20081809 Ver 1_Complete File_20090918

?. pro.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
July 12, 2000
Mr. Steven W. Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
c?,cuvw?u e ?w
SUBJECT
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY

.000
z c;;.., `' 40
.?
?t-iL
2oo0
NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for US 221 Rutherfordton
Bypass, Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B
A meeting was held on June 14, 2000 to discuss the study limits and purpose and
need for the subject project. The following persons were in attendance:
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Gatchell Federal Highway Administration
April Montgomery State Historic Preservation Office
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Roger Thomas NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Virginia Mabry NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Lubin Prevatt NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Rob Hanson NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Doug Jeremiah NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
8

As discussed in the meeting Project R-2233B is programmed in the 2000-2006
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a
LIS 221 bypass of Rutherfordton. A multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE [phone]
NC DEPAPTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAILSE- JOECENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 RALEIGH NC
the TIP. The proposed bypass would be approximately nine miles long, depending on the
alternative chosen.
Attached is an addendum to the June, 2000 purpose and need summary
which addresses comments or requests for additional information made by yourself
and other agency representatives during the meeting. As we discussed at the
meeting, by copy of this letter I ask that agency representatives respond in writing
to you with their concurrence on the purpose and need for the project, and/or any
additional comments.
Sincerely,

J. A. McInnis, Jr., PE,
Project Development Engineer,
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
JAM
Attachment
cc: Meeting Participants
TIP Project R-2233
Addendum to Purpose and Need Summary
July 12, 2000
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS
Because the Rutherfordton Bypass portion of R-2233 has independent utility and
is the only portion of the project currently funded. NCDOT proposes to limit the current
project study to the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass. The study limits will extend far
enough along existing US 221 to prevent limiting alternatives for adjacent projects.
Comment: Agency representatives agreed with limiting the study to the
Rutherfordton Bypass, although the suggestion was made to extend the
southern project limits to US 74 because traffic volumes along US 221
decrease significantly south of US 74.
Response: The limits of Project R-223313 will be extended to US 74.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project, as stated in the June, 2000 Purpose and Need
Summary provided at the meeting, is "to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton."
Comment: Include wording regarding high traffic volumes in the purpose
statement.
Response: The wording "to reduce congestion" is intended to address the high
traffic volumes along existing US 221.
NEED FOR PROJECT
Agency representatives had several comments regarding information included in
the June, 2000 Purpose and Need Summary supporting the project need.
Comment: Agency representatives asked that level of service information be
provided as part of the need statement.
Response: US 221 within the project limits will operate at level of service E
(capacity) in the design year (2025), with the exception of in the vicinity
of the US 221/US 74 Business-US 221A intersection, where US 221 will
operate at level of service F. A figure showing the level of service of
US 221 in the project area in the year 2025 was shown at the meeting and
is attached to this addendum.
Comment: Divisionwide average accident rates were requested along with the
statewide average rates. Agency representatives also asked that accident
types be listed.
Response: Divisionwide accident rates are included in the two tables below.
Accident rates for rural and urban sections of US 221 in the project area
have been calculated separately and compared with statewide and
divisionwide rates for two-lane US routes. The accident data presented at
the meeting did not break out rural and urban sections of US 221 and
compared the US 221 data with statewide data for all US routes.
1996-1998
ACCIDENT RATES COMPARISON
TWO-LANE RURAL US ROUTES
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM)
US 221 (Rural Sections) 260.99 3.58
Division 13 Average 494.51 4.36
Rural US Routes
Statewide Average 193.93 2.60
Rural US Routes
1996-1998
ACCIDENT RATES COMPARISON
TWO-LANE URBAN US ROUTES
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM)
US 221 (Urban Sections) 419.99 10.63
Division 13 Average 333.78 1.71
Urban US Routes
Statewide Average 290.84 1.10
Urban US Routes
The 1996-1998 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton exceed the 1996-1998 statewide average for similar facilities.
Total and fatal accident rates for rural portions of US 221 are lower than the
divisionwide rates, while for urban portions of US 221, the two rates are higher
than the divisionwide rates. The fatal accident rate for urban sections of US 221
is almost six times the divisionwide rate and almost ten times the statewide rate.
During the study period, 225 accidents occurred along US 221 in the
project area. Of these, four involved fatalities. The most common types of
accidents included angle accidents (28%), rear-end collisions (27%), accidents
involving vehicles running off the road (20%), and accidents involving vehicles
making left turns (12%).
2
As on most roadways, the majority of the accidents along US 221 in the
study area occurred at intersections. The most common types of accidents occurring
along this section of US 221, with the exception of the accidents involving vehicles
running off the road, are accident types that may be related more to traffic volume than to
roadway characteristics. The accidents involving vehicles running off the road, on the
other hand, are more likely to be related to roadway characteristics (lane widths,
horizontal curvature). Nearly half the accidents involving vehicles running off the road
occurred along portions of US 221 with nine-foot or ten-foot lanes (see below).
Comment: Agency representatives asked for more information regarding other
roadway deficiencies, such as lane widths. Agency representatives
questioned whether the steep grades along existing US 221 support the
need for the project. Representatives asked how many steep grades exist
along US 221 in the project area and asked how steep are they.
Response: Below is additional information regarding the existing roadway.
Lane widths along US 221 in the project area vary from nine feet to twelve
feet wide. Shoulder widths also vary. American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines recommend that lane widths of
twelve feet be provided on main highways. The guidelines also state that
undesirable conditions (inadequate vehicle clearances and edge-of-pavement
clearances) exist on surfaces less than twenty-two feet wide carrying even
moderate volumes of mixed traffic. Studies have shown that rural highways with
lane widths less than eleven feet tend to have higher accident rates than similar
facilities with wider lanes. AASHTO also states that shoulder widths of six-eight
feet are preferable. The table below presents the existing typical sections along
US 221 in the project area.
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTIONS
ALONG US 221
Section No.
Section Length Lanes/Width Shoulder Width
SR 2169 to US 74 1.0 mi. 2/9' 9' ,rassed
US 74 to Rutherfordton 3.4 mi. 2/10' 4' grassed
City Limits
City Limits to Lynch St. 1.4 mi. 2/11' 4'-5' grassed
Lynch St. to South of 13 mi. 2/11'-12' Curb and Gutter
US 64
South of US 64 to 0.3 mi. 2/12' 8'-12' grassed
Rutherfordton City (2' paved)
Limits
City Limits to SR 1529 4.6 mi. 2/12' 12' gravel
The horizontal alignment of existing US 221 is good, and for the
most part meets a 60 MPH design speed along sections of the roadway-
signed 55 MPH, although the superelevation on many of the curves along
this portion of roadway may not meet the design speed.
The vertical alignment of existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton
does not meet a 60 MPH design speed. Many of the vertical curves along
the roadway have a 40 or 45 MPH design speed. Approximately eleven
areas along US 221 have grades above six percent. These steep grades,
however, are fairly short.
Comment: Representatives asked whether or not steep grades along other
portions of US 221 would be eliminated by adjacent projects.
Response: As discussed in the meeting, steep grades on adjacent projects will be
eliminated and the design speed of vertical curves increased where
possible.
Comment: Agency representatives asked that information regarding local
support for the project be provided.
Response: The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was
jointly approved by local governments and NCDOT. Two public hearings
were held on the thoroughfare plan in 1997. Support for the concept of a
Rutherfordton bypass was expressed at the hearings. although some
concerns were raised regarding the location for the bypass shown on the
thoroughfare plan. NCDOT has received several letters from the public on
the bypass, expressing concerns regarding the location of the bypass, but
none of these letters questioned the need for a bypass. NCDOT staff met
with local officials in July, 1999 and local officials attended the scoping
meeting for the project held in September, 1999. At both of these
meetings, local officials expressed support for a US 221 Rutherfordton
Bypass.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project. These
alternatives were presented at the meeting for the team's information.
NEPA/404 Concurrence Point Number 2 will involve agreement on alternatives to
be studied in detail. The original plan was to hold the citizens informational workshop
for the project after Concurrence Point 2. However, after some discussion, it was decided
that formal agreement on Concurrence Point 2 should wait until after the citizens
informational workshop for the project is held. An interagency meeting will be held prior
to the informational workshop to reach agreement on the alternatives to be shown at the
workshop (agency representatives will agree not to add additional alternatives). The
formal Concurrence Point 2 meeting will be held following the workshop. By waiting
4
until after the workshop, public comments can be taken into consideration in the selection
of alternatives to be carried forward.
The June, 2000 Purpose and Need Summary presented at the meeting discussed
the following alternatives:
• Alternate Modes of Transportation
• Widen Existing Facility
• Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
• Western Bypass Alternative
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
Comment: The question was asked whether or not widening the existing facility
has to be carried forward. Agency representatives expressed a willingness
to dismiss this alternative based on its impacts to the historic district.
Response: This alternative can be dismissed at the project's next interagency
meeting or at Concurrence Point 2 if the project team is agreeable.
Comment: The suggestion was made to examine a variation of the eastern bypass
alternatives that would intersect US 74 Business-US 221 Alternate west of
Railroad Avenue.
A second suggestion was to follow the US 74 Business Alternative to
just north of the historic properties located near the Railroad Avenue/US
74 Business-US 221 Alternate intersection, then go onto new location
following either of the eastern bypass alternatives.
Response: These alternatives will be examined.
LU
V
W
Cl)
LL
0
J
uj
ui
w
C,-Aft
I
LU
J
0
F-
N
N
k`9) ?
09 Wd O t LO
T
Ix 0
T ?\ T
/?
V
I
M LO
T-
T T
t?
Z
0
U

Cl)
?
W
e(

W
U
m0

W
U
U

W
U
®

W
U
W

W
U
LL

W
U

? > > > > > >
J LL
0 U-
0 LL
0 LL
0 LL
0 U-
0
?
Z

? J J

W J

W J

W J

W J

W

? W
J W
J W
J W
J W
J W
J

t
•T..

I l
I
LO
m
LO
T
?J
0
T
d•
T
l
LO
LO
T

0
0
0
LO
T
LO
T
h
cry
P

C
N
CN
10 PM60?
60
10 ,M (4,2
`

• "o? i? l?b.s
0
0
o r
0
00
T
T
N
VJ
+ pT
1 it V O
CD M
® ? T Z
T ?+ 0 LO
® "i LL
W
0
0
LO
CM
T
6p
e?
h0
a aa?^^
Cl)
0
1r co
(D I
0
Lr)
co co
T
T
y?yry
N6
1
J (?
z
ZO 0 0 T- F
~ Y W
U Q
LLJ
LL, p Q
0
p
o\o
?
> CIO
0 0
T
CN
ESE
ti
aw+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P ` r
GOVERNOR
OCT 3 2
ober 2, 2000
WE,
WATT. [s
Mr. Steven W. Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
SUBJECT: Purpose and Need Statement for US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass,
Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Enclosed is the revised purpose and need statement for the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass. As you requested, I have revised the statement to incorporate the
additional information previously submitted to the merger team in the July 12, 2000
"Addendum to the Purpose and Need Statement."
By copy of this letter, I ask merger team members who have not done so to submit
their comments on purpose and need to Mr. Lund.
Sincerely,
t ft" ,
J. A. McInnis, Jr., PE,
Project Development Engineer,
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
JAM
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ted Bisterfeld, US Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Chris Gatchell, Federal Highway Administration
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NC Division of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
Mr. David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. April Montgomery, State Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Roger Thomas, PE., NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ms. Virginia Mabry, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Lubin Prevatt, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
.I
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
August, 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the draft 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 bypass of
Rutherfordton. A multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The
proposed project is approximately nine miles long, depending on the alternative chosen
(see Figure 1).
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate this type facility. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges (see Figure 2).
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to Linville has been designated a part
of the Intrastate System (see Figure 3). The Intrastate System was established by the NC
General Assembly in 1989. The purpose of the Intrastate System is to provide
high-speed, safe travel service throughout North Carolina.
US 221 is classified as a minor arterial south of Rutherfordton and a major arterial
north of Rutherfordton in the North Carolina Functional Classification System. US 221
connects Rutherfordton with Spartanburg, South Carolina to the south and Marion to the
north.
The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was jointly approved
by local governments and NCDOT. Two public hearings were held on the thoroughfare
plan in 1997. Support for the concept of a Rutherfordton bypass was expressed at the
hearings, although some concerns were raised regarding the location for the bypass
shown on the thoroughfare plan. NCDOT has received several letters from the public on
the bypass, expressing concerns regarding the location of the bypass, but none of these
letters questioned the need for a bypass. NCDOT staff met with local officials in July,
1996-1998
ACCIDENT RATES COMPARISON
TWO-LANE URBAN US ROUTES
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM)
US 221 (Urban Sections) 419.99 10.63
Division 13 Average 333.78 1.71
Urban US Routes
Statewide Average 290.84 1.10
Urban US Routes
The 1996-1998 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton exceed the 1996-1998 statewide average for similar facilities. Total and
fatal accident rates for rural portions of US 221 are lower than the divisionwide rates,
while for urban portions of US 221, the two rates are higher than the divisionwide rates.
The fatal accident rate for urban sections of US 221 is almost six times the divisionwide
rate and almost ten times the statewide rate.
During the study period, 225 accidents occurred along US 221 in the project area.
Of these, four involved fatalities. The most common types of accidents included angle
accidents (28%), rear-end collisions (27%), accidents involving vehicles running off the
road (20%), and accidents involving vehicles making left turns (12%).
As on most roadways, the majority of the accidents along US 221 in the study
area occurred at intersections. The most common types of accidents occurring along this
section of US 221, with the exception of the accidents involving vehicles running off the
road, are accident types which may be related more to traffic volume than to roadway
characteristics. The accidents involving vehicles running off the road, on the other hand,
may be related more to roadway characteristics (lane widths, horizontal curvature).
Nearly half the accidents involving vehicles running off the road occurred along portions
of US 221 with nine-foot or ten-foot lanes.
TRAVEL TIME
Existing US 221 passes through the center of downtown Rutherfordton. Speed
limits.on US 221 within Rutherfordton vary between 20 to 45 MPH. US 221 through
Rutherfordton is the only portion of US 221 between the South Carolina State Line and
I-40 with a speed limit lower than 55 MPH. In addition, five signalized intersections
exist along US 221 within the project area. In the year 2025, the approximately 10 mile
trip from US 74 south of Rutherfordton to SR 1355 north of Rutherfordton will take
approximately 20 minutes, or approximately double what the trip would take at 55 MPH
with no stops.
MPH design speed. Approximately eleven areas along US 221 have grades above six
percent. These steep grades, however, are fairly short.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999. A citizens
informational workshop will be held and detailed environmental studies will begin for the
project following coordination with resource agencies on alternatives. It was
recommended at the June 14, 2000 purpose and need concurrence meeting that agency
concurrence on alternatives (Concurrence Point 2) would follow the citizens
informational workshop. A preliminary meeting will be conducted with resource
agencies before the workshop to reach agreement that no new alternatives will be
requested by the agencies.
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005
and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.
The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS
Currently, only one portion of the US 221-NC 105 Intrastate Corridor is
multi-lane (see Figure 3). Projects to widen the remaining portions of the corridor to
multi-lane have been programmed in the TIP. Environmental studies have been
completed on one section of US 221 from south of I-40 to NC 226 in McDowell County
(TIP Project R-204). No environmental studies have been conducted for US 221 between
south of 1-40 and the South Carolina Line. This portion of the Intrastate Corridor has
been divided into two large projects, TIP Project R-2597 and the subject project,
TIP Project R-2233.
Although a part of the larger Intrastate Corridor, the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton bypass has independent utility, and represents a reasonable improvement
even if the remainder of the Intrastate Corridor is never built. Because the Rutherfordton
Bypass portion of R-2233 has independent utility, NCDOT proposes to limit the current
project study to the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass. The study limits will extend far
enough along existing US 221 to prevent limiting alternatives for adjacent projects. The
study limits have been extended south along existing US 221 to US 74 as requested at the
June 14, 2000 purpose and need concurrence meeting. The study area is shown on
Figure 1.

