r-2597&R-2040d+e

I lI up
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (c/o FHWA)
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sarah M`Bride, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Brian Wrenn, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gregory Christon, Isothermal RPO Transportation Planner
FROM: regory J. Thorpe, PhD., Directo ?t4-)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford
County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project
Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597 and
R-204 D&E
A merger team meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004 at 10:30 am in the Board Room of
NCDOT's Transportation Building in Raleigh. The meeting is being held to reach
concurrence on the Design Options for Detailed Study (Concurrence Point 2) for the
proposed improvements to US 221 in Rutherford and McDowell Counties (Projects
R-2597 and R-204 D&E). The design options report for this project is attached for your
review. After evaluating the design options, NCDOT recommends that the team select
the options described in the attached summary.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact John Wadsworth, P.E.,
Project Development Engineer, at [phone], extension 209.
Attachments
cc/att.: Ted Walls, NCDOT
Kevin Moore, NCDOT
Roger Bryan, NCDOT
Max Phillips, NCDOT
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT
Chris Underwood, NCDOT
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE INMYNCOOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
I ) 1 1
Neb Bullock, NCDOT
David Chang, NCDOT
Doug Calhoun, NCDOT
Gail Grimes, NCDOT
Stacy Baldwin, NCDOT
John Wadsworth, NCDOT
May 19, 2004
US 221
Projects R-2597/ R-204 D&E
McDowell & Rutherford Counties
Design Options Proposed for Concurrence Point 2
Advantages and Disadvantages
Al (West Side Widening): - Involves substantially fewer relocatees than A2
- Impacts approximately 1,300 more feet of stream compared to A2
B 1 (West Side Widening): - Potentially requires the relocation of the William Monteith House
historic property
- Avoids relocating Gilkey Lumber
- Involves fewer relocatees than AB 1
CI (West Side Widening): - Potentially requires the relocation of a cell tower and phone
switching station
- Requires $1 million less for construction compared to C2
- Requires approximately 700 more feet of impacted stream
compared to C2
D (Best Fit Alignment): - Requires temporary easements at Albert Weaver Farm
historic property
- Potentially requires retaining wall to avoid small portion
of the Second Broad River
E1 (West Side Widening): - Impacts more of an archaeological site on west side
- Avoids business on the east side near Muddy Creek
- Avoids a church on the east side of US 221
- Impacts approximately 700 less feet of stream compared to E2
F1 (West Side Widening): - Impacts small amount of stream
- Avoids a church south of I-40
G1 (West Side Widening): - Similar construction cost in the I-40 interchange area
- Appears to take less property from adjacent businesses
H (West Side Widening): - Avoids I-40
- Avoids a cemetery on the east side
- Relocates several residences
a?
?s
0
a ? v
0
_ N
E
?a
• a?
a0
?. o
CD O
? O
O y
aCD
S.
CL N
'.
n O
a ?.
O n
r O
O 10
(D
n
L O
a
0
OtZ CD
CD
N O
u ooa
a. ?
Cn CD
CD
a.
ti Cj
cD
<
` y
t a
C-D
O <
CL Ln
CD
aCD
0 0
uy
(D O
n
C
ag a
(D
? O
ao
cn
C o
o
? Y
? a
O a
CD
a
0

0

r" x x C 0 ^ n r
a a z z
w y o N o
O o ?. y
C o n 0. °-'-
o y a ?. LA
CD
Ln
r W
o
o
ra V).
a
?
a o
o
?
a. s p 0 7 , y

CD CA
o
CL

W c
En CD

o•

N

O
O N Ul
000 00
N
O
?F
O
O
O
A
O
V3 O r+
V1 ^
O O ?+ O ?I O O ?+ is O N ~
v
N
w
O O i
N w O * O ?] C O O N
00 A w
Ch
N t O O

O
O
O .A
?.
N
i
?-`
?F
O
i-+
?+
V1
O
? N C.\
? W
^
Cry
^

O
O v,
N
O
d(
O
O
N
O
O
w o a
W? N

tA, O O
O O G~ N O * O O ?- O J th
0
0 0 ° o o o 0 0 ?;, 0 , v,
0
00

O W
.-. w fin
~
O ul W ul
O
x
O
O
W
?+
p

Cn
O w ?
LL
^ N
N 00 00 ? n ?
^ O 00 Cn O is O O w 00 - N

s?

.-. w to ara
? O ? ? t j ?--• ?t• O O i-+ N G1 pip ? "J"
00 v O

N W

?
O
? W
J
O
?-•
O
O
?.
N
W f/3
O
^
?
C 00
w w
O N W v o -- O -- G1 W O C^h N

0

O
O 14
N
O
O
O
O
O
?+
?+
O fA
^
?
+

0
O O O O O O O N O O W N
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?.
o
o cn
;? o\
? G?

a\ ?.
0
0

o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
--
O
O U)
v ON

i.n N
C

O
O .?
? W
p
W
O
O
O
O
?+
C1
?+
;n
^
?"?
w
O ? N
J

.0
? d
O b
O
F4-
O
?
C ?O

f?q C
C

<7 J
s?
r
4
?v
N
0
0
I--]
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
'r°AY 1 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
DESIGN OPTIONS REPORT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Project Numbers R-2597 and R-204 D&E
State Project Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
May 2004
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 DESIGN OPTIONS ................................................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... ..1
1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ ..1
1.2.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives ...................................................... .. l
1.2.1.1 Study Area Segments ........................................................ ..2
1.2.1.1.1 Segment Al. ............................................... ..2
1.2.1.1.2 Segment A2 ............................................... ..5
1.2.1.1.3 Segment B 1 ............................................... .. 5
1.2.1.1.4 Segment B2 ............................................... ..6
1.2.1.1.5 Segment AB 1 ............................................ ..6
1.2.1.1.6 Segment C1 ............................................... ..6
1.2.1.1.7 Segment C2 ............................................... ..7
1.2.1.1.8 Segment D ................................................. ..7
1.2.1.1.9 Segment E1 ............................................... ..8
1.2.1.1.10 Segment E2 ............................................... ..8
1.2.1.1.11 Segment F1 ................................................ ..8
1.2.1.1.12 Segment F2 ................................................ ..9
1.2.1.1.13 Segment G1 ............................................... ..9
1.2.1.1.14 Segment G2 ............................................... ..9
1.2.1.1.15 Segment H ................................................. 10
1.2.1.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections ................................ 10
1.3 "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE .......................................................... 11
2.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 12
TABLES
Table 1.1 Study Area Segments ....................................................................................3
Table 1.2 Comparison of Study Area Segments ...........................................................4
Table 1.3 Summary of Design Criteria .......................................................................11
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1.2 Study Area Segments
Figure 1.3 Study Area Segment Alternatives
Figure 1.4 Typical Sections
May 2004
I
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Proiects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.0 DESIGN OPTIONS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing an
environmental document in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This is an informational
document intended for use both by decision makers and the public. As such, it represents
a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the proposed action.
The content of this document conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidelines, which provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural
provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (Technical
Advisory T6640.8A, October 1987).
The NCDOT proposes to improve a 19-mile (30.5-kilometer) portion of existing US 221
from Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell
County (see Figure 1.1). The proposed improvements are included as two projects in the
2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP Project R-2597
extends from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153). TIP Project
R-204 D&E extends from Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) to US 221-NC 226. The
purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service and increase safety
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
These projects are following North Carolina's NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement
process. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), FHWA, and NCDOT are the lead
agencies for these projects.
1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The alternatives considered for the project consist of the preliminary build alternatives
and the "do nothing" alternative.
1.2.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives
The development of preliminary alternatives commenced with the preparation of Land
Suitability Mapping (LSM) to determine constraints in the project study area. The
objective of the LSM was to facilitate conceptual layouts for the widening of US 221.
The development of preliminary alternatives was coordinated with federal and state
environmental regulatory and resource agencies in accordance with NEPA and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) agreement between the FHWA, COE, and
NCDOT.
May 2004
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.2.1.1 Study Area Segments
The project was divided into fifteen segments for evaluation purposes (see Figure 1.2).
These segments include east side or west side widening of the existing highway. Some of
these segments cover the same length along existing US 221 but include different
widening options (such as Segments A, B, C, E, F, and G). Some realignment is also
being considered to straighten the curves on US 221 between Thermal City and
Glenwood and near I-40. These study area segments are described below, summarized in
Table 1.1, and shown on Figures 1.3a-i. A comparison of the study area segments is
included in Table 1.2.
Four-lane divided sections are proposed for the project in order to improve the operating
conditions for through-moving traffic on this intrastate corridor. The proposed median
would also reduce the potential for turning accidents at driveways. A separate turn lane
would allow left turns or U-turns at designated intersections and median openings. A
46-foot (14-meter) median is generally proposed in rural areas with less development and
higher travel speeds. A 23-foot (7-meter) raised median is proposed to minimize
property impacts in areas with reduced travel speeds near Gilkey, the I-40 interchange,
and Marion. The proposed typical sections and design criteria are described in more
detail in Section 1.2.1.2 of this report.
The City of Marion and McDowell County officials and area citizens have commented
that they would prefer portions of five-lane sections along the proposed facility. The City
of Marion would prefer a five-lane section from Ashworth Road (SR 1168) to
US 221-NC 226 (along Segments E, F, G, and H). In addition, McDowell County
Emergency Management representatives would prefer a five-lane section to extend
southward from Ashworth Road to at least Mud Cut Road (SR 1135) (along Segment E)
to allow emergency vehicles to respond quicker by allowing left-turns at each road and
driveway. Some area citizens in Gilkey, Thermal City, and Glenwood prefer a five-lane
or a four-lane divided section with a narrow median to reduce property impacts.
However, the NCDOT would prefer to minimize the use of five-lane sections along
US 221. Research data concludes that median divided facilities improve travel speeds,
reduce congestion, and lower crash rates.
1.2.1.1.1 Segment Al
Segment Al begins at TIP Project R-2233 near Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and ends
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351), a length of approximately 2.2 miles (3.5 kilometers)
(see Figure 1.3a). This four-lane divided segment transitions from east side to west side
widening from its beginning point with TIP Project R-2233 near Gilboa Church Road
(SR 1532) to north of Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and continues widening on the
west side to south of Lane Road (SR 1376). From south of Lane Road (SR 1376) to
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351), this segment transitions back to east side widening
and the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
May 2004

w
cn

? N ?•+ N F-?
N Fr N ?-' N ?-+ N ?-- ? ?
p ?!
? A
O
z o 0 0 ?o ao °o 00 00 °o co co ?o dc?
0 o o
k-e . CD
`C 5-0
p'
0 0 O O t
o P'V O o O W OQ

A
> C) C)
O
O
O
O O O ate' as ..O ate" O 6 O ° ^ an

a C! Cn CD CD
° CD
a
a
a C/1

0
o+ N N ^ n O o
? N N J Cn O C C O "? W ?- a
° O o
o Cn o
o C/n v A cn 0
r. .. n v m ,
o °a C/)o cl v CN v' ° .?m
-.
C/) CL
v
ro M}y
N m
` ? N

`? O t h
N
N 0 O
O\
01% 00 0 CA Cn ?W a
^ ?
W ? C
SN -. C3

CN
00
00
LA C/) (A Ul
n rn O O ` v Jl? Cn O O d O
O O
O
O"
O 0 -.
O
O W
.Ni
° O
°
?'
O M `OA O
0
O O r
0 O uQ
Or 0 0
O
a

N- O ?-- O O - O vi W CJI W ?O vi w W ` - r -- -- H+ P N W N ..
?
?lJ 0C\ OCN ?--l 00\ W 10 w?0 DN O\0 C\0 w?1 cnN xU
Q

N
W rv ?'? a? ?
'
? sv W w ?'? w cD t? cD w c? 0 s.) W c? w w W c? CD w CD iv
+ a
'-' o
'". 1
-?
ms
D .* O
?
D Z3
'•' 0 ao
CD CL
CD
". CD
CD az
CD -no
CD -* =3
CD
'•' CD a?
CD ao
CD
CD CD
a (
a C
a a s a a a a a a a a s
a
a a a a ? _
z a
S ? ? z S p
S ('D
? (-D
S
.?
a 0 a?
a ?
0 S
CL S
as S
C:"
a -
r.)
CL cl,
a ca.
a -
a -
? a -
a as a ?o
ZS
Q. a a a a
a Q. s
a 0
Q. 0
°- a s
ar a Z3
a a Cl.
Z3 = a CD
In. m
cn
(D m
0
CD
0 In
0 r. Cn
(D
0 z cn
CD cn
"? CD v)
CD cl,
(D z m
CD V)
CD r. cn
(-D cn
CD

r- '.
or
r» r•.
a-
.» r.
r- r.
'- '.
o+
o r-
° r.
r-.
o r.
o r.
-- '.
r,
r- r•.
or ()
o r.

0

(D
^ ^ ^ -- o 'o c
0 0 0 0 0 . o . o o . o . o ? ? o c. o . ?

m
cn
O
O
c 0

?yl
?1
"?1 V)
h
M ?..1
V
O 0 O 0 O O CD

ON C\ W W C1 rn ?•
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w w
C%

c
C -0
-t .3
. 'd
?-f c
G C17 -» lTJ
.? ?]
r '•• c
h G , cc
G
- H Cr1
r h7 .• lTJ y c
G ?-3
• y
C ,-,. y ° to ° ?' .. y Cn H ? .. ?]

CD
O y
p

O
O
CD
CD
W

" y
p„ p
p CD

O (
D
py (D
cn y c•)
a W En

O r. Ca
to

r. p

a r+ M
p
n O
1
,-. w
ti O .

Cn
vo'

ao r-)

o
.-.

° fD cn '-1

1? r* .y

a w
O

CD ?•t

W
7 O
O O
CA rn cn rn . ,?
C/3 n n 7 (D N O
N (? O
Q :7,y
CD O-
(D -
?
. 1
cn v'
~
' L.,
T
a: o' a a a. o' a o' o' a (D a. o' a 0 (D o' a C) -' Q D
° ( a a .
cW„ o' (aD r
R.
O' Ci w o'
a < ' ?" ' ' ' ' C
C 7..• ti r?- .. G
?'- ?
(D a W '?1
1
/ ' ? ,
?• 00
a
a
N Q
o 0 < Vi ?
"'
cD a M
<
(D
a s L.h M Z• ..' M

n
7Q o
El R.
7Q
n 0
a co a. 0 .
1 0
`.
a 0
a CD
CD a
CD p
. , CD
a 0 W (D CD -. o
p O -•1 (D
rn O ?-1 0-
w (D 0 CD
a O
a
0 ° O
O

' CD

CD CD
' ...
O
' a
W
Z p?
' CD
O
E3 , a
CD
O a a
1-11
^
O
•
W C/)
M
? p cn CD
O (D
•
= O P
O
CD
O
alp O C/) O ,? CI
Q O W O 0 UQ Cf
q 7Q q
U
0 O
CM cn '
' C O CD a
En
-D
CD rA
O ~
O
co ti p CL O C") O O 'y P *
o O
o
a o
W
•n
o ca.

