Widening
Section 2
.<' East Side Widening
West Side Widening
Section 4
East Side Widening
Section 5
r'( East Side Widening
West Side Widening
Sec 'on 3
East Side Widening
The Section 404/NEPA Merger project Team concurred on the 14"' day of February
2006 with the alternates marked with an "x" listed above.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources - DWQ
N.C. Department of Transportation

sip t4j'
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400. 1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

?°
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:

(J CAR0
Beverly G. binson - ?!? ESSIQ
Project Development Engineer
1 SE Al
Z 7Q?y !
4Jes A. McInnis, Jr., P. E.
Project Development Unit Head
s/?7 05
NORTH ?,
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400.1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
N.C. Department of Transportation
- Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North ma Environmental Policy Act
?tORTy cq?

'?? Qom
M'OF .SANS

L??b5-
' iLC4? - -
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
e environmental Management Director, PDEA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Commi Page
tments ..................................................
........................................................
SUMMARY .......................................................... '..
1. Type of Action ......................... ..
..............................
2. Additional Information ..................... ....................................................... ii
3. Project Purpose/Description of Proposed Action
.................................................
4. Needs to be Addressed by Project ................ ??•'•••••••"••• rr
................................................................. iii
5. Summary of Environmental Effects ................................................... ..
................................... iii
6. Permits Required ............................ ...
7. Alternatives Considered ..................................................
8. Coordination ........................ iv
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................
A. General Description ...................................... ............................................1
B. Cost Estimates ....................... 1
......................................................... .. ...................................
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..............................................
A. Project Purpose ......................................... ...1
........................................................................
...................................
B. Traffic Volumes ............................. ..................................................1
C. Traffic Carrying Capacity ..................................................................................
D. Accident Analysis """"""""' 2
M. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY ............................. ... .................. 2
...............................................................
A. Functional Classification ...................................................................
B. Existing Typical Section ......................................... ........................................................ 2
......
C. Existing Right of Way/Access Control ................................................................................. 2
D. Speed Limit ....................... ............... 2
.....................................................................................
E. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control .............................................................................. 3
F. Railroad Crossings .......................................... ................... 3
....................................................
G. Structures .............................................................. ............................................................. 3
...
H. Pedestrian/Bicycle Accommodations .................................................................................... 3
I. Utilities ........................... ........................................................................................................... J. School Bus Usage .................................... ................ 3
...............................................................
K. Other Highway Projects in the Area ..................................................................................... 4
IV. PROPOSED-IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 5
A. Proposed Typical Section ...................................................................................................... 5
B. Proposed Alignrrient .............................................................................................................. 5
C. Right of Way/Access Control ................................................................................................ 5
D. Speed Limit ........................................................................................................................... 5
E. Design Speed ..... .....:.............................................................................................................. 5
F. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements ........................................................................ 5
G. Service Roads ........................................................................................................................ 6
H. Railroad Crossings ................................................................... ................................... 6
..........
1. Structures .............................:............................................. ............................................. 6
........
J. Pedestrian/Bicycle Accommodations ..................................................................................... 6
K. Utilities ...........................................................................................
L. Landscaping ...........................................................................................................................7
M. Noise Barriers .........................
..........................................................................
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
..........................................................
........................................
A. "No-Build" Alternative .............. ................................................. 7
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation .......................: ................... 7
.......................
C. Typical Section Altematives .................................
7
........................
D. Alignment Alternatives ..... ...............:....
...............................................................
VI. EVALUATION OF ENV """"'
IRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................................................... 12
A.. Cultural Resources ................... ............................................................................. 12
1. Historic Architectural Resources .....................................................................................
2. Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................ 112
2
B. Social/Economic Effects ..................................................................................................... 13
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ................................... ...................................... 13
3. Public Facilities ................................ :. ..........................................................................13
4. Economic Effects .....
C. Land Use/Zoning .•........:...................................................................................................... 13
............................................................. 14
D. Farmland Impacts.......: ........................................................................................................ 14
E. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 14
F. Natural Resources .............................. ..............................................16
1. Biotic Resources .............................................................................................................. 16
a. Terrestrial Communities ....................................
b. Terrestrial Wildlife .............................................. ........................................18
.................
2. Aquatic Communities ..................................... .........................................19
........................
3. Summary of Anticipated Effects ......................................................................................19
a. Terrestrial Communities Effects ......................
b. Aquatic Communities Effects ..................................................................................... 19
............................................................. 20
4. Characteristics of Surface Waters ................... ,,,•, 20
5. Ponds ..........................................................-..............
6. Best Usage Classification and Water Quality .............................. ..................................... 21
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ................. 22
........_..........................
8. Jurisdictional Topics ........................................................................................................ 22
a. Waters of the United States .......................................................................:.................. 22
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......................................................... 22
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ...................................................... 23
............................
d. Permits ......................................................................................................................... 24
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation .................................. ............ 24
9. Rare and Protected Species .............................................................................................. 24
a. Federally-Protected Species ..................................................... ............ 24
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................ 26
..........
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation .................................................................................................... 27
H. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 27
1. Ambient Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 28
2. Analysis Results .............:................................................................................................. 28
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives ......................................................................................... 29
4. Construction Noise ....................:...................................................................................... 30
5. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 31
I. Air Quality Analysis .......................................................... 31
1. Background CO Concentrations ....................................................................... ... ............................ 31
2. Air Quality Analysis Results ........................................................ ............- 31
....................................
3. Construction Air Quality Effects ..................................................................................... 32
4. Summary ...... .. ................................................................................................................ 32
J. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank Facilities ...................... 32
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................ 34
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................................................................................... 34
B. Public Hearing ..................................................................................................................... 34
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process ................................................................................................. 34
D. Other Coordination ............................................................................................................. 35
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3a 2008 Traffic Volumes
Figure 3b 2030 Traffic Volumes
Figure 4a Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 4b Proposed Typical Sections (contd.)
Figure 5 Future Land Use
Figure 6 Prime Farmland in Project Area
Figure 7 Wetlands/Streams/Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 8 Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Area
Tables
Table S 1 - Widening Alternatives Studied ..
. i
.....................................
..............
Table S2 - Total Project Impacts for Alternative Combinations v
i
.............................
Table 1- Summary of Mainline Peak Hours Level of Service ................................ v
2
Table 2 - Existing Bridge Structures .................................. 3
..........................
Table 3 - Proposed Structures
....................................................................
T
bl
4
Wi 6
a
e
-
dening Alternatives Studied ........................................................
Table 5 - Total Project Im
acts for Alt
ti
C
bi
i 8
p
erna
ve
om
nat
ons .............................. 8
Table 6 - Anticipated Relocations ..................................... 11
..........................
Table 7 - Anticipated Effects of US 221 Bypass
.................................................
Table 8 - Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial Communities ............................................. 13
18
Table 9 - Streams in Project Study Area
Table 10 -Jurisdictional Wetlands Within the Project Study Area .......................... 21
Table 11 - Project Effects on Wetlands ........................................... 21-
............................
Table 12 -Project Effects on Jurisdictional Streams .................................................... 22
Table 13 - Federally-Protected Species Listed for Rutherford County ........................... 23
Table 14 - Population Data for Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Within the Project Study
Area ....................:................................................ 24
.................
Table 15 - Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Rutherford County ............. 25
Table 16 - Anticipated Noise Impacts of Project Alternatives ............................... 27
Table 17 - Potentially Contaminated Sites in Project Area .................................. 32
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
I
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400. 1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a State Environmental Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
3. Proiect Purpose/Description of Proposed Action
The purpose of the project is to improve travel time, safety and system linkage along the
existing US 221 intrastate corridor between the South Carolina State Line and US 74 Bypass in
Rutherford County.
The proposed project involves widening US 221 to a multi-lane facility from the South
Carolina State Line to the US 74 Bypass in Rutherford County. The project is approximately
10.9 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the approved 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are
scheduled for state fiscal years 2006 and 2008, respectively, in the draft 2006-2012 TIP.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $87,937,500, which includes
$60,000,000 for construction and $27,937,500 for right of way acquisition. The cost included in
the draft 2006-2012 TIP is $56,700,000 which includes $5,700,000 for right of way acquisition
and $51,000,000 for construction.
ii
4. Needs to be Addressed by Proiect
The proposed project will address the following deficiencies of the existing facility:
• Without improvements, US 221 will operate at capacity (level of service E) in the years
2008 and 2030.
• Total and fatal accident rates along US 221 are higher than the statewide average for two-
lane rural US routes.
5. Summary of Environmental Effects
The widening of US 221 will result in the relocation of between 97 and 112 homes and
between 16 and 21 businesses, depending on the alternative chosen (see-Tables S 1 and S2
below).
It is anticipated the proposed project will affect approximately 0.1 acre of wetlands and
approximately 3,412 to 3,601 linear feet of streams, depending on the alternatives chosen (see
Tables S 1 and S2 below).
Traffic noise impacts will occur to between 36 and 40 residences with construction of the
project, depending on the alternative chosen (see Tables S1 and S2 below). Sixty one receptors
will be impacted by traffic noise if the proposed project is not built.
Twenty three potentially contaminated properties (see Section VI-J) will require further
investigation prior to right of way acquisition.
6. Permits Required
Due to expected project impacts on 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.
7. Alternatives Considered
The project was divided into five sections in order to evaluate alternatives. Both east-side
and west-side widening were considered within each section. In addition, both a 23-foot and a
46-foot median were considered within Section 5. Table S-1 below presents impacts for both
east and west-side widening within each section. Table S-2 presents total impacts for the project
with various alternative combinations.
iii
Table S1 _ Wirlenina Al*Prna*;m.no