1172
1206 ?• - ---- -
i
1
1
1
1154
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION Of HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
RUTHERFOROTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-22338
FIGURE 1
PROJECT STUDY AREA
74
ro ? 7a
1005
Creak Ch.
1.
1195 SONnQb 1
CI?.1 ? 1• Ho . ?
? 1106 ? ? ` i
1103 1112 V r2 Surly
10 11
Surly Sprmp. OI 02 1105 _ 1171 '- . \vjl1
V 1 IOa _ - \.. ?. 1 111
09
0 111 21
1106 1108
too ?2
S. C• 1 2a .' zo6
1110
•1111 /•
• ?•?•? /1 -ti3 12106 2105
S 0A R T A N RU RG _• !- •?•-•? ?• L• •?'
CO U N T Y 1 -7 •T' • ''7
S 0 U T H C A R 0 L 11 N cA. R
D KILDIE 5
0 Y LES
Z
a
W
Q
LL
C?
O
w
O
O
V
O
LL
w
W
s
F-
ti
ppp r a *
r a ??YY fFy'
adr.
iii tl / F• .? - ° Sf .; p 4 i
?Z # a?g?
Pg= ?o pa 6
V
N
W
t?
V
L1.
M
W
co ?
o
N _
V

Lij:
LL

rwo
a o.
O z, N N N
W Z W t0
w a; o
Lf. tG LL J Uj LL N
t0 06
-
?a.
O -' w
w
a _ aU)I
V v) z g z L
z Q
W,- Oi v z 001 LO
N
r i ? H O?
N t7 C Z
m
Ind
o cm 1
;re

O,
N

L
U
L
L
LO
0
M N Cl)
N Z'
1 O

0 3.1
N _ f
0 ?

LLJ
LL)

00p, .1
I ?'

US 221
0
a

ssoo a

14300 o
SR 1527
SR 1351 8500
1 14400
SR 1355
8400
14100 8900
15000 SR 1535
SR 1367 \ 9900
?? 16500
TIP PROJECT R-22336
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 PM 6 /PEAK HOUR
a,13-\ DIRECTION
%TTST %DUAL

SR 1536 a, 2
7800\';
13000 + o
:.•....-;. .:....:.....US 64
A ?
8100 : ..... '^'? 3
1 15001 f o
US 74 BPS/US 221A
I
,DTON?
?1 8100
8600 11r :........::..
14200 sR 2201
SR 1005
SR 2194 NO SCALE
7400 7000
12500 1800
tf +so SR 1004 6600
6j*+eo SIR 1004 6600
V 1200
US 74 BYPASS
5100
8500 R 2213
?o
SR 1148
?o
AOAAw`R
8100 ",\
US 221 FIGURE 4
Z

W
C) U

> W Q U W LL
W W W W W W
W U ? U U U U

LL
W W
N W W W W W
O LL LL LL U. LL LL
J 0 0 0 0 0 0
w Q

W
Z W W W W W W
O > > > > > >
W to J J. J J J J
\
co
W
C
C

J
O a
> C4
N
N
Q
1U PM 60 10 P=?
2)
(4 ? N
Q ,

N W)
M
LO
tC m

U)

O
T cn
O;
C*4 CO
'
*
o
LO i O
4,19)
O09 Rd
to 0
CO

C

T

; Z
O T T O
O
U) cm
110

O LL '••..

CW)
T
M
O
T-

co w

WW
T T T T Z
M co

T

cn V)

U)
W
UL
X60
T
Q N
} N
m
C
d'
U)
O
0
N
T
i
O T
co
T
O
V -
N
cn
C)
y O
T
0
0
'' T o0
Q? ry1
M
O
O
T
7ld
T
O?
O
O M
IT
T
T
z
z0 00
~ Y W
W p Q
` Q
0
o
CO
0 ?
0 0

„a STNFo?
d y?y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
? i IINJ U
At
MAY - 9 2002' .+`
WETLANDS' WUP
:...?. WATER QUA lOt? ..... .
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
May 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: FILE
FROM: Jay McInnis, PE
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental, Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: April 17, 2002 Merger Team Meeting for TIP Project R-223313,
US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on April 17, 2002.
The following persons were in attendance:
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Christopher Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick* US Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Carson Overmountain Victory NHT-National Park Service
Jim Phillips Federal Highway Administration
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cynthia Van Der Weile NC Division of Water Quality
Max Phillips NCDOT Division 13
Roger Thomas NCDOT Roadway Design
Brian Robinson NCDOT Roadway Design
Beverly Robinson NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
Kristina Solberg NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
*Via teleconference
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential project alternatives and obtain
concurrence on which alternatives should be studied in detail (Concurrence Point 2).
At the last team meeting in October, 2001, it was agreed that NCDOT should reexamine
Alternatives 2 and 5 in the vicinity of Gilbert Town and Tanner Company and develop an
April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233 B
Page 2 of 5
alignment that avoids both. This new alignment was presented to the merger team at the meeting
as Eastern Bypass Alternative 6.
Proposed Typical Section
The Rutherfordton Thoroughfare Plan proposes the bypass be constructed as a freeway.
Roger Thomas of the Roadway Design Unit mentioned that constructing a four-lane facility with
partial control of access (no access except at crossing roadways) might be more appropriate
given the projected traffic volumes on the bypass.
The question was asked whether or not the impacts listed for the project take into account
interchanges and service roads. It was explained that the impacts listed are for a freeway with
interchanges, and should represent a "worst-case" scenario.
NCDOT staff will examine whether or not interchanges should be provided along the
proposed bypass or if at-grade intersections would be more appropriate.
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
Paul Carson, the trail manager of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
(OVNHT), presented some background information on the trail.
He explained that the OVNHT was established in 1980. The legislation provides that a
walking trail can be developed within one-half mile on either side of the primary historic route
taken by the patriot army on its way to the battle of Kings Mountain. Mr. Carson explained that
the primary historic route has been determined, but it has not been mapped. He said that work on
mapping the route is expected to be completed in July, 2002. He said that the walking trail
which has been developed along the old railroad which runs from near Gilbert Town into
Spindale, paralleling US 74A, is expected to be certified as a part of the OVNHT this fall. He
stated it is believed that portions of the railroad are along the original route.
Mr. Carson stated he believed the OVNHT should be taken into consideration in selection
of alternatives for the proposed bypass. NCDOT staff stated the Department intends to
accommodate the OVNHT in development of the bypass. It is believed the bypass is going to
have to cross the OVNHT somewhere regardless of the alternative chosen.
Alternatives Previously Dropped from Consideration
In previous meetings, the merger team agreed to drop the following alternatives:
Alternative Modes of Transportation
Widen Existing Roadway
Widen Existing with One-Way Pair Downtown
Western Bypass Alternative
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1

April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 3 of 5
These alternatives were not discussed further at this meeting.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
This alternative has the highest stream impacts and would relocate more homes and
businesses than any of the other alternatives. It was the consensus of the merger team that this
alternative should be dropped from further consideration.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
Concern was expressed regarding the number of relocatees with Alternative 3, but the
consensus of the group was that it is a reasonable alternative. The merger team agreed this
alternative should be studied in detail.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 4.(Downtown Bypass)
The merger team agreed that this alternative should be studied in detail. A question was
raised regarding the length for the new location portion of the alternative. The alternatives
comparison table says this alternative will involve nine miles of new location, which is as much
as most of the other alternatives. The length was recalculated following the meeting, and it was
found the table in the meeting handout was incorrect. The correct length is shown on the table
included with these minutes.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
This is the alternative suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale at the
workshop. This alternative would move the tie-in for the bypass away from the high school,
however, this alternative would affect the second most amount of streams and wetlands of any of
the alternatives. After some discussion, the group agreed that this alternative should be dropped
from further consideration.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 6
Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office expressed reservations
with this alternative, but had no objections to studying it further. The merger team agreed that
this alternative should be studied in detail.
US 74A Bypass Alternative
This alternative was the second least popular with the local officials and citizens, after the
one-way pair alternative. Chris Militscher with EPA asked why this alternative was so
unpopular with citizens when it would relocate the least number of homes and businesses. It was
explained that there is a lot of development along US 74A which would be affected by this
alternative.
April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 4 of 5
Roger Thomas with Roadway Design stated it is likely the impacts for this alternative
will be greater than listed, because of the way the impacts were calculated. Listed relocatees are
half the total number of homes and businesses in the corridor, however, all of the widening for
this alternative will have to be performed on the side of US 74A where all the homes and
businesses are. The walking trail along the old railroad closely parallels US 74A on the other
side.
It was explained that this alternative would not be as high a type of facility as the other
alternatives because it's using an existing route.
It was the consensus of the group that this alternative should be studied in detail.
ALTERNATIVE COMBINATIONS
Marella Buncick asked about an alternative combining Alternatives 3 and 4, following
Alternative 4 to US 74 Business and then following Alternative 3 north of US 74 Business. The
group suggested that the project be split at US 74 Business and impacts listed for south and north
of US 74 Business. This would allow combinations of the various alternatives.
The project will be split into sections at US 74 Business. Section A will extend from
south of US 74 Bypass to US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate and Section B will extend from US
74 Business/US 221 Alternate to US 221 north of Rutherfordton.
The alternatives will be designed so that alternatives in Section A and Section B can be
easily combined. The alternatives will be designated A#B#, with the exception of the US 74A
alternative, which isn't interchangeable with the others. For example, Eastern Alternative 3 will
be called Alternative A3B3 with this naming convention. A combination of Eastern Alternative
4 in the south and Eastern Alternative 3 in the north would be called Alternative A4133. Impacts
based on detailed studies for the alternatives will be presented at the next merger meeting in this
way.
SUMMARY
The merger team agreed the following alternatives should be dropped from further
consideration:
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
April 17, 2002 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 5 of 5
The merger team agreed the following alternatives should be studied in detail (see
attached concurrence form):
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 4
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 6
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS*
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
(FT.)
COMMENTS TO j&I 8 2 N/A 5
SELECT*** '
COMMENTS TO ., 10 6 N/A 12
DROP***
LENGTH NEW t x
LOCATION 9.1 3.5 8.6 3
3
(MILES) zy .