CD
0
CD
O
p 0
^
ti
;D. b
0 0 0
p
,•.
0
CD °°
?'
to
?"? ';
o'
O
C 0
:4 0 `< A G ?• ;a CD ,.., 2d O" 0 - C/] O N G O
O
O
y O .
p
O'
O r
O.
O ?G
0
0
CD
O
w
0
N
(? r
•.

°
A b CD
p
='
CD
?
p r . (n p . y O C\ .?, -• °? O C/] - " M . h - `G O ^ O O COQ h O C\ O. 0 r+ p +
.
a a O ?. Ci a p- -- w d a a
O ( (
a O En ° R. CD ° a' n CD CD CD CD c CD'
+ N
' p cD
g p- cD
r+
p a ' O w (7 w S x o
- ?
Uo w
a 7d
a
? a p ^ a Do ° a a a O a s
W x
o
O 0'0 ?, s
C
n ° O
CD Cn O N V] O w p
0 O w O C
h C
D ° W "15 . ?
N p- p ^ UQ ti CD. PZ? 0 G O c aj cD :v .? p r ° vo ao
.?,
O O
'"' cn -
Cn cn .?,
O (n
? o v 7?
O a w o' a
O w w
O C) Q
.. a
A ti
ti
(?
Z 7 a /
- co
o a n a O a a o o °' C,
a
v
C7 o
N ?^ ° 00
° ?:s
;
°
°
z
o
CD
°
o
°

a\ ° o.
°
°
o a
\
o
o a;
= ° b n
o W W o t)
tQ O
c g

0 .?
0 o CD
0 ? N
` w ti7
h 0 O
0 O O
0 O F; ?Ni H-
Ln p '••?+ J p ems' " W 3.
'-" ° o a C) a a o o o

I. -

o E
;
0

O C,
CD
t"
w CD
o

o
ar

o
a
o-
CCD
o
n
a.
a'
w o
V) o p o
COD

0 r.

7
O -°
n
a.
cn
(D
a

r .
y
a
^
°-

O
.? 0+
C/]

?7 c

O
1
N
C, C 0 Q.

:4
00 N
00 V) cn
1-,
cn
cn

1--1 ?' i--• ?' O V] O CIO
W
tv
'?
•? O 00 a cn p 0 CT CD O O1 CD
a a p- O (n C O a O
00 r n
a ° cra °~ 0

0
h
?
CD °
0 0
0 o
o (
D
CD

cn 5.
d CN
7?
ti `? N O n a0 ?. o a
a a a ,.o v . a
O CCD
on
C? w On
G
r. C C p
O N O
O
< N R
p
Q+
? y
w
? C
CD
ora ?
c?

a. o d
r Q- CD
?' CD o
CD Cs
0
°. CD
CD
ab
V.. ? o
CD
'CD
a
w
• a ?
O
w CD
w
D
C-D
°r C)
CD O
(D
C ?
aCD
(D
CD o
a ?.
o C'
? O
o b
CD
w ?
CL
C w
UCQ CD
CD M
a?
CD o
On
Q. an
CD
w ?
C
p ora
0
N
o
a ?
a
aCp
o
?Fl-
N ?
cD ?
CD
0
A:
a
. w
CD
QQ Cl.
Ej CD
C
O
r- 0
a o'
Ln
"
a?
o
C
o I a
p' w
? a
o b7
CD
a
0
a

0

?x-

CD
C
O CD
O
CD
w
° CD
w
° C
QQ P y
C cn
o ° y
C CD
cD r
C C CD
a y
h
Z C C
rD

r- C
as
? ?+

r7
, ? 0
It
0
CD ? p ?:t o h o' o y
a
a a C/
C ew
o c/ Y ;y
r co)
CD CD
OTI
Ln
a
V)
a
o
v
`?
° w a n Ln

w .. 0
o' a '-
CD
w cn
?
..
y
'

cD
w

N
O O 000 W N O O O O O IUS ono ON ^

O
O ^
G^N J
O
O
O
?-
O
N ..
O N

N
O O , O p N
00 4-1
W
N p O

O
o
O^
N
`-
O
..
Vi
O
?4 N G1
cn
a
O O O O O O iF O O -- O O O O
a\
O O CN
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
W
W N
a\
po

O
O
O ~
N
O
h
O
O
?-
O .6s Loll
J
^?

o w

O w O O O w CN

o w ?
O owo O x O O w 00 Ch ^rn N a

41,
? w
?
rn
w O j * O O ' - ?N C\ oho d co
(.A
00 ON 00
O
N W
O J o O O N w p
00
w w
LA
O ^ ~
N W
J
O
O
°?
w N
n
N
000

O

O
O
? N
O
O
O
O
O
?--
r•-•
O J
L
0
O O O O O O O ?-- N O O W
? N
0
O O o o O O o o ? o o ? ?
?
0
0

0
o
O
CD
O
O
o
O
o
o C'H
J
?.

O

O
O ^ N
o w
w
O
O
O
O
C\ b9 J
-.
x
? O J N
J
n
0
O•
?7
o y
cfl
?C F-?
? N
cD
A?
f'D
c9

Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Segment Al crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
2,7361inear feet (834 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost
$9.7 million for construction. Segment Al is estimated to relocate eight residences and
one business. No known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located
along this segment.
1.2.1.1.2 Segment A2
Segment A2 is similar to Segment Al, beginning at Old US 221 (SR 1536) and ending
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351) (see Figure 1.3b). Its length is approximately
2.7 miles (4.3 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment widens on the east side for its
entire length. From south of Lane Road (SR 1376) to south of Darlington Road
(SR 1351), the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment A2 crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
1,428 linear feet (435 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost
$10.4 million for construction. Segment A2 is estimated to relocate 30 residences, seven
businesses, and one cemetery. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.1.3 Segment B1
Segment B1 begins south of Darlington Road (SR 1351) and ends north of Gilkey School
Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3a).
West side widening is proposed for this segment, as a four-lane divided section with a
median width of 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment BI crosses two unnamed tributaries to Catheys Creek and impacts 524 linear
feet (160 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $4.15 million for
construction. Segment BI is estimated to relocate five residences, two businesses, and
one church. No known archaeological resources are located along this segment. The
widening of Segment 131 on the west side would impact the William Monteith House
historic property located on the west side of US 221, north of Darlington Road
(SR 1351). Segment B1 was developed in an effort to avoid substantial impacts to the
Gilkey Lumber Company, located on the east side of US 221, north of Darlington Road
(SR 1351). The Gilkey Lumber Company has indicated that if US 221 was widened on
the east side, they would lose one air-dry shed, 60% of their log yard, and the
re-circulating pond that supports the log yard. The Gilkey Lumber Company indicated
that these losses would put them out of business, impacting 60 employees, their families,
and approximately 48 loggers who employ two to eight man crews, which supply the
lumber company with its inventory (refer to letter in the Appendix). The narrower
median is proposed in this area to minimize impacts to adjacent properties within the
Gilkey community. The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in
this area.
May 2004
5
I
Design Options Report
is US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.2.1.1.4 Segment B2
19 Segment B2 is similar to Segment 131, beginning south of Darlington Road (SR 1351)
and ending north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3b). East side widening is proposed for this segment, as a
four-lane divided section with a median width of 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment B2 crosses two unnamed tributaries to Catheys Creek and impacts 566 linear
feet (173 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $3.6 million for
construction. Segment B2 is estimated to relocate two businesses. No known
archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment B2 widens on the east
side to avoid potential impacts to the William Monteith House historic property located
on the west side of US 221, north of Darlington Road (SR 1351). However, widening on
the east side would have substantial impacts to the Gilkey Lumber Company, previously
described under Segment B1. The narrower median is proposed in this area to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey community. The existing speed limit
and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.5 Segment AB1
Q Segment AB I begins south of Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and ends north of Gilkey
School Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) (see
® Figure 1.3a). This four-lane divided segment shifts west of existing US 221 near Gilboa
Church Road (SR 1352) and follows a new alignment traveling west of the William
Monteith House historic property, located on the west side of US 221, north of
Darlington Road (SR 1351). Segment AB1 crosses Darlington Road (SR 1351) and
follows Sorrels Road (SR 1363) as it ties into existing US 221 north of the Gilkey School
Road (SR 1362) southern intersection. This four-lane divided segment includes a 23-foot
(7-meter) median.
19 Segment AB 1 crosses two unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts 511 linear
® feet (156 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $4.5 million for
construction. Segment AB 1 is estimated to relocate 17 residences and one business. No
® known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment AB 1 follows a
new alignment west of the current US 221 to avoid potential impacts to the William
Monteith House historic property located on the west side of the roadway, north of
Darlington Road (SR 1351). The narrower median is proposed in this area to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey community. The existing speed limit
and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.6 Segment C1
Segment Cl begins north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362) and ends north of Coney
Island Road (SR 1501), a length of approximately 3.9 miles (6.3 kilometers) (see
Figure 1.3c). This four-lane divided segment transitions to west side widening from its
beginning point to Catheys Creek and the median width increases from 23 feet (7 meters)
to 46 feet (14 meters). Segment C l continues widening on the west side to south of
May 2004
6
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Coney Island Road (SR 1501). From south of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) to north of
Coney Island Road (SR 1501), this segment transitions back to east side widening.
Segment Cl crosses five streams, including Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to Cherry Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River. It impacts 3,134 linear feet (955 meters) of stream channel and is
estimated to cost $14.4 million for construction. Segment C l is estimated to relocate
16 residences and three businesses. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources are located along this segment. A number of utility conflicts are anticipated
along this segment in the vicinity of Crutchfield Road (SR 1323) due to a cellular phone
tower and a telephone switching station.
1.2.1.1.7 Segment C2
Segment C2 is similar to Segment Cl, beginning north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362)
and ending north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) (see Figure 1.3d). Its length is
approximately 3.9 miles (6.3 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment widens on the
east side for its entire length. From north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362) to Catheys
Creek, the median width increases from 23 feet (7 meters) to 46 feet (14 meters).
Segment C2 crosses five streams, including Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to Cherry Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River. It impacts 2,386 linear feet (727 meters) of stream channel and is
estimated to cost $15.2 million for construction. Segment C2 is estimated to relocate
18 residences and three businesses. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources are located along this segment. A number of utility conflicts are anticipated
along this segment in the vicinity of Crutchfield Road (SR 1323) due to a cellular phone
tower and a telephone switching station.
1.2.1.1.8 Segment D
Segment D begins north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) and ends north of Old US 221
(SR 1786), a length of approximately 5.6 miles (9.0 kilometers) (see Figures 1.3e and f).
The segment is a four-lane divided section with a median width of 46 feet (14 meters). It
widens on the east side from north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) to north of Thermal
City Road (SR 1321). From north of Thermal City Road (SR 1321) to Polly Spouts Road
(SR 1781), this segment transitions to west side widening. It continues to widen on the
west side from Polly Spouts Road (SR 1781) to north of Old US 221 (SR 1786).
Segment D crosses 13 streams, including Stoney Creek, ten unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River, Rockhouse Creek, and Scrub Grass Branch. It impacts 3,268 linear
feet (996 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost $68.7 million for
construction. Segment D is estimated to relocate 12 residences and one business. No
known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment D includes east
side widening through Thermal City to avoid potential impacts to the Albert Weaver
Farm historic property located on the west side of US 221 at Thermal City Road
(SR 1321). In the vicinity of Vein Mountain and the Second Broad River, this segment
transitions between east and west side widening to realign several curves while
May 2004
7
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
minimizing impacts to the adjacent communities. A number of utility conflicts are
anticipated along this segment in the vicinity of Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and
Glenwood due to potential impacts to high tension transmission lines located along
US 221. In addition, there is a substation adjacent to US 221 across from the Albert
Weaver Farm.
1.2.1.1.9 Segment E1
Segment El begins north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) and ends north of Ashworth Road
(SR 1168), a length of approximately 3.2 miles (5.1 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3f). This
four-lane divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length. Near Ashworth
Road (SR 1168), the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet
(7 meters).
Segment E1 crosses seven streams, including one unnamed tributary to Second Broad
River, two unnamed tributaries to Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary
to Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek, and North Muddy Creek.
It impacts 1,038 linear feet (316 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost
$10.3 million for construction. Segment E1 is estimated to relocate 12 residences and
four businesses. An archaeological site is located on the west side of US 221 near North
Muddy Creek. No historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.1.10 Segment E2
Segment E2 is similar to Segment E1 beginning north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) and
ending north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) (see Figure 1.3g). Its length is approximately
3.2 miles (5.1 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment transitions to east side
widening from north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) to north of Mud Cut Road (SR 1135) and
continues widening on the east side through Glenwood to north of Ashworth Road
(SR 1168). Near Ashworth Road (SR 1168), the median width decreases from 46 feet
(14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment E2 crosses seven streams, including one unnamed tributary to Second Broad
River, two unnamed tributaries to Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary
to Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek, and North Muddy Creek.
It impacts 1,731 linear feet (528 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost
$10.7 million for construction. Segment E2 is estimated to relocate 10 residences, six
businesses, and one church. An archaeological site is located on the west side of US 221
near North Muddy Creek. No historic architectural resources are located along this
segment.
1.2.1.1.11 Segment F1
Segment F1 begins north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) and ends south of the I-40
interchange, a length of approximately 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3h). This
four-lane divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length and includes a
23-foot (7-meter) median.
May 2004
8
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Segment Fl does not cross any streams. However, 225 linear feet (69 meters) of one
stream is impacted by the segment. This segment is estimated to cost $2.75 million for
construction. Segment F1 is estimated to relocate one residence and one business. No
known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment F1 includes
west side widening with a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize potential
impacts to adjacent properties in the vicinity of the I-40 interchange, including the
B.G. Hensley House historic property located on the east side of US 221 near Old US 221
(SR 1786). The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.12 Segment F2
Segment F2 is similar to Segment F1, beginning north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) and
ending south of the I-40 interchange, a length of approximately 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers)
(see Figure 1.3i). This four-lane divided segment widens on the east side for its entire
length and includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median.
Segment F2 does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$3.1 million for construction. Segment F2 is estimated to relocate two businesses, one
church, and no residences. No known archaeological resources are located along this
segment. Segment F2 includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize
potential impacts to adjacent properties in the vicinity of the I40 interchange, including
the B.G. Hensley House historic property located on the east side of US 221 near Old
US 221 (SR 1786). The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in
this area.
1.2.1.1.13 Segment G1
Segment G1 begins south of the I-40 interchange and ends north of the I-40 interchange,
a length of approximately 0.6 miles (1.0 kilometer) (see Figure 1.3h). This four-lane
divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length. The bridge over I-40 is
proposed to be stage constructed and would require some realignment of the interchange
ramps.
Segment G1 does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$7.6 million for construction. Segment G1 is estimated to relocate one business. No
known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
Segment G1 includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize impacts in the
vicinity of the I-40 interchange. In addition, some type of control of access is typically
provided approximately 1,000 feet (304.8 meters) on either side of the interchange,
usually by providing a median with no median crossovers. The existing speed limit and
proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.14 Segment G2
Segment G2 is similar to Segment G1 beginning south of the I-40 interchange and ending
north of the I-40 interchange (see Figure 1.3i). Its length is approximately 0.6 miles
(1.0 kilometer). This four-lane divided segment transitions from east side to west side
widening from south of I-40 to north of I-40. The bridge over I-40 is proposed to be
May 2004
9
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
stage constructed and would require some realignment of the interchange ramps. The
segment has a 23-foot (7-meter) median.
Segment G2 does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$7.5 million for construction. Segment G2 is estimated to relocate one business. No
known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
Segment G1 includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize impacts in the
vicinity of the I-40 interchange. In addition, some type of control of access is typically
provided approximately 1,000 feet (304.8 meters) on either side of the interchange,
usually by providing a median with no median crossovers. The existing speed limit and
proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.15 Segment H
Segment H begins north of the I-40 interchange and ends at US 221-NC 226 in Marion, a
length of approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3h). This four-lane
divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length and includes a 23-foot
(7-meter) median.
Segment H crosses three unnamed tributaries to Youngs Fork. It impacts 230 linear feet
(70 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost $5.7 million for construction.
Segment H is estimated to relocate six residences and one business. No known
archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections
Table 1.3 presents a summary of the roadway design criteria used to develop the
proposed preliminary alternatives. These criteria are based on the project's function,
classification, and design speed and guided by the standards of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The proposed improvements consist of widening US 221 from a two-lane roadway to a
four-lane divided roadway. The study will evaluate widening to the east side and west
side of the existing highway and straightening the curves on US 221 between Thermal
City and Glenwood and near I-40. Several proposed typical sections have been identified
for further study. These include a four-lane divided segment utilizing shoulder, curb and
gutter, or expressway gutter. Figures 1.4a and 1.4b present the typical mainline
cross-sections for the four-lane divided and four-lane divided with raised median
sections, respectively. As shown on Figure 1.4a, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes are
proposed for each direction of travel, separated by a 46-foot (14-meter) median. The
four-lane divided typical section with raised median shown on Figure 1.4b also includes
two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes for each direction of travel, separated by a 23-foot
(7-meter) raised median.
The total right of way is proposed to be a minimum of 200 feet (60 meters). Figure 1.4c
includes typical sections for the proposed bridge over I-40 and proposed ramps.
May 2004
10
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Table 1.3
Summary of Design Criteria
Design Control Unit US 221
-L- US 221
Gilkey &
Marion areas US 221
Thermal City
area US 221
I-40 area Ramps
Classification rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial
Terrain Type mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous
Design Speed mph
(km/hr) 60(100) 50(80) 60(100) 50(80) 50(80)
Proposed Right-of-Way
Width ft (m) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 75 (22.5)
outside
Control of Access partial partial partial partial full
Typical Section Type 4-lane
divided* 4-lane divided 4-lane
divided* 4-lane divided 1-lane*
Lane Width ft (m) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 16(4.8)
Median Width ft (m) 46(14) 23 (7) raised 46(14) 23 (7) raised n/a
Shoulder Width (total) berm berm
Median ft (m) 6(l.8) n/a 6(l.8) n/a 12(3.6)
inside
Outside w/o Guardrail ft (m) 10(3) 10(3) 10(3) 10(3) 14(4.2)
Outside w/ Guardrail ft (m) 13(4) 14(4.2) 13(4) 14(4.2) 17(5.2)
Paved Shoulder
Outside TotaUFDPS** ft (m) 4(l.2) n/a 4(l.2) n/a 4(l.2)
Median Total/FDPS** ft (m) 2(0.6) n/a 2(0.6) n/a 4(l.2)
inside
Typical Section Figure Figure 1.4a Figure 1.4b Figure 1.4a Figure 1.4c Figure 1.4c
Notes: * Areas will be considered for expressway gutter
** FDPS represents full depth paved shoulder
1.3 "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during project development. Although this
alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated as
a result of the project, there would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety
of the highway. In fact, the "do nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to future
traffic operations in the area. Enhanced safety and greater traffic carrying capacity are
needed along this facility. For this reason, the "do nothing" alternative is not
recommended.
May 2004
11
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
2.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001. A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Fourth Edition.
Federal Highway Administration. October 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8A.
May 2004
12
FIGURES
e ee 000 (D ® 0000000000000000000 0 0