Section
Length Streams Wetlands Dwarf-flowered Noise
Section To/From mi. Alt. (ft) (ac) Heartleaf (ac)* Homes Businesses Impacts
1 State Line/SR 2105 0
9 East 516 0.01 0.08 7 1 1
. West 224 0.02 0.01 6 2 3
2 SR 2105/S. of SR 2109 1
8 East 666 0 0.33 1 0 1
. West 855 0.02 0.24 4 0 4
S. of SR 2109/S. of East 1,022 0 0 21 6 2
3 1
4
SR 2230 . West 767 0 0 251 `-4 ` 10
4 S. of SR 2230/SR 2215 2
9 East 873 0.05 0.07 13 2 6
. West 1,063 0.03 029 22 5 _ 6
East
23' 558 0.04 0 54 6 24
East
46' 592 0.03 0 64 10 25
5 SR 2215/N. of US 74 3
9
. West
23' 571 0.04 0 53 10 24
West
46' 627 0.03 0 68 11 25
auauea anernauves are no longer being considered for the project.
* Area containing Dwarf-flowered heartleaf within project construction limits.
Table S2. Total Pro'ect Impacts for Alternative Combinatio

Alternative
Combination

Dwarf- ns

Section
1 2 3 4 5
Streams
ft
Wetlands
ac flowered
Heartleaf
ac *

Homes

Businesses
Noise
Impacts
W W E E W46 3,601 0.12 0.32 112 21 40
W W E E W23 3,545 0.13 0.32 97 20 40
W E E E W46 3,412 0.10 0.41 109 21 37
W E E E W23 3,356 0.11 0.41 94 20 36
W W E E E46 3,566 0.12 0.32 108 20 38
W W E E E23 3,532 0.13 0.32 98 16 38
W E E E E46 3,377 0.10 0.41 105 20 36
W E E E E23 3,343 0.11 0.41 95 16 36
* Area containing Dwarf-flowered heartleaf within project construction limits.
"W46"=West-side widening with 46 median. "W23"=West-side widening with 23' median.
"E46"=East-side widening with 46' median. "E23"=East-side widening with 23' median.
8. Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were consulted regarding this
project:
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
1v
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
National Park Service
US Geological Survey
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
DENR NC Division of Water Quality
DENR NC`Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Rutherfordton
Mayor of Spindale
Rutherford County Manager
v
US 221
From the South Carolina State Line to
US 74 Bypass
Rutherford County
WBS Element 34400.1.1
TIP Project R-2233A
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes to
widen US 221 to a multi-lane facility from the South Carolina State line to the US 74 Bypass in
Rutherford County. The project is approximately 10.9 miles long.
The proposed project is included in the approved 2004-2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for state
fiscal year (SFY) 2006 and construction is scheduled for SFY 2008 in the draft 2006-2012 TIP.
B. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $87,937,500, which includes
$60,000,000 for construction and $27,937,500 for right of way acquisition. The cost included in
the draft 2006-2012 TIP is $56,700,000, which includes $5,700,000 for right of way acquisition
and $51,000,000 for construction.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to improve travel time, safety and system linkage along the
existing US 221 intrastate corridor between the South Carolina State Line and US 74 Bypass in
Rutherford County.
B. Traffic Volumes
In the year 2008, average daily traffic volumes along US 221 in the project area are
expected to range between 5,510 to 12,230 vehicles per day (vpd). In the design year 2030, the
estimated traffic volumes are expected to range from 8,350 to 18,150 vpd. See Figures 3a and 3b
for traffic volumes.
C. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Without the proposed improvements, portions of US 221 within the project limits will
operate at level of service E in both 2008 and 2030. If US 221 is widened, it will operate at level
of service A in 2008 and level of service B in 2030.
Table 1. Mainline Level of Ri-rvirP R.ncl nn iTC 1711

No-Build
LOS v rra
Build
LOS
Section 2008 2030 2008 2030
SC State Line to SR 2169 E E A B
SR 2169 to US 74 D E A A
D. Accident Analysis
During the three-year period from 1999 to 2002, 204 accidents were reported on US 221
within the project limits. Three fatalities occurred. The accident rate along US 221 within the
project limits is 246.35 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm). The fatal
accident rate within the project limits is 3.62 acc/100mvm. This is higher than the statewide rate
for two-lane rural US routes of 167.73 acc/100mvm for regular accidents and 2.01 acc/100mv for
fatal accidents.
III. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY
A. Functional Classification
US 221 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial in the North Carolina functional
classification system. US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to NC 105 in Linville and
NC 105 from Linville to Boone are designated an intrastate corridor. These same sections of
US 221 and NC 105 are also identified as a strategic corridor.
B. Existing Typical Section
Existing US 221 within the project limits is a two-lane roadway, with 10-foot lanes and
grass shoulders which vary from six to nine feet wide.
C. Existing Right of Way/Access Control
The existing right of way on US 221 in the project area varies from 60 feet to 100 feet
wide. No control of access exists along US 221, with the exception of the vicinity of the US 74
Bypass interchange.
D. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along US 221 in the project area is 55 miles per hour.
2
E. Intersecting Roads and TVUes of Control
With the exception of US 74 Bypass, all existing intersections along US 221 in the
project area are at-grade and stop sign-controlled. An interchange exists at US 74 Bypass. The
ramp terminals for this interchange on US 221 are stop sign-controlled.
F. Railroad Crossings
Two railroad crossings exist along US 221 within the project limits. Both of these
crossings are grade-separated. Railroad tracks belonging to the Carolina, Clinchfield and Ohio
(CC&O) Railroad are carried over existing US 221 on a bridge approximately 0.6 mile north of
the South Carolina State Line.. US 221 is carried over railroad tracks belonging to CSX
Transportation on a bridge just south of SR 1136 (New Bethel Church Road).
G. Structures
Table 2 presents existing bridge structures along US 221 within the project limits.
Table 2. Existin Brid a Structures
Bridge Carries/ Clear Rdwy Width or Vertical Year Suff.
No. Crosses Min. Horiz. Clearance Under Clearance Length Built Rt .*
19 CC&O RR/
US 221 6' Each Side 14' 8" 46' 1939 N/A
30 US 221/13road '