TOTAL LENGTH t fr 11.6 8.9 11.5 11.6
(MILES) ??;;
Shaded alternatives have been dropped from further consideration.
Italics indicate corrections to table presented at 4/17/02 merger team meeting.
* - Impacts estimated at 1/3 total corridor impacts.
** - National Register of Historic Places
NWI - National Wetland Inventory
*** - "Comments to Select" and "Comments to Drop" refer to the number of citizens who responded to
questions regarding which alternative they preferred and which alternative they thought should be
dropped from further consideration.
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point 2
Alternatives to be Carried Forward
Proiect Title: US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass, Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B,
Federal-Aid Project NHF-221(9), State Project 8.1891001
Project Description: The project is programmed in the approved 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 bypass of
Rutherfordton.
Alternatives to be Carried Forward: The environmental document will evaluate the
alternatives described in the meeting information (see attached) provided by NCDOT and agreed
to by the project team at its meeting on April 17, 2002. The alternatives marked with a check will
be carried forward, those with a line drawn through the alternative name will not be carried
forward in the environmental document.
? ernate
? Widen FYiqting R
F7 idau
West Sid, B7ptis-
d Eastern Bypass Alt. 3
Eastern Bypass Alt. 4
}[ Eastern Bypass Alt. 6
US 74 Bypass Alt.
P*if-
Name
A ency
NC DOT
?7C?WOL
V A GLr-

U SE PA
A/G w l
I(I D D
T-
om I - NpS
?'S
?0
O O
U LLI
V) (A
• ' o ••
In go
I.- *A LU
ps W a Z =1
1 a
+J a O \ J \
1 Q ZO 2r O Q Q
OC w a Q 0001 ` • `'T+s
LLJ
Z f- = a ?\? j -.'?,\ ( III . o • ?...._-
H O C0c D
Lr- = a
O?oOGL N I- N
z 1111------ a IL W ?, ,•? r f ,,
?.. tLLI r
;r•a l
`-
0
/' ?j r•

P itril I!(.•.
y}, • ? ? ?. ? ?1'/ r . • 7 ' ?••' ? • ' it •. .? I I f ??J rr-
%?
- NIGH
v t \
?'Lll\;`,
n?l
1 'J?) ? ?•...? ?\."' ' pia '' ",? / `?j//' f'~- 1 _
1 ? r3 ??? ?/ ,? _F?~?; .-?-,t?? ,ti ¢ • ? 1,
?_, f ?'\` _..?-??? `l ? 6 tZN ? ??\ 1 r tit ( \\?? ?• L p "?"/J
?'-,? ? `fib` ?_ ? m 1 ?? ?,;.1,_„?? 'f ? / ? . ;,? ? ? o c+?
-
,/ `?../'r ,`ter. ?• / ..-. \ ??,?r (? ? t •? ? ` ^? ?)_ {\ ?O ? ? \
,?? tt? t n =r ti! G \
Co ? \, , ? .?,r--'„-.fir - .? ? _R •.%' ^?-- ? \ \ ? \
LLJ
LLJ1
w . ,r 1 - 1,. •?\\ u % ??'??_...--,..--•, - __? ' ? ?,?v'? ? \ , \ ? \ . \ ? \ \
?pR 2 2V
MsT?TEo
0M%N61VI ? CTlLyr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 27, 2002
Mr. Steven W. Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass,
Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B
A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 17th at 1:00 PM to discuss
alternatives to be studied in detail for TIP Project R-223313, the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass.
The location of the meeting will be announced when the agenda for all of the
concurrence meetings scheduled for April 17' is sent out. Enclosed is information
regarding alternatives developed for the project so far. Please let me know if you have
any questions or need additional information prior to the April 17th meeting. My phone
number is [phone] ext. 249 and my e-mail address is [e-mail].
Sincerely,
t
J r
J. A. McInnis Jr., P.E.,
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
JAM
cc: Merger Team Members
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS/TE: WINW.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN DETAIL
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
APRIL 17, 2002
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss potential project alternatives and
determine which alternatives should be studied in detail. Formal concurrence on
alternatives to be studied in detail will be requested.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton. A
multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The proposed project is
approximately 12 miles long, depending on the alternative chosen.
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate the bypass. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges.
PROJECT PURPOSE
4.17- oZ
(Af
tl L1
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held in September, 1999. Concurrence on
purpose and need for the project was obtained in December, 2000. Local officials
meetings for the project were held in April, 2001 and August, 2001. A citizens
informational workshop was held on August 23, 2001.
Right of way acquisition and construction for the project are scheduled in the
2002-2008 TIP for fiscal years 2005 and 2008, respectively.
1. -0
The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The citizens informational workshop for the project was held on August 23, 2001
in the cafeteria of the R-S Middle School in Rutherfordton. Approximately 400 citizens
attended the workshop.
No objections to the project were raised at the workshop. The majority of
comments and questions related to the project alternatives and the effects of the project
on individual properties.
Several people representing historic interest groups attended the workshop due to
the proximity of the project alternatives to Gilbert Town. In comments at the workshop,
they asked that the Department avoid Gilbert Town. Since the workshop, NCDOT staff
have received several a-mails from individuals emphasizing the importance of Gilbert
Town and asking the Department avoid this site.
OCTOBER 17, 2001 MERGER TEAM MEETING
A merger team meeting was held on October 17, 2001 to discuss alternatives to be
studied in detail, but concurrence was not reached because of concerns over Eastern
Bypass Alternatives 2 and 5. The merger team agreed that NCDOT should reexamine
Alternatives 2 and 5 in the vicinity of Gilbert Town and Tanner Company and see if an
alignment that avoids both can be developed.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A preliminary environmental screening has been conducted for all the
alternatives. All but Eastern Bypass Alternative 6 have been discussed with merger team
members as part of the NEPA/404 merger process. These alternatives were also
discussed with area officials at the two local officials meetings. These are all of the
alternatives developed to date for the project:
• Alternate modes of transportation
• Widen existing facility
• Widen existing facility with one-way pair downtown
• West side bypass
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 6
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
. The following alternatives have been dropped from further consideration with the
agreement of resource agency representatives and local officials:
• Alternate modes of transportation
• Widen existing facility
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
• Widen existing facility with one-way pair downtown
• West side Bypass*
*It was agreed these alternatives should be dropped at the October, 2001 merger team
meeting.
The following alternatives were shown at the citizens informational workshop:
• Widen existing facility with one-way pair downtown
• West side bypass
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5 was suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and
Spindale and presented to NCDOT and the public at the informational workshop. This
alternative was presented to merger team members at the October, 2001 merger team
meeting.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 6 was developed following the October, 2001 merger
team meeting.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
rurrle
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton, between
Rutherfordton and Spindale. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with a
median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road), south of Rutherfordton.
A bypass on new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton,
connecting back with existing US 221 near SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of Rutherfordton
3
--1
(see Figure 2). This alternative will cross US 74 Business/US 221A near US 74A. If the
bypass is constructed as a freeway, interchanges would be provided at existing US 221 on
either end of the bypass, SR 2201 (Thunder Road), either US 74 Business/US 221A or
proposed West Street Extension, and US 64. This alternative would avoid the Gilbert
Town National Park Service Certified Site, but would affect the headquarters of a large
business (Tanner Company). Local officials have expressed concerns over the likely
impacts to Tanner Company from this alternative.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 /ntw X6c& r6l:,, d44t ,
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 2, south of
US 64. North of US 64, this alternative is closer to downtown Rutherfordton than
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 (see Figure 2).
Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
red
This alternative would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a
"shallow" bypass of downtown Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to just south of downtown Rutherfordton.
A bypass on new location would be constructed on the east side of downtown
Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 north of downtown in the vicinity
of the existing US 64 interchange. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with
a median from the bypass to SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road).
The local officials thought this alternative should be dropped from further
consideration. A few negative comments were heard regarding this alternative from
citizens at the workshop, as well.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
'J veM
This alternative was suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale at the
citizens informational workshop held for the project on August 23, 2001 in
Rutherfordton. This alternative is intended to avoid Tanner Company, which would be
affected by Eastern Bypass Alternative 2. This alternative follows an alignment to the
west of Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 from US 221 south of Rutherfordton to north of US
74 Bus-US 221A (Charlotte Road). North of Charlotte Road, the alternative turns to the
east, crossing US 74A (Railroad Avenue) before turning northward. The alternative then
roughly follows the alignment of Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 until north of US 64, at
which point the alternative diverges from Eastern Alternative 2, crossing SR 1520 (Rock
Road) north of Eastern Alternative 2 and passing between the Broyhill furniture plant and
Gilbert Town before tying back into existing US 221 north of SR 1526 (Edwards Road).
This alternative is preferred by both Rutherfordton and Spindale. Some negative
comments from citizens were heard at the workshop regarding this alternative, however.
4
r-
Eastern Bypass Alternative 6
?n a'I.mfa
This alternative was developed following the October 17, 2001 merger team
meeting. At that meeting, the group agreed that NCDOT should reexamine Alternatives
2 and 5 in the vicinity of Gilbert Town and Tanner Company and see if an alignment that
avoids both can be developed. The study corridor for Eastern Bypass Alternative 6 does
not completely avoid either Gilbert Town or Tanner Company, but it is believed that the
project right of way can avoid them.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 6 follows the same alignment as Eastern Bypass
Alternative 5 from existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton to north of US 64. North of
US 64, this alternative swings west and passes south of the Broyhill Plant, connecting
with existing US 221 at the Broyhill Plant (see Figure 2).
US 74A Bypass Alternative
o ra., r e_
The US 74A bypass alternative also involves constructing a bypass on the eastern
side of Rutherfordton. This alternative would involve widening existing US 221 to four
lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road). A four-lane
roadway would be constructed on new location connecting existing US 221 with existing
US 74A (Railroad Avenue) at US 74 Business/US 221A. US 74A would be widened to
multi-lanes from US 74 Business/US 221A to north of US 64. North of US 64, the
bypass would be extended on new location, connecting with SR 1536 (Old US 221) and
existing US 221 near R-S Central High School (see Figure 2).
This alternative was the second least popular with the local officials and citizens,
after the one-way pair alternative.
// • L dx'z' ,ded
-a
A, 61ve ,
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS*
EAST/2 EAST 3 EAST 4 ST 5 EAST 6 US 74A
B . BYP. BYP. B BYP. BYP.
RESIDENTIAL 71 151 162 13 149 90
RELOCATEES /
BUSINESS 31 23 20 21 23
RELOCATEES
NATIONAL
REGISTER**
LISTED 1 1 1 1 1 None
PROPERTIES IN
CORRIDOR
WETLANDS
AFFECTED 2 1.8 2.1 2 2.2 1.5
(AC.)
(NWI)
STREAM
IMPACTS 1 ,148 5,794 5,906 10 7 9,214 3,834
(FT.)
COMMENTS TO 7 8 2 N/A 5
SELECT***
COMMENTS TO 1 10 6 N/A 12
DROP***
LENGTH NEW
LOCATION 9.1 9.0 9 8.6 3.3
(MILES)
TOTAL LENGTH 1 .3 11.6 12.8 .9 11.5 11.6
(MILES)
* - Impacts estimated at 1 /3 total corridor impacts.
** - National Register of Historic Places
NWI - National Wetland Inventory
* * * - "Comments to Select" and "Comments to Drop" refer to the number of
citizens who responded to questions regarding which alternative they
preferred and which alternative they thought should be dropped from
further consideration.
Gt,Cf's. 31 H 0. Us?y A c??zd d -?>
Prorpsn: AIi- Z,
OZ
6

1357
V-
?
_ J

1172 ,••?

1
1178 RUTH
J
J
120.
t
w
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
RUTHERFOROTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORO COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-22338
FIGURE 1
tgt
= PROJECT STUDY AREA
74
M )74
Creek CH.