C
S
m
n
0
0
0
~O
i f m
?1 O 4 .? - - i
CNT1 !_ t
a -
0 T'
m
t ,
1
t •
F s.
?+1 -?
?Ct
%
•IN Old 'f r , i...............
O
O
A
O
CO
H O
i \ 1 ( r? r ' e?dO? F 1 ?f
r.
I ;.
O 2t
cn 3 s
V ° m a A ? C3 m i /.
O . o u3+ v `-. O (D u3 r.L
N
N fD? ,-? °? ?.
CO G1 -N .
N
4
w
?A
Ul
41-
O , N to \,
C O Z _ OQ
RCN p ' f?o
I CD n
m o z c o j O O' 1+. O? (R 1153
3 9c,
Z CD
0 ;U :3
v J ?Q
N o° N cn Q° ?O 1
-4
c) C)
?o a y 3 l
0 (

z
G) 0 D
w /
3 O W 7 1)-_ p
0
co
'
D ; w- N

0 00

-j CCDO
-tom' ?,.' / - _ ??? -?\ \ /? _.. -- ? lases I / _ ? \\•? _ ?? ( )
a.- J
o
(D
a y ;o
cn 'N
1
.
,, v 111
!
fI)-
t
?f .
t-
i
- ?z -
cl,
:
?r? r - it 1 it r J \?,-i
?f
_ y
C)^o
_i - - q p
t
N ,
p•
m a d o o
to `G rn ' Zm Ce / % C q c CL ON
O 4 w d \ (? /
p) W N cn % i i ( p` 11•?
- -13
iv rn o
o i N o 1 ?> y,. /, ti
CD =r
rN)
iDl
(D Z Cf) (D
N y tp W n_ 7 3
A 3 a a N U7 Sp v ?, •+'. ?` i lrrO
a
CA) co
-4 Oz.
CL O o0
ID (=D
0) 04
C) El
or,
ww s '
z 0 o 3, - o ??• •?•?
z ° 90 7
U CD C: ;:L
;r 0 1-11 C)
-0 co
O ?. o o O J
M
C
3 y p 7 f j ?
3
CD co 0
a E? CD =r
00000000 0 VP
%
-\ r \

f
0

\ \
o 0'
m
?
A ?cp
0
7

3?0
1
-Po- -- I
0
s?
of
I'D '--l
cPo??
y_
m

cc)
0

? a w I ? I? +,?o A* f r
Ul + JI
0 7 d
m ? v c ?, o o iv 0 ? J
0
W
0
o>
IV
N
41
co

=q r -- ?.:
0 w N Q c n°N * j>
a ?
C:) CL
Cl)
d
o? -
T
3 p
H (D
O®1 i l

N
v, g _ 0 z
g g 0 c
En?

CO
N
5• H LD N
3 m cc
a
.1 N ?
to
N -aa
0 z? 20 0 z
N N r
-? N
= A t?0
_ X23 m ? V
0 1 ?.
3
a
a ? o
m?
N
C
?_;
N 0
o ?3
CD Cn
N OX
? N U1
N ? W
CAD =
v =
m 0
ao ::r
1
N ? O
C,
go o
m :
,z
O
N
0
N
0z
?
CD
0
0 O

CD

m?

m
1 ? N
i
`° - G0°se Cr
0 eek
017 - i ?l lsR `? 15??
10
II ?I
co 7 cC3 cn?
Co O. 8 r
5-0
co 0
0
;u
N -n
N ((O N
°? v ! JS
90
m 4
ti
o cl it
3
f
:3
030
:3 m
0 :3
90 CD
01 '
U) I/
W
v
0
I

i

` C°o
?? nR
00
l `
N
00
••
0 0
go
0 0
we
3 'nom n »
w
to
g I
w owi
oPr
a
cn ao
?c? ?ilr
? m Z. ??? Sa
?? ZfA
N ?
® N 0) c I d
w N cw" <
8 ? v ? a
0
C-L 0=
y al
w MZ
E y .?
as C O 7
3
N to
00000000000000900

O
P'l i
0 0
as
00
!•
00
go

a

0
0
0

C
it

0
c
o 21-
o-
c w

f a C. d V O Q
E -a v v
c

3NIOd 3JNIH c -o
O O 0 N
v '
' a-c S O?
0
i w C j
51
U
0 06 O O
In
C h
•C
•
t C ?
o
E M?
`n
-
o
O N
O C in C14 1
N
a C
c>
NV °-

F -0 Z
° L.
E - v
n
V
N

r „ O
.
N 4 _
CL-
N S F-
t u

CL

$
O
N
F-
Z u?

E
O
e

o
z
t 0 ° r ?
J
? • D P FPS
U.
U
W
V)
J
V

J a..
N
N
E
Lt) LU

w
Z
s
o

0
E L.
00
0
F?
E
LNIOd 3`JNIH
E
i?
O
C
O
O - ? UJ
°
t
Q C dS
o c V ?p
am o
'^ E vVv
C ? - o
O
N
0
.
:
O C S .L O

m
C N •C ? h
6. E >. M ,Q Ln

r

ti•
C
L ,n N CI
O C .-N Q'
V Q
cQ NZ U
0? E
CN N
0
"" a
o
H a
NSF' u
CL
E?c O N
'
ry°
o Y Z cn
_
tN ?,• MO J?J
eO` ?6
i ..?a.
v
?

? Z
0 ?
?.rJ
t?? cm
LL
E V
W ? S n r'"
N Z
Q Q
VD
I
I
?
r
"i i N

I
I N W N_
D > d
1
2
w?
E

F
0
O_
E?a
" E
ti s'
0
c
o
t o
`
o
o
c
aal U o?
'^ E -a u
c
c " - O
O N N
3
0
o c x t
w r ?0-o
<
O]
C 1?
c yF
C7 a) y
n. E T M ,o `n
a
C4
Lo
D O C N
?
VI

F
N ?U
a >a
C O Z U
o
c

0 S
0 1 E U
m
1NIOJ 39NIH > F o
0 C%4
(J ,0 N d N
V
L/9 d
°_ N??"

a
> O N ?.
F Z N F-
D
f
Nf. wa ??
b t
V
O
o
r
n i
iNiOJ 30NIH
Q?
„ « =
,4
I U-
? E ?
h :r ? O Z ? S• P'P
? 0

LUU

F
O w w
m Ow

it o Z
J
? wLg
-- --- - N Q
VI (/? cT----= - - - N =

tj L.
f N

= G- ;
_ l
F L

F
Ho
?-
J

LNIOJ 39NIH Z N
() D

F F
4

n
APPENDIX
5 cz
eeaev? , / (
2250 US Hwy 221 North Rutherfordton, North Carolina 2E
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Mr. John C. Wadsworth, P.E.
State of NC
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleiqh, N. C. 27699-1548
Dear John,
Thank you so much for taking the time to visit our company yesterday. Your attention to
our concerns of the widening of US Hwy 221 is greatly appreciated.
Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc. was founded in 1953 by my father, Jess Parton and has been in
operation in the same location since that time.. We are a hardwood mill that currently
produces 15 million feet. of lumber a year. We have an employee base of approximately 60
and a gross annual payroll of $2.02 rnillion. We pay approximately $40,000 annually in
property tax and with our new expansion expect the bill to increase substantially.
Expansion for Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc. has been a problem over the years. The company is
located with Hwy 221 on.the west and railroad tracks on the east side. About 15 years ago
the railroad was abandoned and we were able to purchase land on the north end across the
tracks. At that time, we were able to complete a major expansion with our company on the
property.
Another problem. Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc. has experienced over the years is that there is no
pub!ic'later in the Gilkey Community. Gilkey.Lumber has worked for over 10 years to get a
water line to the community.
About 4 years ago we purchased a 6,500-9allon stainless steel tanker to haul water in order
to have enough water to supply our boiler which supplies steam to the dry kilns.
Just this past year a water line is in the process of being laid that will enable us to expand
our dry kilns.
State of NC Department of Transportation
Page - 2
We have 3 air drying sheds that hold approximately 2.3 million feet of lumber. By looking at
your map where the new road expansion would be the construction would take one of our air-
dry sheds. There is no way that we can operate our dry kilns on just 2 air-drying sheds.
The loss of a dry shed would be a great detriment, but the most injurious result would be all
expansion of Gilkey Lumber would halt.
But the most important loss of land would be our log yard. As we showed you yesterday we
have a concrete pad that measures 200' x 225', 10" to 12" deep with double layered rebar
and stores 1.25 million feet of logs for winter inventory. The logs are sprinkled with water
during summer months to hold logs and without the added moisture the logs would be ruined.
By your estimate we would lose approximately 60% of the concrete pad used for storage.
We would lose the re-circulating pond below the concrete pad that we use to sprinkle logs.
We are permitted through NC DEHNR to operate these re-circulating ponds. As you saw
when we toured the log yard there is no room to expand or relocate the log yard and pond.
On September 7, 2001, I came to Raleigh to meet with Jimmy Norris, Roadway Project
Engineer. In our meeting we discussed future widening of Hwy 221 and the expansion plans
that we had for Gilkey Lumber. Phase 1 of our expansion plans was to add $3.85 million
addition to current mill operations. Mr. Norris advised me to go ahead with expansion.
Because of possible widening of Hwy 221, we rerouted the mill layout to the backside or
east side of our existing mill. We are currently implementing our initial start up of Phase 1.
Phase 2 of our plans was to add 2 dry kilns in 2004-2005 and also add a 4th air drying shed.
This phase would cost our company approximately $2 million and would result in increased.
production of 30-35% and increase our labor base.
With the current plan for the widening of Hwy 221 Gilkey Lumber would lose 1 air-dry shed,
60% of our log yard and the re-circulating pond that supports the log yard. These losses
would put the lumber company out of business directly impacting 60 employees and their
families and approximately 48 loggers who employ 2-8 man crews, which supply us with our
inventory. At this time, Rutherford County has the highest rate of unemployment in the
state and the loss of Gilkey Lumber Co. would only acerbate the situation.
In addition to the loss of the lumber company the local service center would also be out of
business - which would impact even more families and the community as a whole.
There are currently 4 houses located across Hwy 221 from Gilkey Lumber along with the
church on the corner. Two of the houses have been unoccupied for 15 years or more - the
other two are older homes. The church has indicated that they would like to move. Sitting
so close to the Hwy doesnt afford them much room for their children to safely play and
with the widening, their safety is even more of a concern.