River 24 N/A 523' 1939 34.0
55 US 221/Floyd's '

Creek 25.8 N/A 150' 1940 62.6
74 US 221/CSX ' '
"

RR 25.8 20
5 120' 1940 63.4
631 US 221/US 74 60' 16' 8" 264' 1989 95.3
Sufficiency Rating (out of a possible 1 UU rating points).
H. Pedestrian/Bicycle Accommodations
There are no existing sidewalks along US 221 in the project area. US 221 in the project
area is not a designated bicycle route. NC Bicycle Route 8 (Southern Highlands Route) is signed
along SR 2213 and SR 1148 in the project area. These two roads intersect US 221 just south of
US 74 Bypass (see Figures 1 and 2).
1. Utilities
Utilities along US 221 include telephone, power lines, water, sanitary sewer force main,
fiber-optic cable lines and gas.
J. School Bus Usage
Approximately 30 buses use US 221 within the project limits twice daily.
3
K. Other Highway Proiects in the Area
Several other highway projects are proposed in the vicinity of the subject project. These
are shown on Figure III-1 and listed below:
TIP Project B-4259 involves the
replacement of Bridge No.342 at
Richardson Creek along SR 1135.
Right of way acquisition and
construction are scheduled to begin in
fiscal year (FY) 2005, respectively.
TIP Project B-4634 involves the
replacement of Bridge No. 144 at
Floyd's Creek along SR 1347. Right of
way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
the FY 2007. Construction is
scheduled to begin in FY 2008.
TIP Project R-2233B involves the
construction of a US 221 bypass of
Rutherfordton from US 74 Bypass to
SR 1353. Right of way acquisition for
the bypass is scheduled to begin in
SFY 2007 and construction in
SFY 2009.
RMERFORQ
i L..
in Area
In addition to the three nearby projects, two other projects are proposed along the US 221
Corridor.
TIP Project R-2597, involves widening US 221 from SR 1353 in Rutherford County to
SR 1153 in McDowell County. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
SFY 2007 and construction in SFY 2009.
TIP Project R-204 involves widening US 221-NC 226 from SR 1153 to NC 226 and
US 221-NC 226 Business to SR 1434. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2006 and construction in SFY 2008.
4
Figure Ill-1 Other Highway Projects
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Proposed Typical Section
A four-lane median divided facility is proposed for US 221. The proposed median will
be 46 feet wide, except from SR 2150 to just south of US 74 Bypass, where either a 46-foot or a
23-foot median is being considered due to existing development in this area. Through the US 74
interchange the proposed median will narrow to four feet across the bridge over US 74. Twelve-
foot lanes and ten-foot shoulders (four-foot paved) are proposed. Figure 4A presents proposed
typical sections for the project.
B. Proposed Alignment
The proposed additional lanes will be added to either the west-side or east-side of existing
US 221. The project was divided into five sections in order to evaluate alternatives. Widening
both to the east side and the west side were examined within each section. Appropriate widening
schemes have been selected within three of the five sections (see Section V-D). Widening
schemes within the remaining two sections will be chosen following the public hearing for the
project.
C. Right of Way/Access Control
A total right of way width of 250 feet will be required to accommodate the proposed
improvements. Partial control of access (one access per parcel) is proposed for the project.
D. Speed Limit
It is anticipated US 221 within the project limits will be signed with a 55 MPH speed
limit.
E. Design Speed
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for US 221 within the project limits, with the
exception of the vicinity of the US 74 Bypass interchange, where a 55 MPH design speed is
proposed.
F. Types of Intersection Control/Improvements
All of the intersections along the project will remain stop sign controlled following
completion of the project. No full movement intersections are proposed along US 221 within the
project limits except at the US 74 Bypass interchange, at an industrial driveway just south of
US 74 and at SR 2171. Directional crossovers (no lefts onto US 221 or through movements
across US 221 from minor roads) or right in/right out (no median opening) are proposed at all
other intersections along the project. Proposed median openings will accommodate u-turns.
5
The following roadways will be realigned in order to improve the skew angle of their
intersection with US 221 (see Figure 2): SR 2105, SR 2109, SR 2210, SR 1117, SR 2230, SR
2125, SR 1136, SR 2287, SR 1111, SR 1137, SR 2150, SR 2164, SR 1148 and SR 2213. SR
2171 will be relocated in order to provide more distance between this intersection and the US 74
Bypass interchange ramps. Two existing intersections will be closed with the project. The
intersections of both SR 1118 and SR 2169 with US 221 will be removed and the side roads cul-
de-saced. These intersections are being closed because of the intersection skew and the
proximity of other intersections.
G. Service Roads
No service roads are proposed to be constructed as a part of this project.
H. Railroad Crossings
All the existing grade separated railroad crossings will remain grade separated. The
bridge carrying the CC&O Railroad over US 221 will be replaced. The bridge carrying US 221
over the CSX Transportation rail line will be replaced and a second bridge constructed to carry
the new lanes over the tracks. Section IV-I below describes proposed structures.
I. Structures
Table 3 below presents proposed structures for the project. The proposed typicafsection
on bridge structures is shown on Figure 4B.
Table 3. Proposed Strnehirec
Carries/Crosses Proposed Structure
CC&O RR/US 221 20'x 285' Brid e
US 221/Broad River 2-36'x 570' Brid e
Unnamed Tributary to
Floyd's Creek Retain and Extend Existing
1 6' x 4' Culvert
US 221/Flo d's Creek 2-36'x 170' Brid es
US 221/CSX RR 2-36'x 140' Brid es
Long Branch Retain and Extend Existing
2 7' x 7' Culvert
US 221 /US 74 Widen Existing Bridge
I Pedestrian/Bicycle Accommodations
Due to the rural nature of the project area, no sidewalks are proposed for the project. No
exclusive bicycle accommodations are proposed. The proposed four-foot paved shoulder will
accommodate bicycle traffic.
6
K. Utilities
The project is expected to have a low level of utility impacts. Utilities along the project
will be relocated prior to construction. Care will be taken to prevent damage to water lines and
fiber optic cables in the project area.
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed as a part of the project. Disturbed areas along the
project will be reseeded with grass.
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed along the project (see Section VI-H-3)
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need
of the project to improve travel time, safety and.system linkage along the existing US 221
intrastate corridor between the South Carolina State Line and US 74 Bypass in Rutherford
County.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined alternate modes of transportation would not be a practical alternative to
the proposed project. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the
project area, which is primarily rural in nature. Rutherford County Transit provides bus service
within Rutherfordton, Spindale and Forest City. However, no local bus service is offered along
US 221 within the project area. Inter-city bus service is offered between Spindale and Charlotte.
This bus service uses US 74 Bypass. The expansion of local or inter-city bus service to include
the project area may reduce traffic along US 221 by a very small amount, but it would not reduce
traffic enough to improve travel time along the US 221 corridor.
Staggering work hours, car-pooling and van pooling are possible ways to generally reduce
highway congestion; however these congestion management measures are not controlled by
NCDOT. These alternatives would do nothing to address the system linkage needs that will be
improved by the "Build" alternative.
C. Typical Section Alternatives
US 221 will be widened to a four-lane median divided section with the project. For the
portion of the project from the State Line to SR 2150, only a 46-foot median was considered.
From SR 2150 to just south of US 74 Bypass, both a 46-foot median and a 23-foot raised median
7
have been studied for the project. The 23-foot raised median is being considered due to the
number of homes and businesses in this area. Through the US 74 Bypass interchange, opposing
travel lanes will be separated by a four-foot paint striped divider. Figure 4A presents proposed
typical sections for the project.
D. Aft7nnment Alternatives _
The project was divided into five sections in order to evaluate alternatives. Both east-side
and west-side widening was considered within each section. In addition, both a 23-foot and a
46-foot median were considered within Section 5. Figure V-1 below presents the project sections
and Table 4 presents impacts for both east and west-side widening within each section. Table 5
presents total impacts for the project with various alternative combinations.
Table 4. Widening Altprnatiwae Q+viAina
Section
Length Streams Wetlands Dwarf-flowered Noise
Section To/From mi. Alt. (ft (ac Heartleaf ac)* Homes Businesses Impacts
1 State Line/SR 2105 0
9 East 516 0.01 0.08 7 , 1 1
. West 224 0.02 0.01 6 2 3
2 SR 2105/S. of SR 2109 1
8 East 666 0 0.33 1 0 1
. West 855 0.02 0.24 4 0 4
S. of SR 2109/S. of East 1,022 0 0 21 6 2
3 14
SR 2230 -West 767 - 0` 25 10
4 S. of SR 2230/SR 2215 2
9 East 873 0.05 0.07 13 2 6
. West 1,063 - 0.03 029 22 5 6
East
23' 558 0.04 0 54 6 24
East
(46) 592 0.03 0 64 10 25
5 SR 2215/N
of US 74 3
9
. . West
23' 571 0.04 0 53 10 .24
West
' 627 0.03 0 68 11 25
46
Shaded alternatives are no longer being considered for the project.
* Area containing Dwarf-flowered heartleaf within project construction limits.
8
Table 5. Tntal Prnietrt imnante fn.. A 9"-' L:

Alternative a c-mil-A LQb lvG <.V111 UlilQl.jUl1.1
Combination
Dwarf-
Section , flowered
1 2 3 4 5 Streams Wetlands Heartleaf Noise
ft ac ac * Homes Businesses Impacts
W W E E W46 3,601 0.12 0.32 112 21 40
W W E E W23 3,545 0.13 0.32 97 20 40
W E E E W46 3,412 0.10 0.41 109 21 37
W E E E W23 3,356 0.11 0.41 94 20 36
W W E E E46 3,566 0.12 0.32 108 20 38
W W E E E23 3,532 0.13 0.32 98 16 38
W E E E E46 3,377 0.10 0.41 105 20 36
W
.k E E E E23 3,343 0.11 0.41 95 16 36
.rea contammg Dwart-dowered heartleaf within project construction limits.
"W46"=West-side widening with 46' median. "W23"=West-side widening with 23' median.
"E46"=East-side widening with 46' median. "E23"=East-side widening with 23' median.
9
10
The NEPA/404 merger team (see Section VII-C) discussed alternatives within each
section and agreed on the appropriate widening scheme for Sections 1, 3 and 4. Both east-side
and west-side widening are still being considered for Sections 2 and 5.
Section 1 (West-Side Widening Proposed)
Section 1 of the project extends from the South Carolina State Line to SR 2105 (State
Line Road). As Table 4 shows, widening to the west within this section will result in less -
impacts to streams, impact a smaller area containing a federally-protected plant and relocate
fewer homes than widening to the east. For these reasons, the merger team agreed to drop
widening to the east from consideration, even though widening to the east would affect less
wetlands.
Section 2 (Both East-Side and West-Side Widening Being Considered)
Section 2 of the project extends from SR 2105 to approximately 0.5 mile south of
SR 2109 (Island Ford Road). Both east-side and west-side widening are still being considered
for this section.
Section 3 (East-Side Widening Proposed)
Section 3 extends from 0.5 mile south of SR 2109 to approximately 0.2 mile south of
SR 2230 (New Jerusalem Church Road). East-side widening has been selected for this section
because it would relocate fewer homes.
Section 4 (East-Side Widening Proposed)
Section 4 extends from 0.2 mile south of SR 2230 to SR 2215 (Henson Drive). East-side
widening has been selected for this section because widening to the east will result in lower
stream impacts, less impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf, and will relocate fewer homes and
businesses.
Section 5 (Both East-Side and West-Side Widening Being Considered)
Section 5 extends from SR 2215 to just north of US 74 Bypass. Both east-side and
west-side widening are still being considered for this section. Both a 23-foot and a 46-foot
median are being considered for this section, as well, due to the amount of development in the
Danieltown community. Through the US 74 Bypass interchange, the. proposed median will
narrow. On the bridge carrying US 221 over US 74 Bypass, opposing travel lanes will be
separated by a four-foot paint striped divider. Turn lanes will be provided for the US 74 ramp
terminals. With either the east-side widening or west-side widening options, US 221 will be
widened to the east through the US 74 interchange and north of the interchange. In order to
11
maintain the appropriate vertical clearance under the bridge carrying US 221 over the US 74
Bypass, the bridge must be widened to the east.
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a). Although no federal
funds will be used for the construction of the project, a permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers will be required. Section 106 of the 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 to
afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
The NCDOT Historic Architectural Resources Section surveyed the'project area. There
are properties over 50 years old within the projects' area of potential effect (APE), but based on
historical information available and photographs of each property, these properties are not
considered eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed properties within the APE. The State Historic Preservation
Office concurred with this finding on December 12, 2002. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in Appendix A.
2. Archaeological Resources
A comprehensive archaeological survey, consisting of background research and
pedestrian survey and/or subsurface testing, is required prior to construction within the project's
Area of Potential Effects (APE), which includes all potential construction limits for the project.
The intensive survey APE will include those areas where the preliminary design. decisions have
already been made for the project and will also extend to cover those areas where widening may
go to either side of the existing road or is otherwise undecided. Potentially, based on existing
knowledge of the region and previous archaeological research in the area, archaeological sites
may be identified within the project corridor as a result of the archaeological survey. Each
recorded site within the APE will be evaluated individually for eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places and considered accordingly.
The Historic Preservation Office and the Office of State Archaeology will review the
resulting report, and concurrence with the conclusions and recommendations of the investigation
should be established prior to construction.
12
B. Social/Economic Effects
1. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
All of the alternatives under consideration for the project will require the relocation of
homes and businesses. All relocations will be carried out in accordance with Federal and State
laws and regulations. NCDOT's Relocation Assistance Program will be utilized to assist in
finding replacement housing for residents relocated by the project. Table 6 below presents the
anticipated number of homes and businesses which would be relocated by each alternative.
Appendix B includes information on NCDOT's relocation assistance program, as well as the
relocation reports for each alternative.
Table 6_ Anflripa*arl

Section - -- -
Alternative vaV
Homes ?.ss •aVliJ
Businesses
Non-Profit
Organizations
Section 1 West 6 2(l) 0
Section 2 East 1 0 0
West 4 0 0
Section 3 East 21(5) 6(l) 0
Section 4 East 13(2) 2 0
Section 5 East 23' S4 10 6(l) 0
West 23' 53(11) 10(3) 1
East 46' 64(15) 10(3) 2