3uM' Spin Os Q t C2 1105
y-Lt's.. mot, -Nor
iioa ..._ _••?,,.,..:'? . 111
? - 109 ? ?. zl
a1106 1109 ,21
• 7 1100 I
tV-i - -
S. C 1,10 , . 2 W
'1,11- .12,06
?. _' ?•?•? _ _ /`? =113 •,? 2105
SPARTANSURe •, •_ ?• ~• •?
c0 UNTy 221 •Y:
S 0 U T H C A R 0 L 11 N A.,
O KIL
MILES
r
ti w ( \;
ai O = _ l
z a
in m CL
'gi Q H a v m m
06 W Q J Z N It \? •_
0 3 u,. Q O t `\
zZ?°- o
0=0? 0 o i
0 P LL. " Z p w ,.
w 0
LLJ
Q LL. --5
Uo~e01 w (y Cr Q J a
O ZUZ _ ?
=a-0 0
0 C3-
F-0? W N F-
Z
? ?`. LL ' y
V) 0
LIJ
a w a.
- t/1
Nom'
-
1\.. .L ? ?' i 1, // •s:.{
Jr/, ll\ ? /'
7;?
I ,
of
if

'ab
? III f ? / \? ; \ ? ? \d?ttl `i f ? ? 1 111 ?
?? .a ii ? ? ?l J, ,:- ?{rt?'3 ? Il?? ?-- ..:Y1. _, ?,?? r . -\v.?\ ,? ?r I\?,,'c•il '

, J
\J r' ?' r
1
LU '40 C4 ru
00 ?v
c
h
?, I?j i ?R \ A V A
11
1 if ` ( I t \ \
y t _ \ \

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYM)0 TIPPETT-'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Jay McInnis, PE ?f
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: October 17, 2001 Merger Team Meeting for TIP Project R-
2233B, US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass
A NEPA/404 merger team meeting for the subject project was held on October
17, 2001. The following persons were in attendance:
Steven Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
John Hendrix US Army Corps of Engineers
Ted Bisterfeld US Environmental Protection Agency
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard Sussman National Park Service
Jake Rigsbee Federal Highway Administration
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office
Mary Ellen Haggard NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cynthia Van Der Weile NC Division of Water Quality
Max Phillips NCDOT Division 13
Roger Thomas NCDOT Roadway Design
Brian Robinson NCDOT Roadway Design
Beverly Robinson NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Steve Epley NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential project alternatives and
obtain concurrence on which alternatives should be studied in detail (Concurrence Point
2).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
October 17, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233 B
Page 2 of 5
PROJECT STATUS
Since the last team meeting in March, two local officials meetings and a citizens
informational workshop have been held for the project. Approximately 400 citizens
attended the informational workshop held on August 23, 2001 in Rutherfordton.
No objections to the project were raised at the workshop. The majority of
comments and questions related to the project alternatives and the effects of the project
on individual properties.
Several people representing historic interest groups attended the workshop due to
the proximity of the project alternatives to Gilbert Town. In comments at and following
the workshop, they asked NCDOT avoid Gilbert Town. At the workshop, the Spindale
Town Manager presented an idea for a new alternative developed by the Towns of
Rutherfordton and Spindale. This new alternative has been named Eastern Bypass
Alternative 5.
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
The Rutherfordton Thoroughfare Plan proposes the bypass be constructed as a
freeway. Roger Thomas of the Roadway Design Unit mentioned that constructing a four-
lane facility with partial control of access (no access except at crossing roadways) might
be more appropriate given the projected traffic volumes on the bypass.
Max Phillips, the Division Construction Engineer, commented following the
merger team meeting that the Division would like a freeway to still be considered.
GILBERT TOWN CERTIFIED SITE
Richard Sussman of the National Park Service described the certified site
program. Gilbert Town is a certified site of the Overmountain Victory National Historic
Trail (OVTA), which is a part of the national trail system. Mr. Sussman explained there
are three routes designated for the OVTA, the original route, the motor route, and the
route used by reenactors each year. There is also a branch of the trail which begins in
Elkin. Gilbert Town is the only site along the trail where both the patriot and loyalist
armies camped.
Property owners in the Gilbert Town area have voluntarily agreed to participate in
the certified site program. The agreement is for five years, and may be cancelled by
either the Park Service or the property owner.

The question was asked whether or not Section 106 applies to a certified site. Mr.
Sussman explained that Section 106 does not apply, but that Federal agencies must take
into consideration the certified site during planning.
w
October 17, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 3 of 5
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The project alternatives were discussed:
Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
This alternative was the one least favored by the public and local officials. It was
pointed out that although this alternative might not affect any buildings within the
historic district, it would change the character of the historic district. After some
discussion, merger team members agreed that this alternative should be dropped from
further consideration.
Western Bypass Alternative
It was discussed that local officials recommended dropping this alternative from
further consideration, because it will not serve the towns of Spindale and Ruth as well as
a bypass on the eastern side of Rutherfordton. In contrast, several citizens commenting at
the workshop asked NCDOT continue to study the Western Bypass Alternative. In
written comments, the Western Bypass Alternative was rated ahead of the other
alternatives by citizens. Citizens believed the Western Alternative would impact fewer
homes and businesses than the other alternatives.
Cynthia Van der Wiele of the Division of Water Quality pointed out that the
Western Bypass Alternative will affect a water supply watershed and there are other
options which would avoid the watershed.
The consensus of the merger team was that the Western Bypass Alternative
should be dropped from further consideration. Although there appears to be some public
support for keeping the alternative, the alternative would not serve Rutherfordton and
Spindale as well as the other alternatives.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
No strong comments for or against this alternative were heard at the local officials
meeting or informational workshop. The local officials did express concerns regarding
this alternative's effect on an industrial complex, however. Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
was suggested by the local officials in order to avoid this business.
The Tanner Company is the name of the industrial complex which would be
affected by this alternative. It was explained that this company's headquarters are in
Rutherfordton, and that this company recently made the decision to stay in Rutherfordton
and even expand their facilities.
After some discussion, it was decided that NCDOT should examine this
alternative and Eastern Bypass Alternative 5 further and see if an alignment that avoids
both Gilbert Town and the Tanner Company can be developed.
October 17, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 4 of 5
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
No strong comments for or against this alternative were heard at the local officials
meeting or informational workshop. This alternative will be studied further.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
The local officials preferred that this alternative be dropped from further
consideration. A few negative comments were heard regarding the project from citizens
at the workshop, as well.
Steve Lund of the Corps of Engineers stated he would like to see this alternative
studied if the widen existing/one-way pair alternative is dropped in order to keep a wide
range of alternatives and not just new location alternatives.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
This alternative was suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale at the
citizens informational workshop, and is intended to avoid the Tanner Company, which
would be affected by Eastern Bypass Alternative 2. However, the alternative would
affect the National Park Service's Certified Site and possibly the proposed National
Register boundary at Gilbert Town.
This alternative is preferred by both Rutherfordton and Spindale. Some negative
comments from citizens were heard at the workshop regarding this alternative, however.
After some discussion, the group agreed that NCDOT should reexamine both this
alternative and Eastern Alternative 2 and see if there is a way to avoid both Gilbert Town
and the Tanner Company.
US 74A Bypass Alternative
This alternative was the second least popular with the local officials and citizens,
after the one-way pair alternative.
. Team members asked if this alternative would really serve the purpose and need
of the project. Preliminary capacity analyses indicate this alternative will serve the
purpose and need, although it will not operate at as high a level of service as the new
location alternatives.
Roger Thomas mentioned that constructability is an issue with this alternative,
because traffic will have to be maintained during construction. Another issue is that the
existing alignment of US 74A is substandard.
IV

A narrower median (16-foot) would be used on widening portions of this
alternative. The group agreed this alternative should be studied further.
*
October 17, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 5 of 5
SUMMARY
Concurrence on alternatives to be studied in detail was not obtained at this
meeting. The group agreed that NCDOT should reexamine Alternatives 2 and 5 in the
vicinity of Gilbert Town and Tanner Company and see if an alignment that avoids both
can be developed.
The merger team agreed the following alternatives should be dropped from further
consideration:
• Widen Existing/One-Way Pair Downtown
• Western Bypass Alternative
The southern portions of Alternatives 2, 3, 5 and the US 74A Bypass Alternative
will be examined further to see if any of these alignments can be combined.
Another meeting of the merger team will be scheduled after the additional studies
on Alternatives 2 and 5 are conducted.
tv

i
ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN DETAIL
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
OCTOBER 17, 2001
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
L
l
WETLANDS G MP
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss potential project alternatives and
determine which alternatives should be studied in detail. Formal concurrence on
alternatives to be studied in detail will be requested.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton. A
multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The proposed project is
approximately 12 miles long, depending on the alternative chosen.
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate the bypass. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, impro ety, and improve
trgyel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held in September, 1999. Concurrence on
purpose and need for the project was obtained in December, 2000. Local officials
meetings for the project were held in April, 2001 and August, 2001. A citizens
informational workshop was held on August 23, 2001.
Right of way acquisition and construction for the project are scheduled in the
2002-2008 TIP for fiscal years 2005 and 2008, respectively.
q 6, madip_?
The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The citizens informational workshop for the project was held on August 23, 2001
in the cafeteria of the R-S Middle School in Rutherfordton. Approximately 400 citizens
attended the workshop.
No objections to the project were raised at the workshop. The majority of
comments and questions related to the project alternatives and the effects of the project
on individual properties.
Several people representing historic interest groups attended the workshop due to
the proximity of the project alternatives to Gilbert Town. In comments at the workshop,
they asked that the Department avoid Gilbert Town. Since the workshop, NCDOT staff
have received several a-mails from individuals emphasizing the importance of Gilbert
Town and asking the Department avoid this site.
Tim Barth, the Spindale Town Manager, presented an idea for a new alternative
developed by the Towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale at a meeting held before the
workshop. This alternative is described below as Eastern Bypass Alternative 5.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been developed for the project. A preliminary
environmental screening has been conducted for all the alternatives. All but Eastern
Bypass Alternative 5 have been discussed with merger team members as part of the
NEPA/404 merger process. These alternatives were also discussed with area officials at
the two local officials meetings. These are all of the alternatives developed to date for the
project:
• Alternate modes of transportation
• Widen existing facility
• Widen existing facility with one-way pair downtown
• West side bypass
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
The following alternatives have been dropped from further consideration with the
agreement of resource agency representatives and local officials:
• Alternate modes of transportation
• Widen existing facility
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
The following alternatives were shown at the citizens informational workshop:
• Widen existing facility with one-way pair downtown
• West side bypass
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
• Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
• US 74A Bypass Alternative
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5 was suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and
Spindale and presented to NCDOT and the public at the informational workshop. This
alternative has not been presented to merger team members prior to today.
Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
Widening existing US 221 and constructing a one-way pair within downtown is
being considered as an alternative. This alternative would improve safety, reduce
congestion and reduce travel time. However, this alternative would relocate a number of
homes along the existing road. The alternative would also involve construction within
the Rutherfordton Historic District, although no properties within the historic district are
expected to be taken.
This alternative was least favored by the public and local officials at the local
officials meetings and informational workshop. Many of those commenting believed a
one-way pair downtown would be too disruptive and would not adequately serve traffic.
Western Bypass Alternative
A bypass on the western side of Rutherfordton was shown on the 1976 Rutherford
County Thoroughfare Plan. Since approval of the 1976 Thoroughfare Plan, development
has occurred west of Rutherfordton, making a western bypass less feasible. A western
bypass would cross a water supply watershed and would be longer than the other bypass
alternatives. In addition, a western bypass would not serve the'towns of Spindale and
3
Ruth as well as an eastern bypass. For these reasons, the 1997 Rutherford County
Thoroughfare Plan shows a bypass on the eastern side of Rutherfordton.
No detailed environmental studies were conducted as a part of either thoroughfare
plan study, so a western bypass is still being considered as an alternative. The Western
Bypass Alternative would widen existing US 221 to four lanes with a median from US 74
Bypass to just south of SR 1191 (Mountain View Cemetery Road). A bypass on new
location would be constructed around the western side of Rutherfordton, connecting with
existing US 221 near SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road) north of Rutherfordton (see Figure
2). Interchanges would be provided at existing US 221 on either end of the bypass and at
NC 108 and US 64-74A if the bypass is constructed as a freeway.
Local officials recommended dropping this alternative from further consideration,
because it will not serve the towns of Spindale and Ruth as well as a bypass on the
eastern side of Rutherfordton. In contrast, several citizens commenting at the workshop
asked NCDOT continue to study the Western Bypass Alternative. In written comments,
the Western Bypass Alternative was rated ahead of the other alternatives by citizens.
Citizens believed the Western Alternative would impact fewer homes and businesses than
the other alternatives.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton, between
Rutherfordton and Spindale. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with a
median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road), south of Rutherfordton.
A bypass on new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton,
connecting back with existing US 221 near SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of Rutherfordton
(see Figure 2). This alternative will cross US 74 Business/US 221A near US 74A. If the
bypass is constructed as a freeway, interchanges would be provided at existing US 221 on
either end of the bypass, SR 2201 (Thunder Road), either US 74 Business/US 221 A or
proposed West Street Extension, and US 64. This alternative was modified in order to
avoid Gilbert Town following the last merger team meeting. The alternative as first
shown would have affected the area around Gilbert Town designated as a National Park
Service Certified Site. Co. - ' . lt07?0uc, -'ZLet y
No strong comments for or against this alternative were heard at the local officials
meeting or informational workshop. The local officials did express concerns regarding
this alternative's effect on an industrial complex, however.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 2, except
from south of US 74 Business/US 221A to US 64. In these areas, this alternative is closer
to downtown Rutherfordton than Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 (see Figure 2).
4
Like Eastern Bypass Alternative 2, this alternative was modified in order to avoid
Gilbert Town.
No strong comments for or against this alternative were heard at the local officials
meeting or informational workshop.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 4 (Downtown Bypass)
This alternative would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a
"shallow" bypass of downtown Rutherfordton. Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to just south of downtown Rutherfordton.
A bypass on new location would be constructed on the east side of downtown
Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 north of downtown in the vicinity
of the existing US 64 interchange. Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes with
a median from the bypass to SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road).
The local officials preferred that this alternative be dropped from further
consideration. A few negative comments were heard regarding the project from citizens
at the workshop, as well.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 5
This alternative was suggested by the Towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale at the
citizens informational workshop held for the project on August 23, 2001 in
Rutherfordton. This alternative is intended to avoid an industrial complex which would
be affected by Eastern Bypass Alternative 2. This alternative follows the same alignment
as Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 from US 221 south of Rutherfordton to north of US 74
Bus-US 221A (Charlotte Road). North of Charlotte Road, the alternative turns to the
east, crossing US 74A (Railroad Avenue) before turning northward. The alternative then
roughly follows the alignment of Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 until north of US 64, at
which point the alternative diverges from Eastern Alternative 2, crossing SR 1520 (Rock
Road) north of Eastern Alternative 2 and passing between the Broyhill furniture plant and
Gilbert Town before tying back into existing US 221 north of SR 1526 (Edwards Road).
This alternative is preferred by both Rutherfordton and Spindale. Some negative
comments from citizens were heard at the workshop regarding this alternative, however.
US 74A Bypass Alternative ' • W
The US 74A bypass alternative also involves constructing a bypass on the eastern
side of Rutherfordton. This alternative would involve widening existing US 221 to four
lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road). A four-lane
roadway would be constructed on new location connecting existing US 221 with existing
US 74A (Railroad Avenue) at US 74 Business/US 221A. US 74A would be widened to
5
multi-lanes from US 74 Business/US 221A to north of US 64. North of US 64, the
bypass would be extended on new location, connecting with SR 1536 (Old US 221) and
existing US 221 near R-S Central High School (see Figure 2).
This alternative was the second least popular with the local officials and citizens,
after the one-way pair alternative.
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS* 4WIow
S EAST 2 ,EAST 3 yEIAST 4 EAST 5 S 74A