State of NC Department of. Transportation
Page - 3
We respectfully request that you alter the widening plans to move land acquisitions on the
west side of the highway and allow the ownership of the land on the east side to remain with
Gilkey Lumber Co.
Sincerely,
Mike Parton,
Secretary
Cc: Charles Hill, Chairman County Commissioners
Brent Washburn, County Commissioner
John Condrey, County Manager
J r 57N[ a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GovERNoR SECRETARY
August 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Debbie Barbour, NCDOT Preconstruction WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Roy Shelton, NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Mary Pope Fun, NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE "IUD ? 5 200,1
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Brian Overton
WATER QU
, ALITY $
ECTI
Kevin Moore NCDOT Roadway Design Unit ON
Nya Boayue, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Max Phillips, NCDOT Division 13
Brian Skeens, NCDOT Division 13
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Neb Bullock, NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Emily Lawton, Federal Highway Administration
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Angie Pennock, US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Brian Wrenn, NC Dilvissiion of Water Quality
FROM: John Wadsworth Z
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: R-2597 and R-204D&E, Rutherford-McDowell Counties, Widening of US
From SR 1536 in Rutherford County to NC 226 in McDowell County
Attached for your information and use are minutes of the Merger Team meeting for Concurrent
Point No. 2, Meeting No. 2, on the subject projects. Also attached is a copy of the signed concurrence
form for Concurrence Point No. 2, Design Options for Detailed Study. Please review the meeting
summary and advise me of any corrections required.
Thank you for your assistance in reaching this point in the project planning and environmental
process.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: MM.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
e.? swc
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING MINUTES
DATE: August 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Summary of Merger Team Meeting, August 17, 2004, US 221 from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project
Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
FROM: John Wadsworth, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PARTICIPANTS: Debbie Barbour NCDOT Preconstruction
John Wadsworth NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Roy Shelton NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Matt Wilkerson NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Brian Overton NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Kevin Moore NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Nya Boayue NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Max Phillips NCDOT Division 13
Brian Skeens NCDOT Division 13
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Greg Atkins Buck Engineering
Mark Reep Buck Engineering
Greg Price Buck Engineering
Ken Gilland Buck Engineering
Neb Bullock NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Emily Lawton Federal Highway Administration
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Angie Pennock US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Renee Gledhill-Earley NC Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Brian Wrenn NC Division of Water Quality
A Merger Team meeting was held on August 17, 2004 to review the alignment alternatives (design
options) for the subject improvements to US 221 (Projects R-2597/ R-204 D&E). The purpose of the
meeting was to reach concurrence on the design options to be studied in detail in the environmental
document for the project (Concurrence Point 2). John Wadsworth welcomed the Merger Team
participants. Mark Reep provided background information on the design options that have been
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: WMi.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2004
Page 2
considered for the project, including the design options requested during the previous Merger Team
meeting. The alignments are summarized as follows:
• Al (West Side Widening) and A2 (East Side Widening)
• B1 (West Side Widening), B2 (East Side Widening) and B3 (Formerly ABI - Avoidance
alternative for the Monteith Historic Property)
• C1 (West Side Widening), C2 (East Side Widening), and C (Best Fit alignment)
• D (Best Fit Alignment), with bridge option EE/EW (retains use of current US 221 bridge)
• El (West Side Widening)and E2 (East Side Widening)
• FI (West Side Widening) and F2 (East Side Widening)
• G1 (West Side Widening) and G2 (East Side Widening)
• H' (Best fit alignment).
Concurrence was reached that the following alignments would be carried forward for the US 221
environmental assessment: Al, B1, B2, B3, C, D (without the EE/EW bridge option), E1, Fl, F2, GI,
G2, and H.
Additional items of discussion are summarized as follows:
• Ms. Pennock asked if a best fit alternative could be explores for Segment A. Mr. Reep and Mr.
Atkins provided input on issues associated with transitioning from west side widening to east
side widening.
• Ms. Pennock will work with Mr. Price to verify the remaining streams and wetlands in the
project area.
• Mr. Militscher asked about the number of river crossings with Segments Al and A2.
• Ms. Gledhill-Earley mentioned that Gilbert Town (a village dating to the Revolutionary War era)
may be located along Segment A. Mr. Wadsworth stated that an archaeological screening would
be done on both sides of the Segment A alignment and that modifications to the Alignment
would be made if resources were encountered.
• Ms. Buncick and Mr. Militscher asked about the potential of the Segment Al alignment to
impact a stream running parallel to US 221. Mr. Atkins stated that retaining walls could be used
to minimize impacts to the stream. It was noted that this potential impact would be discussed in
the Concurrence Point 2a meeting on crossings.
• Mr. Hennessy asked about the time required to complete a 4(f) assessment. Ms. Lawton stated
that the timeline for approval was not expected to extend to a year.
• Mr. Wadsworth stated that Segment B 1 is NCDOT's preferred alternative to minimize impacts to
industry and residences. However, he specified that Segments B2 and B3 would be evaluated as
avoidance alternatives in a Section 4(f) evaluation.
.
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2004
Page 3
• Mr. Wrenn noted the potential stream impacts in Segment C and stated that the replacement of a
6-box culvert at Catheys Creek with a bridge would need to be explored prior to the Concurrence
Point 2a meeting.
• Ms. Buncick and Mr. Militscher asked for a review of the calculated number of stream crossings
in Segments C1, C2 and the Best Fit C alignment.
• Mr. Reep noted that Segment D contained the steepest terrain in the study area, and noted the
need to avoid the historic Albert Weaver Farm and the Second Broad River. These factors
limited design options for this segment, and led to the development of a best fit alignment.
• Mr. Hennessy further discussed split median concepts during the meeting with Mr. Reep and Mr.
Atkins. The need to straighten curves on US 221 to meet geometric design standards and to
minimize impacts to the Second Broad River led the Merger Team to conclude that the split lane
concept would have greater stream impacts.
• Ms. Buncick asked if the existing pavement that would be abandoned under the Segment D
alignment could be removed. Mr. Wadsworth stated that since there were no houses in the area,
it was likely that the pavement could be removed if no access to properties along the existing US
221 was required.
• Mr. Atkins noted that retaining walls could be explored to further minimize stream impacts in
Segment D.
• Mr. Phillips stated that removal of the box culvert in segment D should be explored.
• Mr. Wadsworth noted that data recovery would likely be proposed for potential impacts to the
known archaeological site near Muddy Creek in Segment E1.
Ms. Chambers noted the stream impacts associated with Segment F1 and asked if F2 and G2
could be carried forward for evaluation.
• Mr. Reep noted that retaining walls may be able to limit stream impacts in Segment F1. Ms.
Buncick asked if right-of-way could be extended to protect the protected stream from subsequent
development.
• Mr. Atkins noted that the I-40 ramp in Segment G2 may provide some design concerns.
• The meeting ended with the Merger Team agreeing with Concurrence Point 2 as described on the
attached concurrence form.
• Mr. Militscher asked about the current typical section for Segment H, a proposed four-lane
divided, 23-foot raised median section.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact John Wadsworth, Project
Development Engineer at [phone], ext. 209.
cc: Meeting Participants
Merger Team Members
Attachments
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA Document
Proicet No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
Alternative(s) Selected for Detailed Stud
1. West side widening along the Segments Al, B1, E1, F1, and G1.
2. East side widening along the Segments B2, F2, and G2
3. Best fit widening with minor relocations in the Vein Mountain area to address
substandard horizontal curvature in Segments C, D, and H
4. Avoidance of Montieth House Historic Property in Segment B3.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of August 17, 2004 with the selection of the
above noted Alternative(s) to be evaluated in detail for TIP Nos. R-2597 and R-204 D&E.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation

? f ( -1 ( - z,5-61 l Ll5 l?'? ` ?.?-III * ?AJ 4 C).
Y WE?,? V)
A -L -- easF si k w ? d",;WtVLt

C(oc-zv- 4U
CTS n `?(\, \\? ^ ^ ?1 s

CQ-TT t? I T?j

Cb )
LtCL- o?
ice. E154

Stream Status and Impacts Table for TIP R-2597 and R-204D&E
Stream Stream Channel Westside Eastside Realignment Besttit
No. Name Status Widening Widening Impacts Impacts
Impacts Impacts
I UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
2 UT to Mountain Perennial Al A2
Creek 149 ft 39 ft
3 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
4 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
5 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
6 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
7 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
8 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
9 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
10 UT to Mountain Outside Project
Creek Area
11 UT to Mountain Outside Project
Creek Area
12 UT to Mountain Perennial Al A2
Creek 81 ft 81 ft
13 UT to Mountain Intermittent/ Al A2
Creek Perennial No Impact 80 ft
14 UT to Mountain Perennial Al A2
Creek 229 ft 101 ft
15 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
16 UT to Mountain Perennial B 1 B2 B3
Creek 141 ft 111 ft 206 ft
17 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
18 UT to Mountain Ephemeral
Creek
19 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
20 UT to Cathey's perennial B1 (124 ft) 132(oft) B3 C
Creek Cl (546 ft) C2 (383 ft) 124 ft 383 ft
21 Cathey's Creek Perennial C1 C2 C
136 ft 160 ft 160 ft
22 UT to Cathey's Perennial C1 C2 C
Creek 113 ft 94 ft 113 ft

Stream Stream Channel `Vestside Eastside Realignment Bestlit
No. Name Status ?VideninL, Widening Impacts Impacts
Impacts Impacts
22a UT to No. 22 Perennial Cl. C2 C
No Impact 70 ft No Impact
23 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral to Cl. C2 C
Creek Perennial 267 ft No Impact 267 ft
24 UT to Cherry Ephemeral
Creek
25 UT to Cherry Perennial Cl. C2 C
Creek No Impact No Impact No Impact
26 UT to Cherry Ephemeral
Creek
27 UT to Cathey's Perennial Cl. C2 C
Creek No Impact No Impact No Impact
28 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
29 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
30 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
31 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
32 UT to Cathey's Ephemeral
Creek
33 UT to Second Perennial Cl. C2 C
Broad River No Impact 276 ft No Impact
34 UT to Second Perennial Cl. C2 C
Broad River 374 ft 374 ft 374 ft

35 UT to Second
Ephemeral
Broad River
36 UT to Second Intermittent Cl. C2
Broad River 36 ft 16 ft
37 UT to Second Perennial C1 C2 C
Broad River 131 ft 143 ft 131 ft
38 Stoney Creek Perennial D
121 ft
39 UT to Second Ephemeral
Broad River
40 UT to Second Perennial D
Broad River 51 ft
41 UT to Second Linear Wetland D
Broad River Channel/Ditch 89 ft
42 UT to Second Linear Wetland D
Broad River Channel/Ditch No Impact
43 Rockhouse Creek Perennial D
No Impact
44 Rockhouse Creek Perennial D
118 ft
Stream Stream Channel Westside Eastside Realignment Bestlit
No. Name Status Widening Widening Impacts Impacts
Impacts Impacts
45 UT to Second Perennial D
Broad River 176
45a UT to No. 46 Perennial D
25 ft
UT to Second D
46 Perennial
Broad River No Impact
47 UT to Second Perennial D
Broad River 164 ft
48 UT to Second Perennial D
Broad River 134 ft
UT to Second Outside Project
49
Broad River Area
50 UT to Second Perennial D
Broad River 149 ft
51 Scrub Grass Perennial D
Branch 366 ft
51a UT to Scrub Grass Perennial D
Branch No Impact
51b UT to Scrub Grass Perennial D
Branch 166 ft
UT to Second D
52 Broad River Perennial 129 ft
UT to
o
d
53 Perennial
road Riv
er
B 80 ft
54 UT to Second Perennial EE-EW D
Broad River 116 ft 153 ft
55 Second Broad Perennial EE-EW D
River 833 ft 148 ft
56 UT to Second Perennial EE-EW D
Broad River 28 ft No Impact
57 UT to Second Perennial EE-EW D
Broad River 687 ft 14 ft
UT to Second D
58 Perennial
Broad River 110 ft
59 UT to Second Perennial E1 E2 D
Broad River 139 ft 140 ft 1065 ft
60 UT to Second Perennial E1 E2
Broad River 93 ft 107 ft
UT to Second El E2
61 Intermittent
Broad River 72 ft 316 ft
62 UT to
Perennial
El
E2
Stanfo d
s Creek g
ft 8 ft
63 UT to
Perennial
El
E2
Stanf d
s Creek ft
100 93
63a UT to No. 63 Perennial E1 E2
132 ft No Impact
Stream Stream Channel Nvestside Eastsidc Realignment Bestlit
No. Name Status Widening Widening Impacts Impacts
Impacts Impacts
63b UT to No. 63a Perennial E1 E2
43 ft No Impact
UT to Outside Project
64 Stanfords Creek Area
65 Goose Creek Perennial E1 E2
146 ft 440 ft
66 UT to Perennial 1
Goose Creek 1 0ft 85 ft
UT to North Outside Project
67 Mudd Creek Area
68 UT to North Perennial E1 E2
Mudd Creek 137 ft 148 ft
69 North Muddy Perennial E1 E2
Creek 159 ft 336 ft
UT to North Outside Project
70 Mudd Creek Area
UT to North Outside Project
71 Mudd Creek Area
UT to . /&k I
1 F2
72
ranch
Hicks
Perennial
ft aL
2 5
No Impact
73 Tt Perennial
Fork
Youngs 62 ft
UT to Outside Project
74 Youngs Fork Area
75 t Perennial
Fork
Youngs 113 ft
76 Tt Perennial
Fork
Youngs 20 ft
77 n
t Ephemeral
You
s
Fork
78 Youngs Fork Outside Project
Area
0
N
R ?
rD
o o
?_ a0 S N
rD S rD
ac =.
2 n
vn"i W rwi N O
n ry C H
rD y R
O N c?D
a
r?D E, no
o
y C ?. n
Y -- n o-r~D
I n
S N °
N o R
? 0 4 ° o
c- y w ? n
w
n rDRrrD
S o o G
0 0
CD 45
a S v? c ?
a N b ?'
n
al
n
rn
° "Cl x
O b O O .+
n N (?
S
w N
ri =3
R N N w
w< ° c.
n c rc.
110 rD ^+ ry O'
-? O
O
cY ? as o. y'
r n
O "
rD o w
Q Uq w
. CD
c
rc '<_ CD
R ° c
0
E4 s
s rT9 N rSD
O
z N
rD W ro
0
n W 7". ?..
O y p
Cl.
R o
rD Ny N
rD fD v
O n 'b
r O
S
n H N E4
CA - w
qG r F=
ro w
W R ?}'
w w
R
43 a n
o
CD a.
G x4 CD
r.
W O n
0
a? a
CD o °
..y N
C4 O
O arD
?
n rD
O
0
O
?. a
o .-
c w
o R
o.. td
a
-n
0
c
a_
w
R
w
O
R
R
-n
0
B
to
N
b
rD