AT..-I- West 46' 68(12) 11(3) 1
l4uuiunrb m pareninesis V maicate minority owned or occupied homes and businesses.
3. Public Facilities
One school and several churches are located along US 221 in the project area. Harris
Elementary School is located on US 221 just north of SR 2150 (Bridges Farm Road).
4. Economic Effects
Rutherford County's economy has been in a downward cycle, with several textile plant
closings over the last couple of years resulting in a loss of approximately 2,300 jobs. The towns
in the county are experiencing the greatest economic effect, with a loss of almost 90% of their
textile jobs. The economy of the western part of the county, which is a tourist area, is stronger
than the central and southern parts of the county, which are struggling economically.
Local planners believe proposed improvements along US 221 in the area will help bring
jobs to the area by attracting industries due to increased access and mobility. Residential
property values could decrease if the widened road comes much closer to existing homes than the
existing road, causing increased noise and affecting the aesthetics of the property. However,
some property values may rise because of increased mobility along the US 221 corridor.
Additionally, industries may be drawn to the area, resulting in increased property values.
13
C. Land Use/Zoning
The project area is mainly rural with a mixture of low-density residential and scattered
commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. The commercial development is primarily
businesses such as convenience stores and gas stations. A number of churches are also located in
the project area.
Rutherford County has a draft Land Use Plan 1993-2003 (Revised 2001) (see Figure 5).
The land use plan identifies most of the land US 221 passes through in the project area as
"Rural". Portions of the northern part of the project area are identified as "Limited Transition".
D. Farmland Impacts
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for urban
development is not subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural agricultural
areas.
US 221 crosses several areas with prime farmland soils. However, based on field
observations, little land along the existing roadway is used for agriculture.
E.. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in Section III-K, improvements are proposed for US 221 north of the subject
project. An adjacent project, TIP Project R-2233B, involves construction of a US 221 bypass of
Rutherfordton. Environmental studies for the bypass are currently underway. Four alternative
corridors are under consideration for the bypass. Table 7 below presents anticipated effects of
the bypass alternatives.
14
Table 7. Anticipated Effects of Proposed US 221
Rutherfardtan Rvnncc*
EAST 3 EAST 4 EAST 6 US 74A
BYP. BYP. BYP. BYP.
RESIDENTIAL 151 162 149 90
RELOCATEES
BUSINESS 23 20 21 23
RELOCATEES
NATIONAL
REGISTER**
LISTED 1 1 1 None
PROPERTIES IN
CORRIDOR
WETLANDS
AFFECTED 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.5
(AC.)
STREAM
IMPACTS 5,794 5,906 9,214 3,834
?` - impacts estimated at 1 /3 total corridor impacts.
* * - National Register of Historic Places
NWI - National Wetland Inventory
It is expected the cumulative effects of the subject project and other projects along the
US 221 corridor will be limited to the sum of all the project's effects. It is not expected these
projects will have a synergistic effect leading to greater impacts than the sum of the impacts.
Limited indirect impacts are expected to occur due to this project. New access to property
will not be created because the subject project only widens an existing roadway. The proposed
widening of US 221 may create opportunities for industrial development along the US 221
corridor in Rutherford County. However, the magnitude of induced growth as a result of the
project is expected to be low to moderate. Rutherford County's absence of growth controls and
their encouragement of development provide the largest likelihood for induced development.
However, with no new access, limited water and sewer lines, and the county's recent loss of
3,000 textile and furniture jobs, there is not an abundance of opportunities for premium access-
induced growth.
15
F. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Seven terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont/Mountain
Levee Forest, Disturbed-Maintained Communities, Wetland Communities, Pine Plantation, and
Terrestrial Wildlife. Dominant plants and animals in each community are described and
discussed below. Animals observed during field investigations are identified with an asterisk (*).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
This forest type is found throughout the Piedmont and ranges into some of the lower
elevation areas of the Blue Ridge. Under natural conditions these forests are uneven-aged, with
old trees present. Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and "weedy" hardwood
species including tulip poplar and sweetgum.
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 torography.
However, some locations have historically been used as dumpsites, which creates disturbance in
the growth of the herbaceous layer. The canopy of this forest type is dominated by species such
as beech, red oak, tulip poplar and other mesophytic species. Typical understory species include
hop-hornbeam, red maple, and American holly. Shrub species include deerberry, downy
arrowwood, and American strawberry bush.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This forest type is found throughout the Piedmont and Coastal Plain and possibly ranges
into some of the lower elevation areas of the Blue Ridge. Under natural conditions these forests
are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and
"weedy" hardwood species including red maple and sweetgum.
Within the study area, this plant community is scattered throughout 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
prevalent. 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. Typical understory species include flowering dogwood, red maple, sourwood
and American holly. Shrub species include deerberry, downy arrowwood and American
strawberry bush. Muscadine and poison ivy are the vines present. Herbs are usually sparse and
include heardeaf, downy rattlesnake orchid and pipsissewa.
16
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
This forest type is found on natural levees and point bar deposits on large floodplains.
Within the study area, this community is located along the Broad River. Portions of this
community have been cleared in the past or are currently cleared. In the areas of heaviest
disturbance, invasive species may dominate the herbaceous and shrub layers. On the north side
of the Broad River, this community is mostly intact, mature trees and a diverse herbaceous layer
are apparent. Invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet, kudzu, blackberry
and Nepal grass have invaded many areas within this community.
This forest type is further characterized by the presence of sycamore, river birch and box
elder. Other canopy species may include sweetgum, tulip poplar, green ash, American elm,
bitternut hickory, black walnut and shagbark hickory. Understory species may include box elder,
pawpaw, hornbeam and American holly. Shrubs may include spicebush, painted buckeye,
yellowroot and giant cane. Woody vines, such as poison ivy, Virginia creeper, cross vine,
greenbriar, trumpet creeper and grape, may be dominant. The herbaceous layer is usually lush
and quite diverse. The herbaceous layer may include false nettle, river oats, violets, heartleaf
aster, bottlebrush grass, wingstem and rattlesnake fern.
Disturbed/Maintained Communities
This community includes six types of habitat recently or currently impacted by human
disturbance including regularly maintained roadside and railroad shoulders, agricultural fields,
pastures, utility right-of-ways, clearcuts and residential 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 dominant species include various turf grasses, kudzu,
goldenrods, English plantain, asters and Japanese honeysuckle.
The agricultural fields in the project area contained a peach orchard, strawberries and
other row crops. Along the field edges, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry and an assortment of
other mixed herbaceous species were the dominant vegetation. The pastures within the project
area are dominated by tall fescue, red fescue and red clover. The edges of the pastures are
dominated by many of the same species that dominate the agricultural field edges.
The utility right-of-ways and clearcuts are generally covered by dense, scrubby
vegetation. 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
greenbriai, blackberry, and poison ivy are also prominent. The herbaceous layer is generally
dense and may include goldenrods, asters, Queen Anne's lace and other herbaceous species.
The residential areas include maintained lawns and waste places near outbuildings.
Residential areas are dominated by various turf grasses, ornamental and exotic vegetation.
Native vegetation may also be present in transition zones between residential and natural areas.
17
Wetland Communities
Several wetland areas are present within the study area. These wetlands are typically
seepage areas near the headwaters of small streams. In many cases, these wetlands have been
partially cleared, mowed, or otherwise disturbed. The dominant tree species include river birch,
tulip poplar and red maple. Invasive exotics such as Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle
are frequently found in the wetland areas. The herbaceous layer is typically dense or moderately
dense and includes netted chain fern, jewelweed, cinnamon fern, soft rush and sedges. The
wetland communities are quite small and often take on many of the characteristics of the larger
surrounding communities; however, they may be classified as marginal examples of the Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Community (Piedmont Subtype).
Pine Plantation
Pine plantations are present in several locations within the study area. These plantations
are generally dominated by white pine or Virginia pine. The pine creates a dense overstory,
blocking sunlight and resulting in a sparse or absent understory and herbaceous layer.
Understory species may include red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. Woody vines such as
poison ivy and greenbriar may also be present. The pine plantations within the study area vary in
age, but are generally greater than five years old.
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest can be found in the disturbed communities.
The European starling*, American robin*, Eastern fence lizard*, Eastern bluebird*, American
crow* and the Virginia opossum* are all species which can be found in disturbed communities.
Many species may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or prefer a mixture of habitat
types. The Eastern cottontail*, White-tailed deer* and black rat snake are examples of such
species. Indigo bunting* and common yellowthroat* are Neotropical migrants that 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*, 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 or 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.
18
2. Aquatic Communities
Nineteen streams and two ponds are located 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.
No anadramous fish species utilize streams within the project area. These streams have
not been sampled in recent years, therefore no current species information is available. Fish
species expected to occur in drainages within the project vicinity include rosyside dace, Santee
chub, bluehead chub, fieryblack shiner, spottail shiner, yellowfm shiner and creek chub.
Forested wetlands are especially appealing to mud salamanders, northern cricket frogs
and the four-toed salamander. Northern water snakes*, snapping turtles and bullfrogs may be
plentiful near larger waterways, while northern dusky salamanders* are common in smaller
drainages.
Suitable habitat exists in the project vicinity to support several bird species, including
wood duck, mallard*, great blue heron*, belted kingfisher and Canada goose*.
3. Summary of Anticipated Effects
a. Terrestrial Communities Effects
Table 8 presents anticipated effects of the project on terrestrial communities.
Table 8. Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial
Communities
Plant Community/Land Use Approximate
Project Effects* Acres
Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 21.5
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest 17.7
Piedmont/Mountain Levee
Forest 1.3
Disturbed-Maintained 177.4
Wetland Communities 0.15
Pine Plantation 21.2
*Effects presented are one-half the amount of community
within the 400-foot wide study corridor for project.
The widening of existing US 221 may affect area wildlife. Due to the existing amount of
urban and agricultural development in the project study area, wildlife habitat is fragmented.
Although some loss of disturbed habitat adjacent to existing road shoulders may result, these
19
areas are of limited value to wildlife. Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area is
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.
b. Aquatic Communities Effects
Water resource impacts may result from disturbance of forested stream buffers within the
study area. Removing streamside vegetation may increase direct sunlight penetration, which may
elevate water temperatures within the stream. An increase in stream water temperatures often
may stress or reduce the population of aquatic organisms. Shelter and food resources, both in the
aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, may be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals may affect terrestrial animals that
rely on them as a food source.
The removal of the 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. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to affect
fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other
respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling pools and riffles, altering water
chemistry and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may cause decreased
light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the protection of surface waters will be strictly
enforced to reduce impacts to streams.
4. Characteristics of Surface Waters
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
(HUCNo.03050105) (USGS 1987). Nineteen streams are located within the project study area.
The locations of these streams are shown on Figure 7 and the physical characteristics of each of
these streams are shown on Table 9 below.
20
Table 9_ Streams in Prninnt