• BYP. BYP. BYP. BYP. BYP.
RESIDENTIAL 108 115 171 151 162 134 90
RELOCATEES
BUSINESS 49 11 31 23 20 19 23
RELOCATEES
NATIONAL
REGISTER*
LISTED 1 district None 1 1 1 1 Non
PROPERTIES IN
CORRIDOR
WETLANDS
AFFECTED 1.6 2.4 2.2 -1.8 2.1 2.0 X1.5
(AC.)
(NWI)
STREAM v-)(S w S
EWPACTS 2,733 12,692 12,148 .5,794 5,906 10,497 A3,834
(FT.)
COMMENTS TO 1 13 7 8 2 2 5
SELECT***
COMMENTS TO 17 8 10 10 6 3 12
DROP*** Zl 7 l S I
LENGTH NEW
LOCATION 0.2 9.6 9.5 9.1 9.0 9.3 3.3
(MILES)
TOTAL LENGTH 12.3 12.8 12.3 11.6 12.8 10.9 11.6
(MILES)
* - Impacts estimated at 1/3 total corridor impacts.
* * - National Register of Historic Places
NWI - National Wetland Inventory
*** - "Comments to Select" and "Comments to Drop" refer to the number of
citizens who responded to questions regarding which alternative they
preferred and which alternative they thought should be dropped from
further consideration.

6
?;y Y r f ---'?
\ }. r \ Jj \ ? . \ \ { . _ ? ? ,{ h f `fir: f3; ? • f 'fHJa . ? J J) ' ? , ? ?j? ? \ ;{ / 1
\. ..! \ 9 / - (?- ^? \ .. ?''(' ?, • - Y , ? g , ' C`,? ?gF?d!/ a ?•Y 5 1 ? . '. EIS -? ? / ?`- • Y ?
N ; ? ; / ?, °_?Oti ROJ \ \ 4`;? ?,?,.,,?rs'.?fr= ?? ;? a? +` •? ?!,?p??, ,-, - +•, •? +8 ? -? ?7n; tl ;?,;I
. R
•
-
,
2 71
\ •; - @ t
t ?\ L O? n
/Jr
/_ Og A
?, ?" ff } Z N x . ?i r MA-1C LINE-SEE BEET Il
1 r ,i 9 7 '~ ?.. - ?' b%'?7, rte' ? k
}T ° am
z O?\?6?s9? h? •''?c C?2gir It
n 2 - _ tl.{' it i' : a
-44
7 ?T r i x W IA
f 'All
G
ti??9: i fit} '
?eIS6?
1,7
m per: ?. r ,??' s
sty ? `?' • z ? ?-,3.. `, ?c' ?? ? ,?:,.6;r ? i ?y'4 j -- ? -
? ,rte;; _ ? i ''; / ?:} • ' "'"+; '
?b C
,
., w
,
,
1
„I
s ,•
' r
a. ?
,
,
a'
. t
1
.
i?
\
. i 1
?? .. _ Tama \, t \ g J 1 #,
CDP
1 - n
l r r. \ QR N o;
6 U)
`.? ,r=te.- t = ?? ? L° f') _ _i ' • - ?? + °h" t f i st ? ?'t O o
e ,
:
,
:. P
W m ? J 11
r -( O n C') v z C n m n m n m n m p ?, "•,? O N m 'v -I /
n D x< m P x D m (n o a o D o D o n m z TI -_? N Z??p Z
--1 z D m X OD O -1 -A A N m (/, x (/, m N (n m - < D O
r. T, m m z D tl O m O m O m O m m ?' N 21 ?toZ?O
5?1 O F5 A D z D O x O M O O x X D `may 1.\ --i C ."O rn-
(A c ? r O "z ? z A z A z _ --A ono-V=
X CID CID 03 aj co
rc '" z m z " cni n n a n n - m ?J rnr^QD?
O --( Z < m
n n m _ n (n N (n N N m O DrTO?
O -1 M r D D D D D ---1 \ s _ Z7 r Q- Z Z -..
z O O r -4 r r r r r IM m > ! p v D
m m < z m m 7F C)
2
< ? M Im z ?y ?r? -I Z rn
a: m m m m D
0 m
O ??? ?t ifs N O DZ> m
< z m m m x D
z ti ?1i` ? i y \ t\? Z r
m z m n z z z z z
O > D v O -? n D n D D
n < -( -+ a to D cn D ;
IM :z
-4 ID
D e / / °ee rn
m N O cn a w N
(A CA
c C:
' m n v v v v O "e C ? ?
o _? o c < c _?...
m n i 3p m
0 :33
t
114A,
? 1;f ?.•'Y. . . f z.a,__ ?.?} ;`,t ?-r?
---- --
! r.... tit {
s ` H t ?. to r
? ,? , - ? z I , I ?-aft * ?
LLJ ? . . , -- ?\ . tmt . ,?? I I ? \ t?\ ?.; , I -I- ? : ??/)? I -( I
? 1
! „? 5? O" 1 \\ I
Is ' 1- Z v) ? m I. ': il - ?,i I it I j
? a }Q E J Z Z N ?.• H. (1kv \ ,? to • I
. ,- D . % I - I . I ,-?,:,p I,, - ". ?!, . :11, , -.z,,\ ., ?,? ?
k4z
oZhZ W 0 t r ` '!, u,'
I- Z °J oe D H I I i r Q Y ?t ,?; . `S ', I - '? '& :fie :s, 'atr /°<J
d?. Z N N f I •7 ?' <, 3 a /- \y ,) ?°"iceN /)
i? \
f Z?OdW lV ~ - Ly '' ?
!r ,. , i?? _ { r =) .- l? i C.
, - erg `, <(_4", '?0 _ 'f . J ,
. ? ? -11 . I.- , , , , Z, , 4F ?1?1, ,?. 4' ? e . i , .
Z W f $' a w ,4I ,., I
. ?? . . - 11, - i_l 'L " . I ?? I I .
I- I
..
" € ti. '
a to / i ' ?
r' / . L $ ? I„ d . b r r,
t
'? ; t' dH
.. ?` i •tljF
' y
-_ 1 '. ? "If i ? ,? : 1f' 1110
", . : - I .1 k?;-; RI, 1 d Y
1 b
_ t `
n' - N - f :. .1 ?.
d, . - _ 7-.L? ..'Nils- -.. . - - .. .. _
L-' ., - - -% L . .. 1. . ?,.. I I I , ? L -, - - 7, 1 -1 ? PA. " . , - ,-,
.
ei y _ r * z 1??HS l -jNI?H3 dW
_ -- -
?: ` r \
I y x
:
7 . ---- , ? -,--. I - I . - -2#411,:.,??,l,-,,
.
c _ } ,'? d p \
`? ?? ?, , y `? y O
_ ??? `+
\ f ,
'= [
3 ;.I-if
.
- . - ' - - L3' \. :l ;- %
ti:, ,,\\
, , - /
' r .' ,I Jib ;?
--• ,:G ?\ :-y \ .1 I
i? -A - - ? I .
Jj•S l ! - J. +s °y \ 4 •( M f l ?1/2 y? ?!,,- i ' , ( . \ ?,
? - ? -: ?:,? : ( , ?- _ _ .. i ll. e 1. - x \ ` t' \ \
. _. -I .
f3
\ y?y# ire °* f ?,. J 1 . \ : \., a / ,, \
'q.. - <
! 1 i.-
f `
i 1 - 4 ,- __ - \.
1 .
. -1 ? L , m ? t L / , I \ , / . . ??L ? ? ' ' ' f?l I.,d"
{\` \ \
I
f
. r+_.:
h
• i \ I . 4
.t. \ ?/r . ,;
- , , X. aC, s ` ?? , J _ ;r?, t I `?, re
1.
O
\ 1:
J, n
\ j d " <5 J
-1 ? j , ! I . .1 'I, /,-- -1 -. - .1 - ---I-- - _ , , - ,?-- , i , ,?, ? - L ? --,,? ,- "I, I " - <---? L--' , 1 'e -,j . 1?
1
j t-'r' HpMP'O w
1 'L ? ? _ , ,:?? ., ?,,,-:, ?? L t ? \ - \,
S t
_ . 36 \.? o
\ SR `? i ,
I
`,
f
O
{.
- 11
\? O
f ,? - ..rte`'. ,?? 1`''` n `,\ ( ?;C f .',.,\ ` -- °o j.. -\?
? - I - - I \ , ?L ? I L L ? 0 ? I ?? "I
. ;:
` - ' \ 2b \ 'r - 4 \ ce pp o f
?.
,r ,:^ \\- L I- ( 4a ,'`Y a \. t',\, ?, `ti; -\': \\ r llJ , \
-r µ <\ I O
,I \ \'\ \
, , ,?, ?,?, (/ ` P-- , _ " . : - , , 1 4' ? ,,., , I " . I , ,? ; , - .
,} i k,"I . `% v, N
\ ?, \
Zy:'
. I L , - ,- N\ .. , . I . , .1 I I I I ?? ? V , .- ?, ? I ? - I , i . . I I . I , ..,.;, t , -11 .: , - ,; ) ? ?? , -, . N%--? I / ?
^' \ \
\ S
r 1 I , f T;, ....
.. iiii . , ", . , I L '? ,-- ' -
{
-' \ ,
rt
f C, ' \
11
I-
r---. \ \
??
. ^ . %: \
-1 I
a' ,-? I-, ! v 1, - v ` v
y? 4;
r , -, -1 i L ; . A , % k ? - - - , ; ' \'k'--' ' ?' L "?' i / - ?? t s ;, \4? . y, \ \
?, L 10 I ? L , i . , ,., I ,,SEZ?,, " t 6? 1\? ?i Q \ \ nfvLM . c, a, \ \ \ \
I
, .? l? \ ,\ \' ?. '\ '\ \
i I k. . i - -- ? I k, . i L,,? - ? , t , , ,, ? , -\ , I, , ? Q, ? I ) L _, 4"" , I ,- I "I I " I ,-,
,.
, I ? " ? I ? . : _ ,,-? . -, I I*< . ? .,- ij?? ? ,7 . 11 -? 11 , 11 -? I-
- 1? 1?1 , ,L* - L - - ,,,?- .-.- % , I I , , , . 1? 11 1? 1? ,,?
L " , _,: - - 1: ? - - _ . , ?, __
dMSWFp?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. Steven W. Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
October 5, 2001
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY

WETUT??`
11IATC6,(!!IA1IiY 4z:S'f
SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Concurrence Meeting for US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass,
Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B
A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 17th at 1:00 PM. in the '
Photogrammetry Conference Room located at the NCDOT Century Center Complex in
Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss alternatives to be studied in detail for
TIP Project R-2233B, the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass.
Enclosed is information regarding alternatives developed for the project so far.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information prior to the
October 17th meeting. My phone number is [phone] ext. 249 and my e-mail
address is [e-mail].
Sincerely,
?t fp?
J. A. McInnis Jr., P.E.,
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
JAM
cc: Merger Team Members
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
LTydMSTAiFo
~ >
9 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
= DOARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATION
May 8, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Jay McInnis, P. E. ?f ?4? xl??
Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: March 8, 2001 Merger Team Meeting for TIP Project R-2233B,
US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass
The concurrence meeting for the subject project was held on March 8, 2001. The
following persons were in attendance:
Steven Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
April Montgomery State Historic Preservation Office
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mary Ellen Haggard NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cynthia Van Der Weile NC Division of Water Quality
John Wadsworth Federal Highway Administration
Roger Thomas NCDOT Roadway Design
Virginia Mabry NCDOT Roadway Design
Lubin Prevatt NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Beverly Robinson NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Doug Jeremiah NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Matthew King NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
The purpose of the meeting was to review alternatives developed so far for the
project and obtain preliminary concurrence on alternatives to be carried forward.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