s?
(D ?'
"y x r n n a ?? o o
O O G n N n

rD S
G n
n

C

G

h
O ° •
C)

ro

N

N

y

y

y
? y ?, ? y CD ° y o
E3 CD (D rD
+
o N y
C) ul?l p o o
o : cn M ' ? y N? 3 ? ?
: n _ n
W n CA lT o'
' r
"D
o CD y o ??
,
0o w .3 ? /
am
(' N
'
w _ C4
n
?+
vo
G
rD

n
CD rD n
C
N
* N

O O W o * \O 1 O O O O it c >
O n n N ?
+

O O N O w O ?, .*?. ?-• p Cn 'N.. O tJ N
O O ?° rn N ?- * O rr w l ?o. O ?t a
LA ? A ut r+
O O v N O * O O 1• O N ~
i- V1 "?
N

O
O
O
N
O
*
O
O/
J
O
N
N ;,n w
p
m ?
-
G1 ? n

C" O O
+ 0
0
00 0
cA
O
O
O
W
w
W
?
+
G '
tJ J.. N - N W
?O N
U O O o
W LA O * o O
IJ
, N W 4- C,
,
CA v

v
A ?'OC 00 W
m *
O
o
N
CN CN ? U ?O
rbo
W 0 0
?? W

'o 4? LA W * O CT
w
cn
a 3 va

W o ? o as v - o
C rr,

w E3
c
ro 7 9

C
)
d `° o
.•? ?' C O w ?'
L1
J
O
•-•
O
O i
h
W 69
p
N N
O O ""
1 ° ,
' W

O N w

J

O

?-

O

?-

~O

W
461
O

cA [

N
00 0 v J
o O 0 0 o O o O •- o °

O O O O O o O - O
W 0
N
??JJ ? ?I

O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O .r O O
1--•
°

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •- o o °
%?
o c, i
O O CD ?o W O O O O - CN
?
v
r+w
? ? l
I?X
O
?s
O
o R° ??
N?
cn
? ? Qo
a
0
DESIGN OPTIONS REPORT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Project Numbers R-2597 and R-204 D&E
State Project Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
May 2004
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 DESIGN OPTIONS .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............. ........................................................................... . 1
1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................. . 1
1.2.1 Preliminary Build A lternatives ......................................................... . 1
1.2.1.1 Study Area Segments ........................................................... . 2
1.2.1.1.1 Segment A1 .................................................. . 2
1.2.1.1.2 Segment A2 .................................................. . 5
1.2.1.1.3 Segment B 1 .................................................. . 5
1.2.1.1.4 Segment B2 .................................................. . 6
1.2.1.1.5 Segment AB 1 ............................................... . 6
1.2.1.1.6 Segment C1 .................................................. . 6
1.2.1.1.7 Segment C2 .................................................. . 7
1.2.1.1.8 Segment D .................................................... . 7
1.2.1.1.9 Segmcnt E1 .................................................. . 8
1.2.1.1.10 Segment E2 .................................................. . 8
1.2.1.1.11 Segmcnt Fl .................................................... 8
1.2.1.1.12 Segment F2 .................................................... 9
1.2.1.1.13 Segment G1 ................................................... 9
1.2.1.1.14 Segment G2 ................................................... 9
1.2.1.1.15 Segment H ................................................... 10
1.2.1.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections ................................. 10
1.3 "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE ............................................................ 11
2.0 REFERENCES ................................ .......................................................................... 12
TABLES
Table 1.1 Study Area Segments ........................................................................................ 3
Table 1.2 Comparison of Study Area Segments .............................................................. 4
Table 1.3 Summary of Design Criteria .......................................................................... 11
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1.2 Study Area Segments
Figure 1.3 Study Area Segment Alternatives
Figure 1.4 Typical Sections
May 2004
1
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and It-204 ME
1.0 DESIGN OPTIONS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing an
environmental document in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This is an informational
document intended for use both by decision makers and the public. As such, it represents
a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the proposed action.
The content of this document conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidelines, which provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural
provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (Technical
Advisory T6640.8A, October 1987).
The NCDOT proposes to improve a 19-mile (30.5-kilometer) portion of existing US 221
from Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell
County (see Figure 1.1). The proposed improvements are included as two projects in the
2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP Project R-2597
extends from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153). TIP Project
R-204 D&E extends from Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) to US 221-NC 226. The
purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service and increase safety
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
These projects are following North Carolina's NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement
process. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), FHWA, and NCDOT are the lead
agencies for these projects.
1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The alternatives considered for the project consist of the preliminary build alternatives
and the "do nothing" alternative.
1.2.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives
The development of preliminary alternatives commenced with the preparation of Land
Suitability Mapping (LSM) to determine constraints in the project study area. The
objective of the LSM was to facilitate conceptual layouts for the widening of US 221.
The development of preliminary alternatives was coordinated with federal and state
environmental regulatory and resource agencies in accordance with NEPA and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) agreement between the FHWA, COE, and
NCDOT.
May 2004
1
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
1.2.1.1 Study Area Segments
The project was divided into fifteen segments for evaluation purposes (sec Figure 1.2).
These segments include cast side or west side widening of the existing highway. Some of
these segments cover the same length along existing US 221 but include different
widening options (such as Segments A, B, C, E, F, and G). Some realignment is also
being considered to straighten the curves on US 221 between Thermal City and
Glenwood and near I40. These study area segments are described below, summarized in
Table 1.1, and shown on Figures 1.3a-i. A comparison of the study area segments is
included in Table 1.2.
Four-lane divided sections are proposed for the project in order to improve the operating
conditions for through-moving traffic on this intrastate corridor. The proposed median
would also reduce the potential for turning accidents at driveways. A separate turn lane
would allow left turns or Uturns at designated intersections and median openings. A
46-foot (14-meter) median is generally proposed in rural areas with less development and
higher travel speeds. A 23-foot (7-meter) raised median is proposed to minimize
property impacts in areas with reduced travel speeds near Gilkey, the I40 interchange,
and Marion. The proposed typical sections and design criteria are described in more
detail in Section 1.2.1.2 of this report.
The City of Marion and McDowell County officials and area citizens have commented
that they would prefer portions of five-lane sections along the proposed facility. The City
of Marion would prefer a five-lane section from Ashworth Road (SR 1168) to
US 221-NC 226 (along Segments E, F, G, and H). In addition, McDowell County
Emergency Management representatives would prefer a five-lane section to extend
southward from Ashworth Road to at least Mud Cut Road (SR 1135) (along Segment E)
to allow emergency vehicles to respond quicker by allowing left-turns at each road and
driveway. Some area citizens in Gilkey, Thermal City, and Glenwood prefer a five-lane
or a four-lane divided section with a narrow median to reduce property impacts.
However, the NCDOT would prefer to minimize the use of five-lane sections along
US 221. Research data concludes that median divided facilities improve travel speeds,
reduce congestion, and lower crash rates.
1.2.1.1.1 Segment Al
Segment Al begins at TIP Project R-2233 near Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and ends
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351), a length of approximately 2.2 miles (3.5 kilometers)
(see Figure 1.3a). This four-lane divided segment transitions from east side to west side
widening from its beginning point with TIP Project R-2233 near Gilboa Church Road
(SR 1532) to north of Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and continues widening on the
west side to south of Lane Road (SR 1376). From south of Lane Road (SR 1376) to
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351), this segment transitions back to cast side widening
and the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
May 2004
2

n m ° n o
N a
J
N N N N n a
n ?
z N y z z >z az oz nz nz p to
^t o nN
O n(A
o o on
0 0
s 0
5' 0 0 0
i T 0
F 0
C ?' 0 o
`D r c c
° 7
S -
n g -
rt T
70 C -
g o
to °-,

O O O 7 S GD' da ? GX dx- ? o• O
O°
?'L
a ?
O O O O O fn
N
V)
N N
pA
per
w
ba
a ? _
O
a
N
7
7
!
C > > a
r AN -H ,
cn
? ,
rn n
° g
? o
° A n
.
?o
:mr

a

a
=
=
_=
°°
a
?
?S

?8
G
?
?
?a a

as
w

w

r
N in in ??
? "'? ? 070 0A a
in "
° •• •?

?
?
O.
G A
7 in
J in
N ,°:
C] ? to
".'
- J J (A ....
v O
/ ?
? ? /? O U O

N O O
W
? o0
v 00
v ?7 N
? ?
/'7 w O'
U y w
U w
lIi
;'
C ? O
O O O W ?+ "" ? -1 °
O O
7
O
O
O - U u O O C

F
G
?
S _
°
?J
O
O
-
7
7 ?' O O O O
O O
7 0 .
O
1. ? O O ? d
'L, ? U ? ? A W
N-
J J O
O Q\ - O
O Q\ •••• O
-J - O
- J t
i? W
? N W
- N ?p In
O T w
.wi b W
v b -
v N -
a\ O -
? O IJ
.w.. J N
'UJ N
3 0^
. r ?
N N N 1n Ni, N 1 to A A 3 N w A N A
W-
to
? f09 W?
W
'? A W
U
•?• A W-
U
•?• A W
4
'?' A

? N
U
p' A L1
W
? A
n H
? R
R
G A W
U
'?' 2
W
? R W
U
'?' A
V
G R
?D
?: R
d ? d ? d ? d ? d ?
d ? 6 ? d ,7 C1 ? d ? d 3 d ? d 5 C1 ? 6
_
d U' 6 W' 6 m' 0. W d ? y 6 0.d
R F 0.
rt d 0. 0.G {.? 6 U d
N d
N 0. 0.
N 0. 6 , Q
'O d O P. N
0. R
7 0. 0 O. N
? d Er G S d 7 0. ,7 S G ?
d d
0.A 0.A 0. 0 G n G O C
[! A O O G O L A G O d 0 0. 0 to 0 _
ti V1

....O
O E;o
..iO g.
...O
...O
= O'
O So
v O•
-O'
-? O
O
-O
-O'
-O'
?• O
O O 7 7 O O. 7 O. 7 7 O. O O. O O ? 7 QO O7 C
vOi
y ti H
y H
0 vOi
ti vi 'O
B 3 B B

A
A
N
w
A
O\
A
D\ ?.
.O
0\
o O\
O W
O O O o ?
W w a GA1 w W
'0 H
7
? '? <
O w < w A H
?
? <
? < A -Hi w w '
`-' ?'+ H< 5' `?
'Z
7 C a> o Ch
° ? o
° H to ,p H H
tD
N
,? P
'O 7 H
7 _
N O d c
7 O
?
y R
N h
H n d to
-- O
v:
N N _
_
Gv'.
v+ r F
R t
-
O R p
? !n `
N V? V? ? ..
to ? ?
S 77 O O ? O

n

? H N

? ?

G
?° to

? -
.
N
••. G ^,_.? ='
? S
? .

.'
? rt ^.