Stream Bank Height

feet - --- - -
Channel
Width feet va.? va4u ALG

Substrate A
Water
Clarity -
Stream
Determination
C
(Long
Branch
2-6
16
Gravel/Rock
Clear
Perennial
D* 2-12 8 Sand/Gravel Clear Intermittent
Floyd's
Creek
8-12
25
Sand/Gravel
Turbid
Perennial
F 1-12 4 Sand/Gravel Clear Intermittent
G 1-8 6 Sand/Gravel Clear Intermittent
GA 2-8+ 6 Sand/Gravel Clear Perennial
GB 4-20+ 6 Sand/Gravel Clear Intermittent
H 1-6+ 10 Rock, Gravel, Sand Clear Perennial
I 2-6 4 Gravel, Sand, Cobble,
Some bedrock Slightly
turbid
Perennial
UT I 3-6 4 Gravel, Sand, Cobble Slightly
turbid Perennial
J 0-2 1.5-2.5 Sand, Gravel Clear Perennial
K 1-3 3.5 Gravel, Sand, Cobble Turbid Intermittent
L 3-4 3 Sand, Gravel, Cobble Slightly
turbid perennial
M 1-12 6-15 Sand, Gravel, Cobble Slightly
turbid perennial
O 0.5 2-3 Sand, Gravel Clear Intermittent
P 1- 2.5 Sand, Gravel Clear Perennial
Q 34 3 Sand, Gravel, Cobble Clear Perennial
Broad
River Variable 240 Unknown Turbid Perennial
UT = Unnamed tributary
*Stream D was determined to be non jurisdictional from US 221 to a point 100 feet east of the
roadway. Past this point, Stream D is jurisdictional.
5. Ponds
Two ponds are located in the project vicinity south of the Broad River.
6. Best Usage Classification and Water Ouality
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to streams based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. All streams in the study area
classified have been assigned a -Best Usage Classification of C. The unnamed tributaries not
individually classified carry the same classification as their receiving streams. A Best Usage
Classification of C indicates fresh waters designated for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic
life propagation and survival, wildlife and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality
21
Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within one mile of the project study area. No streams within the study area are designated as
North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers, or as National Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the States to develop a comprehensive list
of impaired waters. None of the streams crossed by the project are included on the 303(d) list of
impaired streams.
7. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
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 a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Disturbed sites will be revegetated with herbaceous cover
after construction to help reduce runoff and lessen sediment loadings. Direct discharges into
streams will be avoided whenever possible.
8. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 328.3.
Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA 33 USC
1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Four wetland sites exist within the study area. The locations of these wetlands are shown
on Figure 7. Table 10 presents information regarding the jurisdictional wetlands within the study
area.
Table 10. Jurisdictional Wetlands Within thn Prninn+ C+..a., A..

etland

Cowardin
Classification

DWQ Wetland
Rating Score r OF-Y Al V"
Size of Wetland
in Study Area
acres
C PFO 1 C 43 0.05
J west PFO 1 C 24 0.09
J east PFO 1 C/ PEM 1 J 51 0.04
P PFO 1 C 13 0.15
Junsdictional wetlands in the project study area are palustrine in nature.
22
Jurisdictional Streams
Eighteen jurisdictional streams and one pond are located within the study area.
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The construction of the proposed project will cross surface waters and jurisdictional
wetlands. Table 11 presents anticipated project effects on wetlands and Table 12 presents
anticipated project effects on streams.
Table 11. Praieet F.ffPete nn Wo+ia"A.

Wetland aauu
East-Side
West-Side
Project Section Widening Widening
I J west N/A 0.02
J east N/A 0
2 P 0 0.02
4 Q 0.05 0.15
5
fk T .1 C 0.04* 0.03*
-nom ,+o-loot ana /-s-root median would affect the same amount of wetlands.
Table 12. Project Effects on TnricAu4innal c+wa

Project --
Anticipated a .lia Yfll?lA
Effects (Feet)
Section Stream East-Side Widening West-Side Widening
O N/A 0
1 L N/A 150
J N/A 80
P 100 190
M 0 220
2 Broad River 0 0
K 10 0
I 590 450
UTI 0 0
GB 250 N/A
3 G 0 N/A
GA 730 N/A
H 240 N/A
4 F 430 N/A
Flo yd's Creek 0 N/A
Q 200 N/A
D 130 100 20(0)
5 N 190 180 350 320
C 160 160 160 150
23
East and west side impacts for Section 5 are based on a 46 foot median. Impacts in parenthesis Q
are based on a 23 feet median for this portion of the project.
d. Permits
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit may be required
from the US Army Corps of Engineers for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." Due to expected project impacts on 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.
No streams within the project area carry a Trout Water (TW) designation by DWQ.
However, since the project is located in a designated "trout county", NCDOT must obtain a letter
of approval from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. No construction moratoriums on in-
stream work are expected since no anadramous fish species are present in any streams within the
project area.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
The project involves widening an existing roadway. Complete avoidance of streams and
wetlands is not possible.
Wetlands and streams will be taken into consideration in the selection of widening
schemes for the project. The project's effect on "Waters of the United States" will be further
minimized by strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices during the
entire life of the project. All efforts will be made to minimize environmental impacts.
Mitigation may be required for stream impacts exceeding 150, feet or wetland impacts
exceeding 0.1 acre.
9. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T)-are protected
under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
As of January 29, 2003, five federally-protected species are listed for Rutherford County. These
species are listed on Table 13 below.
24
Table 13. Federally-Protected S -pies List d f 1D.-A. rf

e or e
o
rd Cuun
Federal Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat? Conclusion