March 8, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-2233B
Page 2 of 3
4'k
~+
Formal concurrence on alternatives.to be carried forward will be requested
following the citizens informational workshop for the project. Any alternatives suggested
by the public at the informational workshop will be considered by the merger team in the
selection of alternatives to be carried forward.
Alternatives developed so far for the project and discussed at the meeting include
widening the existing roadway, constructing a one-way pair, and five different bypass
alternatives. The bypass alternatives include the Western Alternative, US 74A
Alternative and Eastern Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
Following a general description of the project and a review of each of the
associated alternatives the floor was opened up for questions and comments.
Concerns were raised over the project's potential impacts to streams and
farmland. It was noted that all of the eastern bypass alternatives will affect a "certified
site" of the Over Mountain Victory National Historic Trail. This certified site was
designated by the National Park Service. PDEA staff will meet with the Park Service to
discuss these alternatives and whether or not an avoidance alternative will be required.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1
This alternative most closely follows the alignment for the US 221 bypass shown
on the 1997 thoroughfare plan. This alternative will affect a proposed county landfill.
The alternative will also affect a property listed on the National Register. of Historic
Places, as well as the Gilbert Town certified site.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the group that Eastern Bypass
Alternative 1 should be dropped from further consideration due to its impacts to the
proposed landfill and the National Register-listed property.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
This alternative will infringe on the largest amount of streams in the northern
portions of its route. However, the group agreed that this alternative should be studied
further.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
The group agreed that Eastern Alternative 3 should be studied further
US 74 bypass Alternative
This alternative will affect the largest number of homes and businesses and will
not provide full control of access on the bypass.
(,.
March 8, 2001 Concurrence Meeting
R-223 3 B
Page 3 of 3
The group considered dropping this alternative from further consideration due to its
impacts to homes and businesses, but it was agreed to study it further because it has the
least impact on streams and involves widening an existing road for a portion of its length.
Widening Alternative
Merger team members agreed that widening the existing roadway could be dropped from
further consideration due to this alternative's effect on the Rutherfordton historic district.
Western Bypass Alternative
This alternative would relocate the second largest number of homes and would
divert the least amount of traffic from existing US 221. The group considered
eliminating this alternative but it was decided to keep this alternative under consideration
because it is the only new location bypass alternative that completely avoids Gilbert
Town.
One-way Pair
Constructing a one-way pair through the Rutherfordton historic district may
require minor widening downtown and will involve relocating homes and businesses, but
it's not expected that any homes or businesses within the historic district will be
relocated.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the group that this alternative
should be studied further.
Additional Alternatives
The suggestion was made to study a "shallow" bypass of downtown
Rutherfordton. Such a bypass would avoid the Rutherfordton historic district and reduce
the project's impact on streams. However, a bypass of downtown would require widening
more of the existing road. A downtown bypass will be investigated and presented at the
citizens informational workshop for the project.
Summary
The Widening Alternative and Eastern Alternative 1 will be dropped from further
consideration. These alternatives will not be shown at the upcoming citizens
informational workshop.
A smaller bypass around the downtown area of Rutherfordton will be investigated
as a new alternative.
The merger team will meet again following the citizens informational workshop
for the project to discuss which alternatives should be carried forward.
iZ
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
March 8, 2001
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss potential project alternatives and
determine which alternatives should be shown at the citizens informational workshop for
the project. Formal concurrence on alternatives to be carried forward will be requested
following the citizens informational workshop.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the draft 2002-2008 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 bypass of
Rutherfordton. A multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The
proposed project is approximately 12 miles long, depending on the alternative chosen
(see Figure 1).
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate this type facility. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999. Concurrence on
the purpose and need for the project was obtained in December, 2000. A citizens
informational workshop will be held for the project and detailed environmental studies
will begin for the project following coordination on alternatives. It was recommended at
the June 14, 2000 purpose and need concurrence meeting that agency concurrence on
alternatives (Concurrence Point 2) would follow the citizens informational workshop.
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005
and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007.

The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project.
Alternate Modes of Transportation
Considering the size and location of Rutherfordton, alternate modes of
transportation are not considered viable alternatives for the project. Increased rail service
and implementation of bus service in the project area would not eliminate the need for the
proposed bypass.
Improve Existing Facility
Widen Existing Facility
Widening the existing roadway would reduce congestion, improve safety, and
reduce travel time along US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. However, widening the
existing road would require the relocation of a number of homes and businesses and
severely impact a National Register-Listed historic district.
Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
Widening existing US 221 and constructing a one-way pair within downtown is
being considered as an alternative. This alternative would improve safety, reduce
congestion and reduce travel time. However, this alternative would still relocate a
number of homes along the existing road. The alternative would also involve
construction within the Rutherfordton Historic District, although its anticipated no
properties within the historic district would be taken by the alternative.
Construct Bypass
A bypass of Rutherfordton would serve the purpose and need of the project by
reducing congestion, improving safety, and reducing travel time for traffic using US 221
in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. Proposed right of way for the bypass is 350 feet.
Alternative study corridors 1,000 feet wide have been developed for the project. Figure 2
presents all of the bypass alternatives investigated for the project.
2
J.
Relocation of homes and businesses, stream impacts, and impacts to historic
properties are expected to be the largest environmental concerns of constructing a bypass
of Rutherfordton.
Western Bypass Alternative
A bypass on the west side of Rutherfordton was shown on the 1976 Rutherford
County Thoroughfare Plan. Since development of the 1976 Thoroughfare Plan,
development has occurred west of Rutherfordton, making a western bypass less feasible.
A western bypass would cross a water supply watershed and would be longer than the
other bypass alternatives. In addition, a western bypass would not serve the towns of
Spindale and Ruth as well as an eastern bypass.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 matches the alignment shown for the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass on the 1997 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan. It is
anticipated this alternative and Eastern Bypass Alternatives 2 and 3 would carry more
traffic than any of the other bypass alignments examined. This alternative would impact
a proposed county landfill and may impact a property listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 and it is
anticipated would serve traffic as well. This alternative would avoid the proposed county
landfill and the national register-listed property.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3
Eastern Bypass Alternative 3 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 2, with the
exception of where it crosses US 74 Business/US 221 A. This alternative should serve
traffic as well as the other eastern alternatives. This alternative would avoid the proposed
county landfill and the national register-listed property.
US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative also involves constructing a bypass on the eastern
side of Rutherfordton. However, this alternative would utilize existing US 74A (Railroad
Avenue) for much of its length. This alternative is expected to relocate the greatest
number of homes and businesses of any of the bypass alternatives.
3

ellmlelafed An k. seem lt. 9Lw-
Ye11ou) ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS -DK' Bl? oranye
WIDEN WIDEN/ WEST EAST 1 EAST 2 EAST 3 US 74A
EXIST. 1-WAY BYP. BYP. BYP. BYP. BYP.
RESIDENTIAL 74 74 178 85 99 113 181
RELOCATEES
BUSINESS 27 17 12 11 30 10 46
RELOCATEES
NATIONAL I district 1 district
REGISTER (includes (includes None 1 1 1 None
LISTED several several
PROPERTIES IN individual individual
CORRIDOR properties) properties)
POTENTIAL NR*
ELIGIBLE 2 2 2 3 4 1 2
PROPERITES IN
CORRIDOR
WETLANDS 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.1 1.1
AFFECTE D
(AC.)
(NWI)
WETLANDS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AFFECTED
(AC.)
(HYDRIC SOILS)
STREAM 2,137 2,637 7,951 14,270 14,478 _ 10,472 2,923
IMPACTS
(FT.)
LENGTH NEW 0 0.2 9.6 9.0 9.5 9.1 3.3
LOCATION
(MILES)
TOTAL LENGTH 12.1 12.3 12.8 12.8 12.3 11.6 11.6
(MILES)
CONSTRUCTION N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
COST
* - National Register of Historic Places 4!5 tAxakr svpp1 j
N/A - Not Available W1-
Note: Hydric soil information is not available for Rutherford County. Construction cost
estimates not yet available.
-k r7 0 ryw -4,0,w Me

r - ? 13
1359 ?
?. X1329

LF.
357
W11.
A \
1 \\ 221 \
' 1355 \
i '356 ?I.1 -' r `\ r 1559
! mt. v-
1373` r..1•'- -
1
1172
I•? - -
t17fi•/y
Y' ti s
j ' 1178 RUTH
11 4174
f ?.. ?\ \` Z
2 1 { 11 ?? ,
11751 `1 \\\\y
j.'' : ?•._ _. RUTHERFORDTN !t , i ` \
- 1204
1161 1 % ?SPINDALE
t.' r, r 74
Ch.1 ,
:\ 4A -
1194 •, J``
1193•,
ild6 74
t 47 ?r i ..
Y c,:• -..i 221
TO CGIVWYt 7d
207
t` 1005 1 IlA1 I 1.
Creek Ch.
Rlsner
ChOO 1
• 1
128
1
I
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Qi) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
RUTHERFOROTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-22338
FIGURE 1
f C? Z
, 1 I
I
74 PROJECT STUDY AREA
r !
\
zzt
I
r
1
1103 IIOC• 1112 / 1116 9? ;;'-•\ .??
S4nd• Spinet
OI 02 1105
T V 2a
U 1104 - '?_ .. t j 111 J 21
f7 _ 309
N. C 06 1108 21
too
... I 4 2104 Mo -4' =113 •12106 •? 2105
"A R T A N R U R G C O U N T Y ' • • ?
221 -T ••+
S 0 U T H C A R 0 L 11 N CAE R
KILDIETEI7S
O 1 2!
MILES 3
d
Ak.
I?j
41
: fis:-El
\ =\ ' 'ma`r .. 1 J7 F /
r r ?t,a ` \ °t,\ \? 1 `.l'?' 1?``+.:G?l. f '` -h?s?r/e, 4'' ?1•' •?', ??„? r????rY???. ® .... -1
n
\ \ - v
` •? , `-"' ? •' .?^'? ? ? s u
"Oo
Z;' / ' ! ?? j i I
-
`
V:1 4
, -: ?e ems. -_ i „ .-:cr P d• ?1• T, sd
f
Jt
`! ' ' i? Y1ra.. _l ? .,col. r ? "wx . ?• - '?i?.
7- N-All
49`'. ?' O O
9 N
\ ?r O A
0 P 61E;
4W %-%N'4""4<
,,.
w. \ ]VG
?k
,
4
s y
:
m
r O A N M A n n N C _
n s> m to -4 -4 N #.A rn to O
rR GG r= to r- ?I 7 1 -f " t ?7
_ ?m Z-0a-+Z
CA
(A 0 r) 0
r'' z w a m a s i m = Z?ZO 04i
m ,-a n d
0 :0
n n ,. H c`nn N m J` C rnvrr3 o??
;o C>
rn {A w rm R+ m m Z ` / - i?I1 I i ® ZJ r? Q = Z Z
(A rn
i 1 ®® D '77 1I
IM
m 74 -4
v ?j're C m
4 C) LA --4
' IN,
rl- 11
l7 m '
N r*r C C E ?? / 'T1 N 1.
ILA
rq -n
Fri
' / I?
p
US 221
8600 0
14300
SR 1627
SR 1361 8600
14400
14100 8900
16000 SR 1636
SR 1367 9900
6.
16600
SR 1366
8400
5
7800.,
13000
11'100
8600
14200
LEVEL OF SERVICE D 8100
LEVEL OF SERVICE E us 221 FIGURE 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
SR 2201
%DHV\ % DIRECTIONAL
10 PM 60 PEAK HOUR
a,13_ '? DIRECTION
%TTS \\%DUAL
?•, SR 2194
NO SCALE
7400 7000
rg°,oh 12600 11800
?j so
Y
SR 1004 6600
2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE 11200
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION us 74 BYPASS
5100
LEVEL OF SERVICE A 8soo? R 2213 j
LEVEL OF SERVICE B SR 1148
LEVEL OF SERVICE C 4900 J
SR 1006
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
200012025 ADT VOLUMES
NO-BUILD
1636 boa
J3
0
.,US 64
N ?
O
i
US 74 BOSIUS 221A
US 221
?o
8500
14800
SR 1627
SR 1361 8600
15000
SR 1366
8300
14500
0
® ® ® .6300
6400 f ! 8800
9700 6000
10700 i
SR 1367 ?R 1636 0
7000
12200
w 3 ? o
SR 1636
o
4900: °
8700'\ .
US,•64 ,'. US 64
.- o
In N
o `!4200
3 X400 4*} o
! 6700
qp 9600
6000
3.6 US 74 BUS/US 221A
6500
9300
5500 _
9300 SR 2201
i 5600
SR 1006 4300
7400
9500 o
70
/??'A?1 SO
2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE
TIP PROJECT R-22336
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
EASTERN ALTERNATIVES
1,2, & 3
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 PM 60/ PEAK HOUR
4,13- DIRECTION
%TTST %DUAL
SR 2194
~ 7000
3900 11800
6700 ? c
SR 1004 \ 6600
11200
NO SCALE
74 BYPASS
8600 N R 2213 y
0
SR 1148
?
4900,

8100
J
O
US 221 FIGURE 4
T' US 221

8500 0
a
14300 laz
0
SR 1627
SR 1361
8600
14500
1
SR 1366 8300
14000 11 y
4
o ty ?
ASR 1367
3500 A
6200?'o
us sa
it ?r
;4700
RUTHERFQF
s
NC 108 a
ro
5200
8800
5600
9700 SR 1636
6600
11400 ,
0
SR 1 636
5500: '? . o
9400
s 6400
10700
uS 64
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
WESTERN ALTERNATIVE
%DIRECTIONAL
%DHV\ /
10 PM 60 PEAK HOUR
`a,13) DIRECTION
%TTST %DUAL
LUS 74 BI1S/US 221A
5900: N
V0000_`SR 2201
? r
2000 f SR 1006 i•in-oon
3600 lop M SR 21
94 14
(3,?? 0'0 4? O
74 - 7000
12500 11800
SR 1004
2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
?-? LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
6600
11200
US 74 BYPASS
NO SCALE
8500 R 2213 r