^'7 0' cdo
a cdc J ?.

c°c' ? rt
o to N
?.'
o ? f'» o'
. r?
E3
rv ?
tla

,'? n c d u
N
3 a
`°
W
U o: a

70 0: d o:
p tJ
? ? ? ? ? °
? o ? $ .:.; o ?, ?
o
G G O d d °' G p, rv .?i ° d G G- O d G N 0. O G. O S ? v. S N 6 ti G n p• - D G° O
° 7 O
O
Ua O N

°• O 7
0a
A n Va

ti 7
Va
ti ^ Va rt

^ r .'n. O
? U^.
_ h r O V Va
rt Va
.N. ' N ^ la O ua

-1i A -"'yi O v W
Ua ..^..v.
.?'+ n ?, H
O ? ry
0 A» .
+ va
O
O y » 7
OVa
O? u
y
? d O ?, c
i
Va
?» M O ..
fn
tn

rn o
r? C
O
7 p
'?J > zos
>' O o
Chi
G U r' o
`? O
c
C
C
o O°
S 7 7 S ° O S ?' ru
O H O O p v.., O O
n V1 O N ; H ?' r'U 7' 7
p ? ? tla O
M O A
a\ ?. N
S ".
6 .. O
'

d
d rJ r N ? O X ? vOi + ° T
N
?
?
O n O O ? ? C G ?? .°y G ?' '^ ° ? n O O? 0.? .... ? V wJ
,y t d 6
? G a
N ' ? ? ? v °' c
n u °
s ? c
. ??
'?' w ° 0 v
. G Sa a
t, u
a r .
° ^ va ^ .
o o o
va fD 0 a
o

tJ
O
O
-
° to O S J
° G
5 0 O
,?y
C? N O
° C
N
O to
7 w :: S 7 o S ?
+ o s? T h ? G ? ' ry J ?- ..0
r
O c o
A O r'? ° o
p? o -
.?
h rn r
? ? y o 'p n " .. C
u w
o ?^

'
Cn

? ?
m O ? S ..y ? O ?
? O rt G ^ -? J S

? w
rt O ? 7
C
a
V+ W
n cT
w ?
va
3
0
, o O
6 rt
O
a?b
3 G w
p In v^,
n
rt n
a-
G ?
p o
S R
R S
O'
N ?
7 H
d rt
r' S
N O
d ?.
O tt
9
? O
O
w
? w
H O
c y
7 _
7 C
o'
CJ. w
A ?
n VO
d ?
G p
w
A ?
w n
F ,
? p
R -
d N
0 0`
9 V
G.
? h
n
.O. u
p n
- G
N
rt rt
9 G
> o
p ?
w .'lO
d O
G 01
d ?
? V7
O
H
O >
.2 -
w
? d
o p
G-
o.
>

?
io y [ n 7 H y `i E `

v n'
. a ? ? Q y o O r
, 6 0 0
.. ?,.,
O G Vi ?., Q U? (n a
? r
a
°
' y ? H T O n h

U7

w

s
n w
H v7 ?
N
N V'
I
O -
v
O O w
W N O O O O A O f.9 ? ?
N
O O w v \ O \ O O \ A O IJ ? % V

O

O

VAWi N

w

O

O

J

O
f?9
O N
J
A

N
0o A i.+
tj O o

O
O
O A
N
-

\
O

\
U
O
t, a\
p
O O O O O O O O O A O O ?+

a ' O W
O O J
w a\ N O ? O O N O O !?
D\ -
O\ N
to
- O
O
O O _
O N O O O \ O fn
?- v U "?
O O O U O O \ O O O I j O U? - pp
O w
? n
c o I- v. o . O O w ? - A ?
jv A A V