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E Yes May Affect-Unlikely to
Adversely Affect
Dwarf-flowered
heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T Yes May Affect-Likely to
Adversely Affect
Small whorled

0 oma Isotria medeoloides T Yes No Effect
White irisette Sisyrinchium
dichotomum E No No Effect
Rock gnome lichen G noderma lineare E No No Effect

E- Endangered, T- Threatened
Field surveys for protected species were conducted in April and May 2003. No habitat
exists in the project area for either white irisette or rock gnome lichen. The proposed project will
have "No Effect" on either of these federally-protected species.
Field surveys for small whorled pogonia were conducted during late April through
mid-May 2003. Appropriate habitat for this species was, found 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.
Due to the presence of appropriate habitat, but no occurrence of the species within the project
area, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" is appropriate for small whorled pogonia.
No caves, mines, or other suitable shelters for hibernation (hibernacula) for the Indiana
bat are present within the project study area, however appropriate roosting habitat is present. The
closest known hibernacula is more than 100 miles northwest 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 may affect, but
is unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. In order to minimize potential effects on this
species, the cutting of dead trees with exfoliating bark should only be undertaken during the bats'
hibernation period. A biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" is
appropriate for Indiana bat. Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be obtained
on this biological conclusion prior to completion of the final environmental document.
The NC Natural Heritage Program records three occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf
in the project vicinity. Field surveys for this species were conducted in late April through
mid-May 2004, when this species was in flower. Suitable habitat was encountered in many
places within the study area and seven previously undocumented populations of dwarf-flowered
heartleaf were identified. Individuals were in flower at each location, and all populations seemed
healthy and vigorous.
Table 14 lists the number of plants and the size (area) of the population sites discovered
during the field investigation. The population boundaries always extended beyond the limits of
25
the study area, therefore the total area of the population as well as the area of the population
within the study area is included.
Table 14 Population Data for Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
Within the Prniant Q+v-A . A.....,

Population
Site Number --
Subpopulation
(if applicable) ?
Approx.
Number of
Plants .....au cal ca
Size of
population in
study area
acres
Total size of
population (acres)
1 --- 250 0.002 3.01
2 A west 75 0.26 0.26
B east 25 0.05 0.05
3 A west 25 None 0.05
B east 50 None 0.04
4 --- 20 None 0.02
5 A west 300-400 0.46 5.09
B east 100 0.50 2.02
6 A west 10 0.07 0.09
B east 10 0.03 0.05
7 --- 75-100 0.06 0.23
Total 940-1065 1.43 10.91
It is anticipated the proposed project will affect sites containing dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Therefore, it can be concluded the proposed project may affect and is likely to have an adverse
effect on this federally-protected .species.
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the project's
potential effects on the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be conducted prior to
completion of the final environmental document for this project.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Table 15 presents Federal Species of Concern listed for Rutherford County and their state
classifications. Organisms listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
26
Table 15. Federal Sneciec of CnnrPvn !MCI i .o+oA 4 D,.al,, ..e ?a p

Common Name
Cerulean Warbler
Scientific Name
Dendroica cerulean NC
Status
SR
Potential Habitat
No
Eastern small-footed m otis otis leibii SC Yes (roosting)
Green salamander Aneides aeneus E No
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus SC^ No
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma oridanahaematoreia SC No
Diana Fritill S e eria diana SR** Yes
Butternut Ju lans cinerea * Yes
Carolina saxifrage Saxi a a mille olium SR-T No
Divided-leaf ragwort Packera mille olium T No
Granite dome goldenrod Solids o simulans S 1 # No
Mountain catchfl Silene ovata SR-T_ No
Sweet inesa Monotro sis odorata SR-T Yes
E- Endangered, T- Threatened, SR- Significantly Rare, SC- Special Concern, SR-T- Rare
throughout its range. S 1- critically imperiled
* - No longer tracked by NCNHP
** - Occurs on NCNHP list but not on USFWS list
# - Not listed as a FSC on NCNHP list
^ - Obscure record
- Historic record (last observed over 20 years ago)
No FSC species were observed during the site visit; however, one is recorded by the NC
Natural Heritage Program as occurring within three miles of the project area. Single-flowered
sandwort is reported to be located 2.5 miles east of US 221. This small population of less than
500 plants was last observed in 1992.
Brice Rare Plant Site is an Identified Priority Area according to the NCNHP records, and
is located approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the US 221 bridge over the Broad River.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
This project is located within the Broad River basin. Rutherford County is a participant
in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Broad River and Floyd's Creek are both
located within Emergency Flood Hazard Zone A (See Figure 7). It is expected the proposed
project will not adversely affect floodplains in the project area.
H. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening
on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and measurements of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. These ambient noise levels were compared with the predicted future noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts will result from the proposed project. If traffic noise impacts
27
are predicted, noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered.
The traffic noise prediction model used to predict future noise levels was the TNM 2.1
model. Only preliminary alignments for the studied alternatives were available for use in this
noise analysis. The "worst-case" topographical and traffic volume conditions were assumed.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land
uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the predicted design year noise levels
substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined below:
Existing Lea(h)
50 or less dBA
51 dBA
52 dBA
53 dBA
54 dBA
55 or more dBA
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of
15 or more dBA
14 or more dBA
13 or more dBA
12 or more dBA
11 or more dBA
10 or more dBA
Ambient noise measurements were taken to determine existing noise levels for the
identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide. a base line reference for assessing the impact of future noise
levels on receptors in the project area. Existing noise levels in the project area measured at 50
feet from the edge of pavement ranged from 62.3 dBA to 66.6 dBA. A background noise level of
45 dBA was used for the project in areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
2. Analysis Results
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either approach or
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria or substantially exceed existing noise levels.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors in the project area when
noise impacts are predicted to occur. Table 16 below presents the anticipated noise impacts of
the project alternatives.
28
Table 16. AntiClDated Naicp Imnartc of Prninnt A U-44