SR 1148 0

J o
4900

8100
0
US 221
FIGURE 5
i US 221
a
14300
o?
8600 SR 1627
SR 1361
8600
14600
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
US 74 BUS. ALTERNATIVE
SR 1366 8300
14000
13000
14100 8900
15000
SR 1367 SR 1636
8900
15000 3400 0
? 5700
5900
w 9900® 6100
5704; 8600
US sa 13000 N
1800
5000 _ o
8100
8400
w"
21800
- ' 6800
9400
;.....:
RUTHERF•ORDTON "..• `' /11?t 17000
• 29400
6300 I -: 1
101001.:._....:
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
\10 PM 60/ PEAK HOUR
(1,133) DIRECTION
%TTST %DUAL
US 74 BUS/US 221A
US 74A
2100 °
SR 1006 1000
o0
7pA ?? 0 SR 2194
6700 ® 7000
9100 / 11800
6600
2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE SR 1004 11200
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION US 74 BYPASS
5100
LEVEL OF SERVICE A 8600 SR
LEVEL OF SERVICE B SR 1148
® LEVEL OF SERVICE C 4900
C? LEVEL OF SERVICE D 8100
LEVEL OF SERVICE E US 221
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
NO SCALE
2213
?o
°
FIGURE 6
R-2233B, US 221, Rutherfordton Bypass
Subject: R-2233B, US 221, Rutherfordton Bypass
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:07:52 -0500
From: "Lund, Steven W SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: Bill Gilmore <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]
This is in response to your memorandum of July 12, 2000 requesting our review and comment on the revisions to the Purpose
and Need Statement for the subject project. These revisions are a result of a June 14, 2000 NEPA/404 merger process meeting.
The additional information that you have developed regarding level of service, accident rate comparisons, and roadway
deficiencies is all very good material and serves to considerably strengthen the project purpose and need. I do have two
additional comments, however.
First, I am puzzled by the format that you chose to present this additional information, that of an "Addendum to Purpose and
Need Summary" in an agency comment and NCDOT response form. I have not seen this format used in any other merger
process documents. I do not believe that this new information, together with the agreed upon expansion of the project study
limits, should be considered supplemental to the the project. Rather, this information is significant to the basic justification of
the project. The purpose and need statement should be revised to include this additional information in the body of the
statement rather than as an addendum to it.
Secondly, the issue of improving travel times for traffic on US 221has not been addressed. If this is to be an element in your
basic statement of project need, then I believe that some supporting discussion is necessary. What are average travel times on
the present roadway and how will they be improved? What is the significance of reduced times? Are there heavy commuting
"hubs" such as schools or large factories that will benefit locally or is this basically an issue of blowing through Rutherfordton as
fast as possible on your way to somewhere else? Is emergency response time an issue? If travel time reduction is not a primary
need on the same level with accomodating traffic volumes, reducing congestion, and improving safety and roadway deficiencies,
then you should consider moving it from a primary need to secondary status.
With the above changes/additions, the Corps should be able to concur with the Purpose and Need Statement for this project. If
you have any questions, please contact me by E-mail or at telephone [phone].
1 of 1 8/23/00 4:26 PM
it, J,?-) ? M 14
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
June, 2000
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
}AIAY?C Cif ALITY SH
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the project study limits and submit
information to support concurrence on purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1).
Information regarding project alternatives will also be provided for comments and
suggestions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton. A
multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The proposed project is
approximately nine miles long, depending on the alternative chosen (see Figure 2).
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way will be required to
accommodate this type facility. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges (see Figure 4).
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the PS 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
NEED FOR PROJECT
US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to Linville has been designated a part
of the Intrastate System (see Figure 3). The Intrastate System was established by the NC
General Assembly in 1989. The purpose of the Intrastate System is to provide
high-speed, safe travel service throughout North Carolina.
Existing US 221 passes through the center of downtown Rutherfordton. Speed
limits on US 221 within Rutherfordton vary between 20 to 45 MPH. US 221 through
Rutherfordton is the only portion of US 221 between the South Carolina State Line and
I-40 with a speed limit lower than 55 MPH. In addition, five signalized intersections
exist along US 221 within the project area.
Several steep grades exist along US 221 in the Rutherfordton area. These grades
are fairly short, but large trucks often cannot maintain the speed limit on these grades. In
1
addition, passenger cars often cannot pass slower moving trucks on these grades due to
sight distance restrictions.
The lower speed limits, signalized intersections, and steep grades all increase
travel time along existing US 221.
Current (year 2000) daily traffic volumes along US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton range between 4,900 to 9,900 vehicles per day. By the year 2025, US 221
will be operating at capacity, with traffic volumes projected to range between 8,200 to
16,500 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes in the vicinity of Rutherfordton are
shown on Figure 5.
The 1996-1998 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton exceed the 1996-1998 statewide average for similar facilities. The fatal
accident rate is almost double the statewide rate. The following table compares the
accident rates for US 221 with the statewide rates.
1996-1998 ACCIDENT RATES COMPARISON
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/MVM) (ACC/MVM)
US 221 274.46 4.88
Statewide Average 222.35 2.81
Rural US Routes
Statewide Average 266.88 0.93
Urban US Routes
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999. A citizens
informational workshop will be held and detailed environmental studies will begin for the
project following agency concurrence on alternatives to be carried forward.
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005
and construction is scheduled to begin sometime after 2006.
The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
2
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS
Currently, only one portion of the US 221-NC 105 Intrastate Corridor is
multi-lane (see Figure 3). Projects to widen the remaining portions of the corridor to
multi-lane have been programmed in the TIP. Environmental studies have been
completed on one section of US 221 from south of I-40 to NC 226 in McDowell County
(TIP Project R-204). No environmental studies have been conducted for US 221 between
south of I-40 and the South Carolina Line. This portion of the Intrastate Corridor has
been divided into two large projects, TIP Project R-2597 and the subject project, TIP
Project R-2233.
Although a part of the larger Intrastate Corridor, the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton bypass has independent utility, and represents a reasonable improvement
even if the remainder of the Intrastate Corridor is never built. Because the Rutherfordton
Bypass portion of R-2233 has independent utility and is the only portion of the project
currently funded, NCDOT proposes to limit the current project study to the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass. The study limits will extend far enough along existing US 221 to
prevent limiting alternatives for adjacent projects.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project.
Concurrence Point 2 will involve the NEPA/404 project team's agreement on alternatives
to be studied in detail. Information regarding potential impacts of these alternatives will
be presented at today's meeting for the team's information.
Alternate Modes of Transportation
Considering the size and location of Rutherfordton, alternate modes of
transportation are not considered viable alternatives for the project. Increased rail service
and implementation of bus service in the project area would not eliminate the need for the
proposed bypass.
Improve Existing Facility
Widen Existing Facility
Widening the existing roadway would reduce congestion, improve safety, and
reduce travel time along US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. However, widening the
existing road would require the relocation of a number of homes and businesses and
severely impact a National Register-Listed historic district.
3
Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
Widening existing US 221 and constructing a one-way pair within downtown is
beinc, considered as an alternative. This alternative would improve safety, reduce
congestion and reduce travel time. However, this alternative would still relocate a
number of homes along the existing road. The alternative would also involve
construction within the Rutherfordton Historic District, although its anticipated no
properties within the historic district would be taken by the alternative.
Construct Bypass
A bypass of Rutherfordton would serve the purpose and need of the project by
reducing congestion, improving safety, and reducing travel time for traffic using US 221
in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. Proposed right of way for the bypass is 350 feet.
Alternative study corridors 1,000 feet wide have been developed for the project. Figure 2
presents all of the bypass alternatives investigated for the project.
Relocation of homes and businesses, stream impacts, and impacts to historic
properties are expected to be the largest environmental concerns of constructing a bypass
of Rutherfordton.
Western Bypass Alternative
A bypass on the west side of Rutherfordton was shown on the 1976 Rutherford
County Thoroughfare Plan. Since development of the 1976 Thoroughfare Plan,
development has occurred west of Rutherfordton, making a western bypass less feasible.
A western bypass would cross a water supply watershed and would be longer than the
other bypass alternatives. In addition, a western bypass would not serve the towns of
Spindale and Ruth as well as an eastern bypass.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 matches the alignment shown for the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass on the 1997 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 4).
It is anticipated this alternative and Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 would carry more traffic
than any of the other bypass alignments examined. This alternative would impact a
proposed county landfill and may impact a property listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
4
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 and it is
anticipated would serve traffic as well. This alternative would avoid the proposed county
landfill and the national register-listed property.
US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative also involves constructing a bypass on the eastern
side of Rutherfordton. However, this alternative would utilize existing US 74A (Railroad
Avenue) for much of its length. This alternative is expected to relocate the greatest
number of homes and businesses of any of the bypass alternatives.
. 1358
I h 1'i
1351
:M. 7
•t? I I1
f746
.I
'° cwvvus 7a
,\ t - \`? ?• ?NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
3z9 ! \vp mlmti a ( TRANSPORTATION
'? ! \ '? 1 ! •' ?\G *?, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\ !' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
I \ RUTHERFORD COUNTY
.1 1360 m TIP PROJECT R-22338
?• T ; Ruth. ld COR°"
?,;? _ ?•\ Airy J WI15
k % FIGURE 1
4-1
1355 r '\
? L -
?? -? -.. M1. Vainm
?..J.._._..- ?. v KILOMETERS
O
l ` 3
u MILES -y2
T, v?ss
4
?. 1
\ 1172
17
Ina LIFH •_---Creek
1117 ? \ \?? .,
' _ RU TH ELF voT?II \? o
1204
d A .?
1161 / r {y Z 1?1II)ALE
11?
T
FOR CITY,
I i `. yVll 1/y-/
1 I/
7a PROJECT STUDY AREA
r

1 a7 ?/ 74
??JJ I
1207
t• 1141 1004 \,,\
So
1139
144:
tray
Creek Ch. II38'
lie
KIS*ler
Chap I /
Ill 27 1 \
i'll 1132
I
..
-
Q r 1110505
128 .? Q ;
1130
X1133
\
?
ul I I I 1134 \? ?.a
.I
?' ; \ .rte )

j 1195 $prIhgs 1 l \
Cm,, 11 Hons. .\ _
I 1106
i
1214

\- `

\
I
Y\ •I / ` 221 ?
- 1106 l \,1 /''1 \

1125
J II12 {..

C-•
\
/1123
i

/

1
,211
211
"_?
-
\. 1124 ? I I I1 !
i .

I 2109 -, /•

-
1103 1 104' 1112 1116 ?
SaMy Springs
01 02 1
---'?
=
a 1105 _ 1111 _ -- 221a
V 11104 1109
Q

1
i 21
N_ P
1.

S.
0B
B - 1106 1i
100 ' 9102
1110

_'
-
'
.i j--- .
4
;1111 ?- .
1113
-
2105

4

:•' 21041
•12106
2105
SIA A TAN IU R0
, /mar •\
COUNTY /
I _ •
221 `-
S O U T H C A R O L I N cA,.
t0
O
O
N
w
H

w LL.
Q
w
0
N
Q O w
U
W
L
`i.
0
N L
a
U C6
W 0
U
a j
? ?
I- N
a O
Q LI.
m

Z

U
Wi
s. cia

N
N u
U)
j
u
u

t0
O
O
N
W
LL
Q
0
U
N
N1
1.6
LLI
Z
J
1
J
Z
W
O
O
O
N
W
F-
LU a
a
M Z
00
UU
w CL
D
f
?. N
to
O
O
N
W
LL
L a
F-
a) N W
?N Z
LL ? 0
l
I
M
W
V
I.L.
O
w
H
LA a
0
N
04 Z
M N?0
- -- -Y - -, ?.,

LLJ
O ,

g
LL 00 a O
?? ?? _ $?
D?--WIL 1_ g
0
a
O \ , y,
4 emc y ? ? -
\a ??
Cl)
? ? % s o t s `"-
CL
.. .. 4 J •.., Sd'o?.; o
\ @ Y
d
C
A / yy
y. ;
me
LJJ
o?
t?
LL
US 221
s500 a
4-3 0-0
SR 1527
SR 1351 8500
1 T 14400
SR 1355
8400
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
14100 8900
15000
\ SR 1535
SR 1367
990 0
16500 %DHV %DIRECTIONAL
0
\
?PEAK HOUR
10 PM 6

'' SR 1536 4,13) DIRECTION
p 3
7800 %TTST %DUAL
s
.US 64
A ?
8:100 3
13500 1 f I o
US 74 BUS/US 221A
RUTHER ,OI.DTON1r 8100
1:3500
8600
J
14200 SR 2201
SR 1005
SR 2194
NO SCALE
7400 7000
1
O 2500 1800
A
X6
,A?
0
J SR 1004 6600
?11200
US 74 BYPASS
5100
8500
R 2213
jo
SIR 1148