O
?
N
W
=
? G
6
G
J O J
a N O O O In
tJ
W N
A
t

V J O w
N

^+
?
O
- 0
oW
00
J
O
-
O
O
A
N
w
p

w W
U
w
N

a

O
U -..
N W
-

J

O

O

O\

O
?'
?
? w
N
?
C J
N
0

O
O
b U
O
O
O
O
O
O ?
v
U J
n?+
O
O O O O O O O N O O w ? N

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
J O
?
-
n
T O
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
? ?
- C1
N
O
O O Jo Iw w O O O O - L, - ?` ?J
J ,..,
n
3
v
7
7
C ?
d
cC r
> N
n
H
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
Segment Al crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
2,736 linear feet (834 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost
$9.7 million for construction. Segment Al is estimated to relocate eight residences and
one business. No known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located
along this segment.
1.2.1.1.2 Segment A2
Segment A2 is similar to Segment Al, beginning at Old US 221 (SR 1536) and ending
south of Darlington Road (SR 1351) (see Figure 1.3b). Its length is approximately
2.7 miles (4.3 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment widens on the cast side for its
entire length. From south of Lane Road (SR 1376) to south of Darlington Road
(SR 1351), the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment A2 crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
1,428 linear feet (435 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost
$10.4 million for construction. Segment A2 is estimated to relocate 30 residences, seven
businesses, and one cemetery. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.1.3 Segment B1
Segment BI begins south of Darlington Road (SR 1351) and ends north of Gilkey School
Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3a).
West side widening is proposed for this segment, as a four-lane divided section with a
median width of 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment BI crosses two unnamed tributaries to Catheys Creek and impacts 524 linear
feet (160 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $4.15 million for
construction. Segment Bl is estimated to relocate five residences, two businesses, and
one church. No known archaeological resources are located along this segment. The
widening of Segment BI on the west side would impact the William Monteith House
historic property located on the west side of US 221, north of Darlington Road
(SR 1351). Segment B1 was developed in an effort to avoid substantial impacts to the
Gilkey Lumber Company, located on the east side of US 221, north of Darlington Road
(SR 1351). The Gilkey Lumber Company has indicated that if US 221 was widened on
the east side, they would lose one air-dry shed, 60% of their log yard, and the
re-circulating pond that supports the log yard. The Gilkey Lumber Company indicated
that these losses would put them out of business, impacting 60 employees, their families,
and approximately 48 loggers who employ two to eight man crews, which supply the
lumber company with its inventory (refer to letter in the Appendix). The narrower
median is proposed in this area to minimize impacts to adjacent properties within the
Gilkey community. The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in
this area.
May 2004
5
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.2.1.1.4 Segment B2
Segment B2 is similar to Segment B1, beginning south of Darlington Road (SR 1351)
and ending north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3b). East side widening is proposed for this segment, as a
four-lane divided section with a median width of 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment B2 crosses two unnamed tributaries to Catheys Creek and impacts 566 linear
feet (173 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $3.6 million for
construction. Segment B2 is estimated to relocate two businesses. No known
archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment B2 widens on the cast
side to avoid potential impacts to the William Monteith House historic property located
on the west side of US 221, north of Darlington Road (SR 1351). However, widening on
the east side would have substantial impacts to the Gilkey Lumber Company, previously
described under Segment B 1. The narrower median is proposed in this area to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey community. The existing speed limit
and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.5 Segment AB1
Segment AB1 begins south of Gilboa Church Road (SR 1532) and ends north of Gilkey
School Road (SR 1362), a length of approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) (see
Figure 1.3a). This four-lane divided segment shifts west of existing US 221 near Gilboa
Church Road (SR 1352) and follows a new alignment traveling west of the William
Monteith House historic property, located on the west side of US 221, north of
Darlington Road (SR 1351). Segment A131 crosses Darlington Road (SR 1351) and
follows Sorrels Road (SR 1363) as it ties into existing US 221 north of the Gilkey School
Road (SR 1362) southern intersection. This four-lane divided segment includes a 23-foot
(7-meter) median.
Segment AB1 crosses two unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts 511 linear
feet (156 meters) of stream channel. This segment is estimated to cost $4.5 million for
construction. Segment AB1 is estimated to relocate 17 residences and one business. No
known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment AB 1 follows a
new alignment west of the current US 221 to avoid potential impacts to the William
Monteith House historic property located on the west side of the roadway, north of
Darlington Road (SR 1351). The narrower median is proposed in this area to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey community. The existing speed limit
and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.6 Segment C1
Segment Cl begins north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362) and ends north of Coney
Island Road (SR 1501), a length of approximately 3.9 miles (6.3 kilometers) (see
Figure 1.3c). This four-lane divided segment transitions to west side widening from its
beginning point to Catheys Creek and the median width increases from 23 feet (7 meters)
to 46 feet (14 meters). Segment C1 continues widening on the west side to south of
May 2004
6
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Coney Island Road (SR 1501). From south of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) to north of
Coney Island Road (SR 1501), this segment transitions back to east side widening.
Segment Cl crosses five streams, including Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to Cherry Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River. It impacts 3,134 linear feet (955 meters) of stream channel and is
estimated to cost $14.4 million for construction. Segment CI is estimated to relocate
16 residences and three businesses. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources arc located along this segment. A number of utility conflicts are anticipated
along this segment in the vicinity of Crutchfield Road (SR 1323) due to a cellular phone
tower and a telephone switching station.
1.2.1.1.7 Segment C2
Segment C2 is similar to Segment Cl, beginning north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362)
and ending north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) (see Figure 1.3d). Its length is
approximately 3.9 miles (6.3 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment widens on the
cast side for its entire length. From north of Gilkey School Road (SR 1362) to Catheys
Creek, the median width increases from 23 feet (7 meters) to 46 feet (14 meters).
Segment C2 crosses five streams, including Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Catheys Creek, one unnamed tributary to Cherry Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River. It impacts 2,386 linear feet (727 meters) of stream channel and is
estimated to cost $15.2 million for construction. Segment C2 is estimated to relocate
18 residences and three businesses. No known archaeological or historic architectural
resources are located along this segment. A number of utility conflicts arc anticipated
along this segment in the vicinity of Crutchfield Road (SR 1323) due to a cellular phone
tower and a telephone switching station.
1.2.1.1.8 Segment D
Segment D begins north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) and ends north of Old US 221
(SR 1786), a length of approximately 5.6 miles (9.0 kilometers) (see Figures 1.3e and f).
The segment is a four-lane divided section with a median width of 46 feet (14 meters). It
widens on the cast side from north of Coney Island Road (SR 1501) to north of Thermal
City Road (SR 1321). From north of Thermal City Road (SR 1321) to Polly Spouts Road
(SR 1781), this segment transitions to west side widening. It continues to widen on the
west side from Polly Spouts Road (SR 1781) to north of Old US 221 (SR 1786).
Segment D crosses 13 streams, including Stoney Creek, ten unnamed tributaries to
Second Broad River, Rockhouse Creek, and Scrub Grass Branch. It impacts 3,268 linear
feet (996 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost $68.7 million for
construction. Segment D is estimated to relocate 12 residences and one business. No
known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment D includes east
side widening through Thermal City to avoid potential impacts to the Albert Weaver
Farm historic property located on the west side of US 221 at Thermal City Road
(SR 1321). In the vicinity of Vein Mountain and the Second Broad River, this segment
transitions between cast and west side widening to realign several curves while
May 2004
7
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
minimizing impacts to the adjacent communities. A number of utility conflicts arc
anticipated along this segment in the vicinity of Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and
Glenwood due to potential impacts to high tension transmission lines located along
US 221. In addition, there is a substation adjacent to US 221 across from the Albert
Weaver Farm.
1.2.1.1.9 Segment E1
Segment E1 begins north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) and ends north of Ashworth Road
(SR 1168), a length of approximately 3.2 miles (5.1 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3f). This
four-lane divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length. Near Ashworth
Road (SR 1168), the median width decreases from 46 feet (14 meters) to 23 feet
(7 meters).
Segment E1 crosses seven streams, including one unnamed tributary to Second Broad
River, two unnamed tributaries to Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary
to Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek, and North Muddy Creek.
It impacts 1,038 linear feet (316 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost
$10.3 million for construction. Segment E1 is estimated to relocate 12 residences and
four businesses. An archaeological site is located on the west side of US 221 near North
Muddy Creek. No historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.1.10 Segment E2
Segment E2 is similar to Segment E1 beginning north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) and
ending north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) (see Figure 1.3g). Its length is approximately
3.2 miles (5.1 kilometers). This four-lane divided segment transitions to cast side
widening from north of Old US 221 (SR 1786) to north of Mud Cut Road (SR 1135) and
continues widening on the cast side through Glenwood to north of Ashworth Road
(SR 1168). Near Ashworth Road (SR 1168), the median width decreases from 46 feet
(14 meters) to 23 feet (7 meters).
Segment E2 crosses seven streams, including one unnamed tributary to Second Broad
River, two unnamed tributaries to Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary
to Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek, and North Muddy Creek.
It impacts 1,731 linear feet (528 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost
$10.7 million for construction. Segment E2 is estimated to relocate 10 residences, six
businesses, and one church. An archaeological site is located on the west side of US 221
near North Muddy Creek. No historic architectural resources are located along this
segment.
1.2.1.1.11 Segment F1
Segment F1 begins north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) and ends south of the I-40
interchange, a length of approximately 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3h). This
four-lane divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length and includes a
23-foot (7-meter) median.
May 2004
8
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
Segment F1 does not cross any streams. However, 225 linear feet (69 meters) of one
stream is impacted by the segment. This segment is estimated to cost $2.75 million for
construction. Segment Fl is estimated to relocate one residence and one business. No
known archaeological resources are located along this segment. Segment F1 includes
west side widening with a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize potential
impacts to adjacent properties in the vicinity of the 1-40 interchange, including the
B.G. Hensley House historic property located on the cast side of US 221 near Old US 221
(SR 1786). The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.12 Segment F2
Segment F2 is similar to Segment Fl, beginning north of Ashworth Road (SR 1168) and
ending south of the I-40 interchange, a length of approximately 0.7 miles (1.1 kilometers)
(see Figure 1.3i). This four-lane divided segment widens on the cast side for its entire
length and includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median.
Segment F2 does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$3.1 million for construction. Segment F2 is estimated to relocate two businesses, one
church, and no residences. No known archaeological resources are located along this
segment. Segment F2 includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize
potential impacts to adjacent properties in the vicinity of the I40 interchange, including
the B.G. Hensley house historic property located on the cast side of US 221 near Old
US 221 (SR 1786). The existing speed limit and proposed design speed are reduced in
this area.
1.2.1.1.13 Segment G1
Segment G1 begins south of the I-40 interchange and ends north of the 1-40 interchange,
a length of approximately 0.6 miles (1.0 kilometer) (see Figure 1.3h). This four-lane
divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length. The bridge over I-40 is
proposed to be stage constructed and would require some realignment of the interchange
ramps.
Segment GI does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$7.6 million for construction. Segment G1 is estimated to relocate one business. No
known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
Segment G1 includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize impacts in the
vicinity of the 1-40 interchange. In addition, some type of control of access is typically
provided approximately 1,000 feet (304.8 meters) on either side of the interchange,
usually by providing a median with no median crossovers. The existing speed limit and
proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.14 Segment G2
Segment G2 is similar to Segment G1 beginning south of the I-40 interchange and ending
north of the 1-40 interchange (see Figure 1.3i). Its length is approximately 0.6 miles
(1.0 kilometer). This four-lane divided segment transitions from east side to west side
widening from south of 1-40 to north of I40. The bridge over 1-40 is proposed to be
May 2004
9
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
stage constructed and would require some realignment of the interchange ramps. The
segment has a 23-foot (7-meter) median.
Segment G2 does not involve any stream crossings. This segment is estimated to cost
$7.5 million for construction. Segment G2 is estimated to relocate one business. No
known archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
Segment Gl includes a 23-foot (7-meter) median in this area to minimize impacts in the
vicinity of the I-40 interchange. In addition, some type of control of access is typically
provided approximately 1,000 feet (304.8 meters) on either side of the interchange,
usually by providing a median with no median crossovers. The existing speed limit and
proposed design speed are reduced in this area.
1.2.1.1.15 Segment H
Segment H begins north of the I-40 interchange and ends at US 221-NC 226 in Marion, a
length of approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) (see Figure 1.3h). This four-lane
divided segment widens on the west side for its entire length and includes a 23-foot
(7-meter) median.
Segment H crosses three unnamed tributaries to Youngs Fork. It impacts 230 linear feet
(70 meters) of stream channel and is estimated to cost $5.7 million for construction.
Segment H is estimated to relocate six residences and one business. No known
archaeological or historic architectural resources are located along this segment.
1.2.1.2 Design Criteria and Typical Sections
Table 1.3 presents a summary of the roadway design criteria used to develop the
proposed preliminary alternatives. These criteria are based on the project's function,
classification, and design speed and guided by the standards of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The proposed improvements consist of widening US 221 from a two-lane roadway to a
four-lane divided roadway. The study will evaluate widening to the cast side and west
side of the existing highway and straightening the curves on US 221 between Thermal
City and Glenwood and near I-40. Several proposed typical sections have been identified
for further study. These include a four-lane divided segment utilizing shoulder, curb and
gutter, or expressway gutter. Figures 1.4a and 1.4b present the typical mainline
cross-sections for the four-lane divided and four-lane divided with raised median
sections, respectively. As shown on Figure 1.4a, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes are
proposed for each direction of travel, separated by a 46-foot (14-meter) median. The
four-lane divided typical section with raised median shown on Figure 1.4b also includes
two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes for each direction of travel, separated by a 23-foot
(7-meter) raised median.
The total right of way is proposed to be a minimum of 200 feet (60 meters). Figure 1.4c
includes typical sections for the proposed bridge over I-40 and proposed ramps.
May 2004
10
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Table 1.3
Summary of Design Criteria
Design Control Unit US 221
-L- US 221
Gilkey &
Marion areas US 221
Thermal City
area US 221
1-40 area Ramps
Classification rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial rural arterial
Terrain Type mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous
Design Speed mph
(km/hr) 60(100) 50(80) 60(100) 50(80) 50(80)
Proposed Right-of-Way
Width ft (m) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 200 - 250
(60-75) 75 (22.5)
outside
Control of Access partial partial partial partial full
Typical Section Type 4-lane
divided* 4-lane divided 4-lane
divided* 4-lane divided 1-lane*
Lane width ft (m) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 12(3.6) 16(4.8)
Median Width ft (m) 46(14) 23 (7) raised 46(14) 23 (7) raised n/a
Shoulder Width (total) berm bcnn
Median ft (m) 6(1.8) n/a 6(l.8) n/a 12(3.6)
inside
Outside w/o Guardrail ft (m) 10(3) 10(3) 10(3) 10(3) 14(4.2)
Outside w/ Guardrail ft (m) 13(4) 14(4.2) 13(4) 14(4.2) 17(5.2)
Paved Shoulder
Outside Total/FDPS** ft (m) 4(l.2) n/a 4(l.2) n/a 4(l.2)
Median Total/FDPS** ft (m) 2(0.6) n/a 2(0.6) n/a 4(l.2)
inside
Typical Section Figure Figure 1.4a Figure 1.4b Figure 1.4a Figure 1.4c Figure 1.4c
Notes: * Areas will be considered for expressway gutter
** FDPS represents full depth paved shoulder
1.3 "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during project development. Although this
alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated as
a result of the project, there would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity and safety
of the highway. In fact, the "do nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to future
traffic operations in the area. Enhanced safety and greater traffic carrying capacity are
needed along this facility. For this reason, the "do nothing" alternative is not
recommended.
May2004
Design Options Report
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
2.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001. A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Fourth Edition.
Federal Highway Administration. October 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8A.
May 2004
12
y r ?.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 30, 2004
VVETLANDS 1401 GROUP
JUL 0 7 2004
?NA ER QUALITY SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (c/o FHWA)
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sarah McBride, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Brian Wrenn, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Gregory Christon, Isothermal RPO Transportation Planner
FROM: regory J. Thorpe, PhD., Director
Project Development and Environmental alysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford
County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project
Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597 and
R-204 D&E
Enclosed is additional information requested during the June 15, 2004 concurrence
meeting on the Design Options for Detailed Study (Concurrence Point 2) for the subject
improvements to US 221. At that meeting, team members requested more detailed
information showing the designs and impacts before they would concur with the Design
Options for Detailed Study (see attached meeting minutes). Our intent is to provide
sufficient information describing the design options and their impacts so that the team can
reach concurrence at the next meeting, targeted for August or September. This
information will serve as handout material for that meeting. Please promptly review
this information and contact us with questions, comments, or ideas for additional options
you wish to consider. We would appreciate receiving your input by July 30 so we can
fully address your concerns at the next meeting.
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of the proposed US 221 design options is
enclosed for your review. Also enclosed is a CD containing the following detailed
information within the US 221 project study area:
0 Digital images (in pdf format) of the US 221 design options presented at the
June 15 team meeting (Segments Al, A2, B1, B2, AB1, Cl, C2, D, E1, E2, F1,
F2, G1, G2, & H)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIs 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
June 30, 2004
Page 2
• Digital image (in pdf format) of an early concept for spreading out the median at
the Second Broad River crossing to use more of the existing pavement (Segment
EE-1 & EW-2) - (Note: this option was not carried into the Design Options
Report because of its impacts to the Second Broad River, and associated
tributaries.)
o R-2597 and R-204D&E Design Options Report
o R-2597 and R-204D&E Draft Natural Resources Technical Report
As you review these materials, please keep in mind these design factors:
o US 221 is generally being designed for a 60 mph design speed
It is desirable to use as much of the existing pavement to reduce costs and
environmental impacts
v Traffic maintenance and constructability issues should be carefully considered for
transitions between west side widening, east side widening, and realignment areas.
a The length needed to transition a 46-foot grassed median section from west side
widening to east side widening is approximately 1000 feet.
Again, your input in this matter is requested by July 30 so we can fully address your
concerns at the next meeting. If you have questions concerning this project, please
contact John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Development Engineer, at [phone],
extension 209.
Attachments
Cc/att: Ted Walls, NCDOT
Kevin Moore, NCDOT
Roger Bryan, NCDOT
Max Phillips, NCDOT
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT
Chris Underwood, NCDOT
Andrew Nottingham, NCDOT
Mark Reep, Buck Engineering
.7?' ..a S(Al[o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING MINUTES
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
DATE: June 30, 2004
SUBJECT: Summary of Merger Team Meeting, June 15, 2004, US 221 from SR 1536
in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State
Project Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-
204 D&E
FROM: John Wadsworth, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PARTICIPANTS: Debbie Barbour NCDOT Preconstruction
John Wadsworth NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Stacy Baldwin NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Kevin Moore NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Jason Moore NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Max Phillips NCDOT Division 13 (Via Teleconference)
Ricky Tipton NCDOT Division 13 (Via Teleconference)
Roger Bryan NCDOT Division 13 (Via Teleconference)
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (Via Teleconference)
Greg Atkins Buck Engineering
Mark Reep Buck Engineering
Ken Gilland Buck Engineering
Doug Calhoun NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Andrew Nottingham NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Beverly Williams NCDOT TPB
Rick Delola NCDOT TPB
Clarence Coleman Federal Highway Administration
Chris Underwood NCDOT PD&EA Branch - ONE
Lindsey Riddick NCDOT PD&EA Branch -ONE
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah McBride NC Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Nicole Thomson NC Division of Water Quality
A Merger Team meeting was held on June 15, 2004 to review the alignment alternatives (design
options) for the subject improvements to US 221 (Projects R-2597/ R-204 D&E). The purpose
of the meeting was to reach concurrence on the design options to be studied in detail in the
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2004
Page 2
environmental document for the project (Concurrence Point 2). John Wadsworth welcomed the
Merger Team participants. Mark Reep provided background information on the design options
that have been considered for the project, including the design options preferred by NCDOT (see
attached meeting handout materials) and described as follows:
• Al (West Side Widening) - involves 28 fewer relocations, but impacts 1100 more feet of
stream
• B 1 (West Side Widening) - requires using the Monteith Historic Property, but avoids
relocating Gilkey Lumber, and involves 6 fewer relocations than AB 1
• CI (West Side Widening) - relocates a cell tower and phone switching station, requires
$2 million less for construction but 748 more feet of impacted stream
• D (Best Fit Alignment) - requires temporary easements at Albert Weaver Farm historic
property, and retaining wall to avoid small portion of the Second Broad River
• E1 (West Side Widening) - impacts more of an archaeological site on west side, but
avoids business on the east side near Muddy Creek
• Fl (West Side Widening) - impacts small amount of stream, but avoids a church south of
I-40
• G1 (West Side Widening) - similar construction cost in the I-40 interchange area, but
appears to take less property from adjacent businesses.
• H (West Side Widening) - avoids I40 and a cemetery on the east side, but relocates
several residences.
Additional items of discussion are summarized as follows:
• Mr. Hennessy asked questions about the residential relocations associated with
alternative AB 1.
• Ms. McBride stated that she would need to look at the evaluation materials for the
William Monteith House historic property (Segment B). Mr. Reep stated that the house
was listed due to architectural importance.
• Ms. McBride wanted clarifications on battlefield locations near the project area that
could potentially impact Segment A locations. Mr. Wadsworth stated that Mary Pope
Furr was conducting research on the battlefield and would define battlefield limits in the
area of several NCDOT projects.
• Mr. Coleman asked if NCDOT anticipated any design exceptions. Mr. Atkins stated that
they may be needed at the I40 interchange area (Segment G). Mr. Coleman indicated
that this was acceptable, as long as each exception was fully examined as the process
goes forward.
• Mr. Wadsworth stated that Bridge 17 over the Second Broad River (Segment D) requires
immediate replacement and that this would be done as quickly as possible under TIP
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2004
Page 3
Project No. B-3673. He noted NCDOT's preference for selecting an alternative design
that could be used in both the B-3673 and the R-2597 projects.
Mr. Hennessy asked if the bridge could be built in a separated fashion, with a portion
built as a detour and the second two-lane section using an upgraded bridge at the current
location. Mr. Atkins indicated that the bridge did not meet current AASHTO design
specifications (60 MPH-design speed) and was located in an area with several severe
curves and streams that would be impacted by an in-place alternative. Mr. Militscher
requested that the alternative be carried forward.
Mr. Hennessy suggested that any grading for building a new bridge should be done to
only accominodate a two-lane facility. This would minimize impacts until such time as a
full, four-lane facility is built for the area. He noted that this would not affect the
amount of right of way that could be acquired. NCDOT representatives commented that
site impacts may be lessened if all the site preparation work was completed at one time
rather than on two separate occasions.
• Mr. Militscher suggested that all segments be designed as a "best fit" segment in the
manner of Segment D; however, he noted his preference to see the comparison of data
leading toward the selection of that best fit alternative. He stated that this would be
easier to explain to the community since a best fit was already used for Segment D, and
would be consistent.
• Ms. McBride noted that avoidance alternatives would be needed for at least two other
segments due to historic property concerns.
• Mr. Lund also requested best fit approaches for Segments A and C. Mr. Reep stated that
the size of the segments could be shortened to facilitate this assessment with minimal
design work. Mr. Atkins noted that shortening the segments and switching between east-
side and west-side widening would impact the construction process.
• Mr. Hennessy requested detailed maps of the proposed alternative designs so that lie
could better evaluate the alternatives and their impacts. Mr. Wadsworth agreed to
provide design mapping on CD's to the Merger Team members. He also stated that a site
visit could be arranged if members of the team wished to look at the project area.
• Several team members indicated that meeting materials contained insufficient data to
permit the selection of a single alternative for detailed study. It was suggested that a
summary of the alternative selection process, with information on the classification of
impacted streams, be forwarded to the Merger Team. Mr. Reep agreed to send the
requested materials to the team.
• The meeting ended with the Merger Team agreeing to review the additional mapping and
materials prior to a second meeting to reach concurrence on Point 2 for this project.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact John Wadsworth,
Project Development Engineer at [phone], ext. 209.
cc: Meeting Participants
Merger Team Members
Attachments
x ! '
r?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNfNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 21, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Renee Gledhill-Earley, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
,/Cynthia Van der Wiele, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Jay Swain, NCDOT Division Engineer, Division 13
Hope Bleecker, RPO Transportation Planner
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. . &&Wt4Z
nvironmental Management JDitor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Concurrence Point No. 1 for US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project Numbers
6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Project Numbers R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Attached for your information and use is a copy of the Concurrence Point No. 1 form,
Purpose and Need, that has been executed by all members of the Merger Team. A copy of the
Purpose and Need Statement was previously transmitted to you by memorandum dated May 29,
2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding Concurrence Point
No. 1 or other project information, please contact John Wadsworth at [phone] extension
209.
Attachments

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. I MW. N000 L ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
a 1. .
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- PURPOSE AND NEED
Protect No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
PURPOSE and NEED:
The purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service by reducing travel time
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increase safety. The revised Purpose and Need
Statement, dated May 2003, for the combined projects is incorporated by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 16, 2002 with the Purpose and
Need and Study Area for TIP No. R-2597 and R-204 D&E as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Transportation

'...1
.? 5[N(
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
December 23, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to NC 221
in McDowell County, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E.
Attached for your signature is the original copy of the Concurrence Point No. 1
form for the subject project. Other than a minor grammar correction the form is the same
as the draft concurrence form sent to you by letter dated May 29, 2003. There were no
review comments received on the draft. Please sign and return the Concurrence Point No.
1 form to me at the address shown below. A copy of the completed form will be provided
to merger team members after execution by all parties.
If you have any questions or need additional information to respond to this
request, please contact me by telephone at [phone] extension 209 or by email at
jwadsworthOdot.state.nc.us. Thank you for your assistance.
??t} c,?,t u k? r Z ° • 6,1-1
Sincerely,
'??L oa-?4t?
John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT Project Manager
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- PURPOSE AND NEED
Proiect No./TIP Nod Name/Descrintion:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
PURPOSE and NEED:
The purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service by reducing travel time
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increase safety. The revised Purpose and Need
Statement, dated May 2003, for the combined projects is incorporated by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 16, 2002 with the Purpose and
Need and Study Area for TIP No. R-2597 and R-204 D&cE as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Transportation
t
L
I lb I
•` ST!JF o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WEALUDsI401 GROUP
DEC 2 `) 2003
WATERQUAC1Ty
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION sEGTION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 23, 2003
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
Subject: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to NC 221
in McDowell County, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E.
Attached for your signature is the original copy of the Concurrence Point No. 1
form for the subject project. Other than a minor grammar correction the form is the same
as the draft concurrence form sent to you by letter dated May 29, 2003. There were no
review comments received on the draft. Please sign and return the Concurrence Point No.
1 form to me at the address shown below. A copy of the completed form will be provided
to merger team members after execution by all parties.
If you have any questions or need additional information to respond to this
request, please contact me by telephone at [phone] extension 209 or by email at
jwadsworth(a?dot.state. nc.us. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
??L Oa.,&?
John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT Project Manager
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- PURPOSE AND NEED
Project No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
PURPOSE and NEED:
The purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service by reducing travel time
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increase safety. The revised Purpose and Need
Statement, dated May 2003, for the combined projects is incorporated by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 16, 2002 with the Purpose and
Need and Study Area for TIP No. R-2597 and R-204 D&E as stated above.
U. S. Ar?ny Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENIZ - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Transportation