Section -- - ----
To/From a.a.
Alt. A]M_JL""t1v CJ
Noise Impacts
1 State Line/SR 2105 East 1
West 3
2 SR 2105/S
of SR 2109 East 1
. West 4
3 S. of SR 2109/S
of SR 2230 East 2
. West 10
4 S. of SR 2230/SR 2215 East 6
West 6 ,
East 23' 24
East (46) 25
5 SR 2215/N. of US 74 West 23' 24
West
46' 25
Aii impacted receptors are homes. Shaded alternatives are no longer
under consideration.
The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level contour is 78.5 feet from the center of the
proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour is 118.7 feet from
the center of the proposed roadway.
The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +8 dBA. When real-life
noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change
is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBa change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
'The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 61 receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA
NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels of
approximately 3.5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes
of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Traffic noise abatement alternatives considered for this project included highway
alignment changes, traffic system management measures, noise barriers and buffer acquisition.
Highway Alignment Changes
Highway alignment shifts for noise abatement involve moving the proposed highway
away from noise sensitive areas. The selection of alternative highway alignments must consider
the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental considerations. Due
to environmental considerations, changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for
noise abatement.
29
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time
of operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to the adverse effect they
would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Partial control of access is proposed for the project, which means most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct driveway connections to US 221, and all but one
intersection will be at-grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long
enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings severely
reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable
to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight times the distance from the
barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally
require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. For the reasons explained above, noise barriery-- will
not be provided as part of this project.
Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is
not considered feasible due to cost. The cost to acquire impacted receptors to establish buffer
zones would exceed the abatement cost effectiveness threshold established under NCDOT Noise
Abatement Policy. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future development is not
recommended because this could be accomplished through land use controls.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable due to the amount
of right of way required to make vegetative barriers effective. A vegetative barrier would have to
be approximately 100 feet wide to provide a 3 dBA reduction in noise levels. A 5 dBA reduction
would require an even wider vegetative barrier. The cost of the additional right of way and the
plantings for a vegetative barrier would likely exceed the abatement cost effectiveness threshold.
Noise insulation was also considered, however, no public or non-profit institutions will be
impacted by traffic noise due to this project.
4. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment during grading operations.
30
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
5. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no
noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change occurs, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
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 is defined as the date of the public hearing for the project or the approval date of the
final environmental document (FONSI or ROD), whichever comes later. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies and private landowners are
responsible for insuring noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
I. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology
For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration near sensitive receptors.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005, 2010, and
2025 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILESB mobile
source emissions computer model.
L Baclu round CO Concentrations
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
indicated an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
2. Air Quality Analysis Results
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the intersection
of US 221 and SR 2164. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation
build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 4.50, 4.60 and 5.00 ppm respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
31
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded the 8-hour CO level does
not exceed the standard.
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with
sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution
control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the improvements in automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 6 to 12 miles downwind of the
source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways.
3. Construction Air Ouality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State- Implementation Plan for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will-be taken to insure burning is
performed at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions
are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or
area residents.
4. SummarK
The project is located in Rutherford County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 are not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
J. Hazardous Material Involvement and Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Twenty three sites were identified in the project study area that might contain hazardous
materials. Twenty one of these sites are underground storage tank facilities, one property is an
automobile repair facility and one landfill is located in the project area. Table 17 below
describes these sites.
32
Table IT PntpntC,mlh, f ....?.....:....a a c_.__ _

Project
Sit U, «s .,, rru ect area
e

Section
No.
Site Name
Type of Site
Location R/W
Required?
1 1 Ledbetter Used Cars UST E. Side of US 221, 175' No
N. of State Line
1 2 WWW Motors UST E. Side of US 221, 0.2 Yes
mi. S. of CC&O RR.
1 3 Sonny's Stop & Shop UST E. Side of US 221, just Yes
N. of SR 1113
2 4 Former Hind's Store UST E. Side of US 221, just Yes
S. of SR 2102
2 5 Former Gas Station UST E. Side of US 221, S. of Yes
Broad River
2 6 Former Gas Station UST W. Side of US 221, S. of Yes
Broad River
3 7 Former Camp's Service UST E. Side of US 221, Yes
Station Just N. of SR 2109
3 8 Former Huskey's Exxon UST E. Side of US 221, Just Yes
S. of SR 2211
3 9 Crossroads Restaurant UST E. Side of US 221, Yes
Just N. of SR 2211
3 10 Former Gibson Store UST W. Side of US 221, 325' Yes
S. of SR 1117
3 11 Former Deadmon's
UST E. Side of US 221, 0.4 Yes
Groce mi. N. of SR 2211
3 12 Childees Quick Mart UST E. Side of US 221, 250' Yes
N. of SR 2210
4 13 Henson Landfill Landfill E. Side of US 221 1200' No
east of US 221
4 14 Harris Space #10009 UST W. Side of US 221, 200' Yes
N. of SR 1111
4 15 Robbins Brick & Block UST W. Side of US 221, Yes
200'N. of SR 1111

4 16 NuWay Transport UST E. Side of US 221, Yes
500'S. of SR 2151
5 17 Jim Cole & Sons UST E. Side of US 221, Just Yes
Towing N. of SR 1118
5 18 Former Gas Station UST W. Side of US 221, Just Yes
N. of SR 1118
5 19 Former Gas Station UST E. Side of US 221, Just Yes
N. of SR 2152
5 20 Danieltown Tire Garage W. Side of US 221, Yes
Across from SR 2169
5 21 Donna's Quick Mart #2 UST E. Side of US 221, Just - Yes
North of SR 2169
NW Quadrant of Yes
5 22 Melton's Grocery UST SR 2169/SR 2213
Intersection
5 23 Johnny Mayse Mfg. Inc. UST E. Side of US 221, Just Yes
N. of SR 1150
33
The proposed project will likely require right of way from 21 of the potentially
contaminated properties. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent of any
contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition. These sites are
shown on Figure 8.
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop for the project was held on March 19, 2002 at Harris
Elementary School. The purpose of the workshop was to gather citizen's input prior to the
design of the project. Detailed information regarding possible effects on homes and businesses
was not yet available. Citizens were encouraged to complete comment sheets and provide
NCDOT with their input to aid in the planning and design process. Approximately 227 persons
attended the workshop.
Many of the questions heard at the workshop concerned the project's schedule and the
project's likely effects on individual properties. Several citizens expressed support for the
project.
B. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held for this project following approval of this document and
prior to right of way acquisition. The alternatives still under consideration for the project will be
presented to the public for comments at the hearing. The recommended alternative for the
project will be selected following the hearing. Citizen comments will be taken into consideration
in the selection of a recommended alternative.
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process
This project has followed the NEPA/404 merger process. The merger process is an
interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision making process. This project
is State funded and follows the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This project follows
NEPA for purposes of the merger process only.
Representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT served as co-chairs for
the merger team. The following agencies also participated on the NEPA/404 merger team for
this project:
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
US Environmental Protection Agency
NC Department of Cultural Resources _
NC Division of Water Quality
34
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
National Park Service
The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need, alternatives to be studied in
detail and wetlands/streams to be bridged. The merger team will select the least environmentally
damaging preferred alternative for the project following the public hearing. The team will also
discuss and concur on further avoidance and minimization measures following selection of the
preferred alternative.
D. Other Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state and local agencies throughout the
project development study. Comments on the project have been requested from the agencies
listed below. Asterisks indicate a response was received. Copies of the comments received are
included in Appendix A.
*US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
US Geological Survey
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
*DENR-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Rutherfordton
Mayor of Spindale
Rutherford County Manager
35

FOREST CITY
END PROJECT u V
1 ` O 74
74 '
221
V /
? 221
1207 - 2152\ A -
1 , 161 21 165
I
ISa J `I 1139
1138 215
2148 1
C c Y-
W` Ilia
21
127 J 15 214 21
1132 w1
1 1 751 -1 2146
128 , 11°6
?• ,730v 221
11- 221 2117
H El R F, CIR D
0
FR
r,

O 1195 1 1119
\
2230 125
i 1106 . -?`
1 211 e I^ f o
2210

1214

\ CQn
u
1126 n

o D ?? •

-
C
L 1106
_ _
,'?
11 16

,
.
,? ,/'• 1112 1125
• 1123
116 ,•?'-?. l
X11 2114

0 2109 109 RNEf
1103 1104 1124
1112 / '2y I'?•
Sw:w. 0 - -?_

02 $
i
• ~
1105 . _ \ 1111 •
BROAD ?, 21
- ?_
1104 2102

1108
N. C

' 21

'
21
_ p
g Ilao 1102 . f2103
/
S
c 1110
•1111 I 4 2104 -
?
-
. _ 1113 2106 2105
RIA RTA NRU tO
COUNTY
BEGIN
PROJECT

.
S O U T H p 221 N A 1
`1?lRO I(

MILES
1 0 I 2 3
1 0 I 2 3 4 5
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTAAENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LINE
TO US 74 BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233A
FIGURE I
y S +
sac '? h ? <j+I? a ?jjY ? ? -: - x. .. ?qy ? '' ?? 1. ?'?r? ? ? ?6i ?€,q' ???'I? _ k?t?}?!F 3? ? .g?