0
4900
8100 'N`
US 221 FIGURE 5
IR
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
June,2000
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the project study limits and submit
information to support concurrence on purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1).
Information regarding project alternatives will also be provided for comments and
suggestions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-2233B is programmed in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as the construction of a US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton. A
multi-lane roadway on new location is proposed in the TIP. The proposed project is
approximately nine miles long, depending on the alternative chosen (see Figure 2).
It is anticipated approximately 350 feet of right of way,Awill be required to
accommodate this type facility. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan proposes full control of access for the bypass, with all intersecting roadways grade
separated and access provided at interchanges (see Figure 4).
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton.
NEED FOR PROJECT
.5 s-Few,_ US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to Linville has been designated a part
of the Intrastate System (see Figure 3). The Intrastate System was established by the NC
e
nW_J_ General Assembly in 1989. The
Y purpose of the Intrastate System is to provide
S4er-+fo- high-speed, safe travel service throughout North Carolina.
Existing US 221 passes through the center of downtown Rutherfordton. Speed
limits on US 221 within Rutherfordton vary between 20 to 45 MPH. US 221 through
Rutherfordton is the only portion of US 221 between the South Carolina State Line and
I-40 with a speed limit lower than 55 MPH. In addition, five signalized intersections
exist along US 221 within the project area.
Several steep grades exist along US 221 in the Rutherfordton area. These grades
are fairly short, but large trucks often cannot maintain the speed limit on these grades. In

addition, passenger cars often cannot pass slower moving trucks on these grades due to
sight distance restrictions.
The lower speed limits, signalized intersections, and steep grades all increase
travel time along existing US 221.
Current (year 2000) daily traffic volumes along US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton range between 4,900 to 9,900 vehicles per day. By the year 2025, US 221
will be operating at capacity, with traffic volumes projected to range between 8,200 to
16,500 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes in the vicinity of Rutherfordton are
shown on Figure 5.
The 1996-1998 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of
• corn pa/? Rutherfordton exceed the 1996-1998 statewide average for similar facilities. The fatal
wa den+ ow accident rate is almost double the statewide rate. The following table compares the
acc+ den
of accident rates for US 221 with the statewide rates.
6+4 de ^ 1996-1998 ACCIDENT RATFIS COMPARTSnN
QpFF14 rhfln s
m+ same
45 i ed.mant
4.1 Coasf
• ccu de,rl'
sb,,ovld bG
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/MVM) (ACC/MVM)
US 221 274.46 4.88
Statewide Average 222.35 2.81
Rural US Routes

Statewide Average
266.88 0.93
Urban US Routes
PROJECT SCHEDULE/COST
The project scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999. A citizens
informational workshop will be held and detailed environmental studies will begin for the
project following agency concurrence on alternatives to be carried forward.
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005
and construction is scheduled to begin sometime after 2006.
The most recent cost estimate for the project is as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 4,000,000
Construction $88,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $92,000,000
2
W
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS
Currently, only one portion of the US 221-NC 105 Intrastate Corridor is
multi-lane (see Figure 3). Projects to widen the remaining portions of the corridor to
multi-lane have been programmed in the TIP. Environmental studies have been
completed on one section of US 221 from south of I-40 to NC 226 in McDowell County
(TIP Project R-204). No environmental studies have been conducted for US 221 between
south of I-40 and the South Carolina Line. This portion of the Intrastate Corridor has
been divided into two large projects, TIP Project R-2597 and the subject project, TIP
Project R-2233. -Y- Ato(?_ +xrvi, Un, 7,q,6yp. -h,
Y
Although a part of the larger Intrastate Corridor, the proposed US 221
Rutherfordton bypass has independent utility, and represents a reasonable improvement
even if the remainder of the Intrastate Corridor is never built. Because the Rutherfordton
Bypass portion of R-2233 has independent utility and is the only portion of the project
currently funded, NCDOT proposes to limit the current project study to the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass. The study limits will extend far enough along existing US 221 to
prevent limiting alternatives for adjacent projects.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
R . u330aC?
Several alternatives have been developed in early planning for the project.
Concurrence Point 2 will involve the NEPA/404 project team's agreement on alternatives
to be studied in detail. Information regarding potential impacts of these alternatives will
be presented at today's meeting for the team's information.
Alternate Modes of Transportation
Considering the size and location of Rutherfordton, alternate modes of
transportation are not considered viable alternatives for the project. Increased rail service
and implementation of bus service in the project area would not eliminate the need for the
proposed bypass.
Improve Existing Facility
Widen Existing Facility
Widening the existing roadway would reduce congestion, improve safety, and
reduce travel time along US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. However, widening the
existing road would require the relocation of a number of homes and businesses and
severely impact a National Register-Listed historic district.
3
I
Widen Existing Facility With One-Way Pair Downtown
Widening existing US 221 and constructing a one-way pair within downtown is
being considered as an alternative. This alternative would improve safety, reduce
congestion and reduce travel time. However, this alternative would still relocate a
number of homes along the existing road. The alternative would also involve
construction within the Rutherfordton Historic District, although its anticipated no
properties within the historic district would be taken by the alternative.
Construct Bypass
A bypass of Rutherfordton would serve the purpose and need of the project by
reducing congestion, improving safety, and reducing travel time for traffic using US 221
in the vicinity of Rutherfordton. Proposed right of way for the bypass is 350 feet.
Alternative study corridors 1,000 feet wide have been developed for the project. Figure 2
presents all of the bypass alternatives investigated for the. project.
Relocation of homes and businesses, stream impacts, and impacts to historic
properties are expected to be the largest environmental concerns of constructing a bypass
of Rutherfordton.
Western Bypass Alternative
A bypass on the west side of Rutherfordton was shown on the 1976 Rutherford
County Thoroughfare Plan. Since development of the 1976 Thoroughfare Plan,
development has occurred west of Rutherfordton, making a western bypass less feasible.
A western bypass would cross a water supply watershed and would be longer than the
other bypass alternatives. In addition, a western bypass would not serve the towns of
Spindale and Ruth as well as an eastern bypass.
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 (Thoroughfare Plan Alternative)
Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 matches the alignment shown for the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass on the 1997 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 4).
It is anticipated this alternative and Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 would carry more traffic
than any of the other bypass alignments examined. This alternative would impact a
proposed county landfill and may impact a property listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
4
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2
Eastern Bypass Alternative 2 is similar to Eastern Bypass Alternative 1 and it is
anticipated would serve traffic as well. This alternative would avoid the proposed county
landfill and the national register-listed property.
US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative also involves constructing a bypass on the eastern
side of Rutherfordton. However, this alternative would utilize existing US 74A (Railroad
Avenue) for much of its length. This alternative is expected to relocate the greatest
number of homes and businesses of any of the bypass alternatives.
1 1359
l ? \ I 1329 \• \
V \
1357 A6id
% I• G \ 221 l y i
\1\
1356`"'1 1355 \\ \? \> ? '/•-/,,
l' -
395 1373` - ? ?'
-.J III ?-\C
c 1172
Ina
1.174
r
?nia 1 1 n7 ? ?' ? . , .
j nisi ?/ 41
I ?
r: 1 r
{%-' - RUT1 im Rorn I
ZOa
1161 FINOALE
.. I r
50 ti9aav_ l -:? ?--
5 t Htll \
/1154 ( ? ?' __
Ch.
1194 -, 1 ?Y I f1 744
1193•, r?
455
I
1155 14
?'•, 4i 74
a6 ci
1a7 '
M Calwwls 74 - t
207
1005 MC6
C 1? - _?"1141 1004 _
144 '` ,? 1 1139 `
G oy
Creek Ch. I13B'
(\ ?> > (:m''" ?' 118
I 1195 ""'y>
CF11
I 1
I 1106 ?
121a '
1126
1• ?I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS
i PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
i,
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
I
%
US 221
RUTHERFOROTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-22338
wil.
FIGURE I
/ 1559'
v- O K I LOb£TES25
?
` \ I MILES
1
G6+
PROJECT STUDY AREA
L?
\ g
1
Kani "g 1 I `1
1 \1
? l
\ I
% `? 221
I 1
,\ 1
\,I I \ I
1125 ' ,211
Og 111p1123 '.a - - 2114
'.
2109 _. /.
1124
1103 111112 % 1116 9p - \
Sand/ Sping. _ - - 1 I Cy0 /
Q1 02
210
U Q 1104 __ ,__ 1109 210
'it N_ ?•. .? 1106 1108 21 -1'
S. C 1110 ' 1 4 210a
_ 1111 /
' _ / I 1 1 13 1 2106 2105
SPARTAN - .L.1
G CO UI, TY /
I 221
S 0 U T H C A R 0 L 11 N CAS.
-------- - ---
I \
r
l
g r o v -o v Z se a n m n m :-
D D m< m O w n m N O n o n m p \ \\ ?' \( K c? 1`'
m (A V) m VA..
m (n E5 r- -4 -1
J
m m m z a a m ° m m
"V-1
° z 7 \ r; F/ /?Z r \ N C :j m 74 ? z v n z x z Z / .. r %. " . / r`.. • \ _ `c
D N 2 N N W
° W W co \' ?S .y^\ r ?r I: Yom, ` k$?, ('?1?
-? n a m
r Z D •D -1 - 1 `rte - \ '? ?yN , :):`;.?
LA (A LA Ln m
a r r r y ?\
M m o
m Z CC \? r, v ?G ! f
m n m m m m
pp
2 ZI
"-)
? N
7
z O ,
C r A N N N h4L
z x cu c? v V c C \ Y f / I•
m c p v o \,
`^
0m
m
m
Ile
I ,
/-
O O
\ - ,` ITS N p^ Rr
-i
00
it,
yai -?•: ?!. -?\l_ ,' 1? ,;ifs-,v,,?? _'?? - - - -04\\!
9`1 -` ,. ? ??G.;,' -r W _ 4? . ?{v by 1
IIk
? \4 S O
j r' M'Ll
j1
err
_ l
r
r
C
MA HLIN - EE SHEET 2 ,
'Nt
• \ •? f';- c,, ?•,•? •`i ? I ,t y$??" _ _', \ ,rte'.- ?
i ? °?.. ,s?-- `c•.{ L`? ? eb - 3?.,? . • I J ?. :v .... ?5l ; "4?L _ 1 j - ? , c9 ,,,f' t ,, --` -
C'j E's t Q ?
E
?; )?•
. e . d?_ r t a . ? r•.,' k'• • spa a ? . .?yi ? -'. t ?..
' f1
r.
e
•
-
?ro-
s, '-
•, S M-00-1Z
• r. 10 Z
{ .
? ? •„ cx??i R"?^„ ,.'4 r. (`p? ?i? ` v ?r? ? ? N L 0 o
N •?Qp
r "14 " ?T r ?4kti ?r ?n r.:G3. `' C :LJ A to Z
s Z o m
C_ -TI
t
?e «•' 1 ?? I O -l z n
Dm=00
DO?ZD
X21 d y ???°. S C # f S?` O Zm?
*v` ?j:? RKa1 /q f 1' W z z ?Zi tai) D '
f r t r
'1. 4 .`' fir; r? --- ?A(ft vtri 1, , W W NZ
T
fy o-si J'./f ! 2 ^ a/ `_ mil l,//' R •?/ ?Mu,y` F( ?R ?f tf 9C" N
77, 7-7
' ??• ? ? ? _ .-?` .? ? `? j it>, '??`? ?b. ray , ? ?g ??1:
\ \ ? y
\ J^
J ?
1v.
44
w
0
0
N
w
F -
LL
w Q
0
N
Q O w
U W
LLLL
?i.
0
N .
a
? N
Z
L)

1 W)
°6
I- N
CO Lk
L
Q 0

OM
T

N
N
_
u
Cl)

O
0
0
N
W
L~L
Q
cn
0
U
N
Z
J
H
J
z
W
t2 O
O
O
N
W
H
LL
F- Q
IL
2z
00
UU
N
wa
' Q
J
v s
m
O
O
N
W
L~L
?Q
0
L N CO
N
W O

M
W
V
LL
to
O
w
H
LL
o Q
M N V)
N Z
N O
U
- - -Y - -- t.,
E)
j i v
p
0 U-
0 ce
r
} s
0
CL-
?-
X
c'am`
J
0

Z
Q
J
0.
w
Q
LL
?i
V
M
0
w
O
T F-
0
V
0
ItlL
w
w
H
Li
T?
I
r {
r { a Ppa- g
S
® gg8
tL Of9 .? C l O $ t a g
CG OC = .ate' ? i ? a w M p `CCC ? ? b ? 3 .?
g
W
v
Cul)
d 1 ? s
d
U) $?
0 i ? S
4
?B I
A ? p
a T4
%

/ f`1 a rwyy ?"
f 4i 1
?
?
, a
J a'
??
wy ?
f g 9 A e
E
0
A ?
J q
s

,it
w
r?
V
US 221
0
8500 a
14300 r
SR 1527
SR 1351 8500
1 14400
SR 1355
8400
14100
SR 1367
8900
r-65 SR 1535
SR 1,536
m
op
0
SR 1005
?11200
US 74 BYPASS
5100
8500 R 2213
SIR 1148 1 4
4900?? °
8100
US 221 FIGURE 5
13000
TIP PROJECT R-2233 B
2000/2025 ADT VOLUMES
%US 64
o
8,100 3
13500 1 :........ ( o
US 74 BIDS/US 221A
URDTON?r 8100 ;`,?
1:.3500
8600 /
14200 i ?• :` SR 2201
,I
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
Nll 1 PEAK HOUR
0 P60
133) DIRECTION
%TTST %DUAL
SR 2194 NO SCALE
7400 7000
12500 1800
0
/4?J 1160 SR 1004 6600