?STti,
WETIANDS14101 C,%UP
JUN
60
STATE OF NOIZ"fl I CAROLINA QUALIP/SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNUO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Renee Gledhill-Earlcy, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Cynthia Van der Wicle, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Jay Swain, NCDOT Division Engineer, Division 13
Hope Bleecker, RPO Transportation Planner
FROM: y Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manageni nt Dirtor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Concurrence Point No. I for US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project Numbers
6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Project Numbers R-2597 and R-204 D&E
As agreed during the October 16, 2002 merger team meeting for TIP Project R-2597, NCDOT
expanded the project study area for a more logical terminus in McDowell County. The project
study area and the attached Purpose and Need Statement have been revised to include TIP Project
R-204 D&E and to extend the study area to US 221-NC 226 near Marion (see Figure I.1). TIP
Project R-2597 and TIP Project R-204 D&E will be evaluated in a single environmental
document.
NCDOT is attempting to incorporate features of the Merger 01 process into this study; therefore,
concurrence on the project study area is requested in addition to the Purpose and Need
(Concurrence Point No. 1). Attached is a draft of the concurrence form for your review.
If you have coin ments or concerns with the draft concurrence form, please contact John
Wadsworth, [I.E., Project Development Engineer, at [phone], extension 209 no later than
June 20, 2003. The Concurrence Point 1 form will be circulated for signature after any necessary
revisions are made.
Attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRON'dENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX. [phone]
WEBSITE: I,"VW. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
DRAFT
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1- PURPOSE AND NEED
Protect No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
PURPOSE and NEED:
The purpose of these projects are to improve the level of traffic service by reducing travel time
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increase safety. The revised Purpose and Need
Statement, dated May 2003, for the combined projects is incorporated by reference.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of October 16, 2002 with the Purpose and
Need and Study Area for TIP No. R-2597 and R-204 D&E as stated above.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. Department of Transportation
1,
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
T.I.P. Project Numbers R-2597 and R-204 D&E
State Project Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
May 2003
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................1
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........................................1
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................2
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................2
1.5.1 Project Setting .............................................................................................2
1.5.2 History of Project ........................................................................................4
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE ..........................................................................................4
1.6.1 Existing Road Network ...............................................................................4
1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships .............................................................................6
1.6.2.1 Railways ..................................................................................................6
1.6.2.2 Airports ....................................................................................................6
1.6.2.3 Mass Transit ............................................................................................ 6
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .....................................................6
1.7.1 Demographics ..............................................................................................6
1.7.2 Economic Data ............................................................................................ 7
1.7.3 Proposed Development Plans ......................................................................8
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ...........................................................................8
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program ............................................... .. 8
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans ......................................................................... 10
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY ................................................................................. 11
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics ................................................................ 11
1.9.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 11
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 11
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service ..................................................................... 15
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build) ............................................................... 16
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 16
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service .............................................................. 16
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 17
2.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 20
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map .....................................................................................3
Figure 1.2 Existing Road Network .................................................................................5
Figure 1.3 TIP Projects in Vicinity .................................................................................9
May 2003
I
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Figure 1.4 Existing US 221 Photographs .....................................................................12
Figure 1.5 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (No Build Case) ...........................13
TABLES
Table 1.1 TIP Projects Along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor ....................................10
Table 1.2 Other TIP Projects in the Vicinity of US 221 .............................................10
Table 1.3 US 221 Existing (2002) Levels of Service (No Build) ...............................15
Table 1.4 US 221 Design Year (2025) Levels of Service (No Build) .........................17
Table 1.5 Primary Accident Types Along US 221 ......................................................18
Table 1.6 Accident Rates Along US 221 ....................................................................19
May 2003
ii
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
An environmental document is being prepared in accordance with the requirements set
forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This is an
informational document intended for use both by decision makers and the public. As
such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the
proposed action.
The content of this document conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidelines, which provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural
provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (Technical
Advisory T6640.8A, October 1987).
This document supercedes the September 2002 Purpose and Need Statement for US 221
from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County. That document
was revised to include an additional 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) portion of US 221 from
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, referred to as
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project R-204.
These projects are following North Carolina's NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement
process. The US Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA, and NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead agencies for these projects.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
NCDOT proposes to improve a 15-mile (24.1-kilometer) portion of existing US 221 from
Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) (TIP Project R-2597) and a
4-mile (6.4-kilometer) portion of US 221 from Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) to
US 221-NC 226 (TIP Project R-204) in Rutherford and McDowell Counties. The
purpose of these projects is to improve the level of traffic service and increase safety
along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
Needs for improvements to this two-lane segment of US 221 are demonstrated by the
following conditions:
• Current and future traffic volumes on portions of US 221 between Rutherfordton
and Gilkey operate at or near the facility's traffic carrying capacity (level of
service E (LOS E)). Future traffic volumes on most of TIP Project R-2597
between Gilkey and Glenwood will operate at LOS D. Between Glenwood and
Marion, future volumes will operate at LOS E. LOS D represents severely
restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds, and LOS E represents conditions
May 2003
1
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
at or near the roadway's capacity. These are not acceptable levels of service for a
rural arterial.
• This segment of US 221 is on the National Highway System and is part of the
Intrastate System, designated in 1989 by the NC General Assembly to provide
safe, high-speed travel throughout North Carolina. US 221 is part of a corridor
that extends from Spartanburg/Greenville, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina. This is an important arterial that links the foothills and the northwest
mountains.
• Five fatal accidents occurred within the project area during a recent three-year
period. The fatal accident rate for US 221 in the project area [4.5 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles (mvm) (2.8 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers
(mvk))] is higher than the statewide average [2.6 accidents per 100 mvm
(1.6 accidents per 100 mvk)]. The total accident rate for US 221 in the project
area [171.4 accidents per 100 mvm (106.3 accidents per 100 mvk)] is lower than
the statewide average [193.9 accidents per 100 mvm (120.5 accidents per
100 mvk)]. However, between Glenwood and Marion, the total accident rate
[282.9 accidents per 100 mvm (175.8 accidents per 100 mvk)] is higher than the
statewide average rate (see Table 1.6). The most common accident patterns are
run-off-the-road crashes, rear-end collisions, angle accidents, and left turn
collisions. These patterns account for 80.3 percent of the total accidents and
typically occur at driveways and intersections along this uncontrolled access
facility.
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The main purposes of these projects are:
• Improve the levels of traffic service by reducing travel time along the US 221
Intrastate Corridor, and
• Increase safety.
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.5.1 Project Setting
The project area is located in north central Rutherford County and southeastern
McDowell County within the Inner Piedmont of western North Carolina and includes TIP
Projects R-2597 and R-204. The project study area consists of a 1,000-foot corridor that
follows existing US 221 as shown on Figure 1.1. TIP Project R-2597, approximately
15 miles (24.1 kilometers), begins at the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near Old
US 221 (SR 1536) and passes through the Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and
Glenwood communities (see Figure 1.1). TIP Project R-2597 ends at Goose Creek Road
(SR 1153) in Glenwood, south of Marion. TIP Project R-204, approximately 4 miles
(6.4 kilometers), begins at Goose Creek Road (SR 1153), south of Marion, and ends at
the existing multilane section of US 221-NC 226 in Marion. The terrain within the
May 2003
2
CD
_
_, A
l I ..
Ul ?-
i
p 1 ' 1 / i
c \ _I ?? / ?. J l
v
m
°o/?
m ?sµ?
1 ?.
r V ?1
o °a
11
.5
r
\ \: \ / •\ C°G C^
POCK /v` ?.? 1
?oG
°
1
0131
L ?aa?\ l s6 ?' rn
i Q n
(n
z? -0 c 1 c x x? o` ? r
o v o ? ?a n
O m '? c r /
m n ,? o o r ? ,rl
? cn 3 P
C3 m
O _ O y m u3i Q `' % I.?' off » 1• \\ o C
to CL
.u Oo00? ,/
C) 0
Lri f
p Q,
m o o 7 aa)?j ,\ N • n L
(D ? d ? ?? ]? :l7 N
ro 0 tJ (CD
C O r- h l
i
C: (D
N 1153j d
n z c S 2
J
O o co " .Z7
N C? r Ta j ?QC ( ?\PO? I
rv l S
: v m ? N_OC) fll? _ _ / 1 0? / J
> > -? ?I ??? •?
K ? Hof j f?--•. / ;r =?
0
°o f \ i ?, r
N aor, m
' (D J €` 1 Q
UP v
Noo m
KM C)
ol CD 0 c) Z) (n
0 9Lo CD
(D 0 0 0)
90
J N p 7 ?y 1+.~t A \1
.?. N N I j-
N O O \ //yv?.1 m i
D ? N ? ???" mH N
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
project area is mostly rolling except for a 5-mile (8-kilometer) portion near Vein
Mountain where the terrain is steep and mountainous. Elevations range from 940 to
1,400 feet (287 to 427 meters) above sea level. The land area of Rutherford County is
564 square miles (1,461 square kilometers). McDowell County is 442 square miles
(1,145 square kilometers) in area, of which approximately 75 percent is forested.
US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System linking
the foothills and the northwest mountains. This segment of US 221 is a two-lane roadway
with moderate curves and grades, except in the areas of Vein Mountain and I-40, where
there are sharper curves that limit travel speed and sight distance.
US 221 crosses Interstate 40 approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) south of the TIP
Project R-204 terminus in Marion. Other important highway routes near the project area
include US 64, US 74A, and NC 226. Many secondary roads intersect and run parallel to
portions of the projects, but US 221 is the primary north-south highway serving northern
Rutherford and southern McDowell Counties. Other transportation facilities in the area
include the CSX Transportation Railroad and the Rutherford County Airport.
1.5.2 History of Project
In 1989 the NC General Assembly established the Intrastate System to provide safe,
high-speed travel throughout North Carolina. NCDOT designated US 221 as part of an
Intrastate Corridor between the South Carolina State Line and Boone.
In 1989, this segment of US 221 was included in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Currently, these projects are part of the 2002-2008 TIP and
the draft 2004-2010 TIP. TIP Project R-2597 (SR 1536 to SR 1153) is scheduled for
right of way acquisition to begin in 2007 and for construction to begin in 2009. TIP
Project R-204 D&E (SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226) is scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in 2006 and for construction to begin in 2008.
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.6.1 Existing Road Network
Rutherford County has a total of 1,068.3 miles (1,719.3 kilometers) of roads on the state
highway system. This includes 875.1 miles (1408.3 kilometers) of secondary roads and
193.2 miles (310.9 kilometers) of primary and urban roads. Rutherford County has no
interstate highways, six US routes, and four NC routes. The US routes include US 64,
US 74, US 74A, US 74B, US 221, and US 221A. The NC routes include NC 9, NC 108,
NC 120, and NC 226 (see Figure 1.2).
McDowell County has a total of 592.3 miles (953.2 kilometers) of roads on the state
highway system. This includes 443.1 miles (713.1 kilometers) of secondary roads and
149.2 miles (240.1 kilometers) of primary and urban roads. McDowell County has one
interstate highway, I-40. It has three US routes and four NC routes. The US routes
include US 64, US 70, and US 221. The NC routes include NC 80, NC 126, NC 226, and
NC 226A.
May 2003
4
SOUTH CAROL/NA
v c
i al
?l cnl
o
O
CD
N W
a•
O
O'

I

c
`r
/
,?
-
.o
0 i
a,
(D
<_? r I;u
m
c
O
J
? a
m
_ _ ?-Im
1
-
-
n
00
z
0i?
P
o
i
pp a2f032?3H1???
pp li3Mp4oW
t O?v?•?• 0
v
i0
?m
i?

a
O
a
0 o I ?aa »
tQ +'i Jr'f
C
? CD o
(T Z c
C7 (!? m N ??i -y c?
m »
w x
? N c
" Z
cn N o
co + ?c? o S
1
u U)
I I 60) -0 NO ( v
°' X n oo °' a rl) 3 -0
CD z U)
N CL a N N 7 0
N E co O N U1 N O CD
C.0 (D
o :3 W N0)rn tin 3 m
W (D
3
f CD -- ID
rn ` p @ Po
a0 M o
?
CD
N = O N
?C7a 7
,N 41. 0 3 cn
N S_ C (D
(D Q° a c
0w m,< a vm
3 - 7"
m G
0
a
A
O
?- "A
O?? 1.
00
of O
?,`rQ y I I r.Y
40 (n
•LS-
Cpp\ CD
? a
M'%
d
O
N
fD <
0
.01
:00
J
13
1
O.

C
w
CD /t.
?r? l J
p
Owl'
I
' Op?*eF,
0
M
O
a
'?
Op
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
The main north-south highways in the two counties are US 221 and NC 226. US 221
connects Spartanburg, SC with Boone. NC 226 connects Shelby with Spruce Pine. The
main east-west routes in the counties are I-40, US 64, US 70, and US 74. I-40 and US 70
connect Hickory with Asheville. US 64 connects Morganton with Hendersonville, and
US 74 connects Shelby with Hendersonville.
1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships
1.6.2.1 Railways
The Norfolk Southern Railway owns right of way along the east side of US 221 through
much of the project area, but the tracks have been removed. The CSX Transportation
Railroad operates a railroad line in the vicinity of the projects which generally follows
US 221 along the east side between Thermal City and Marion. Approximately 29 trains
per day use this rail line with maximum speeds of 45 miles per hour (mph) (70 kilometers
per hour (km/h)). However, neither the railroad line nor the railroad right of way cross
US 221 within the project area.
1.6.2.2 Airports
The Rutherford County Airport - Marchman Field is located north of Rutherfordton and
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) east of US 221. The most direct access to the
airport is from US 64 using Fowler Road (SR 1523) and Airport Road. This airport has
one 5,000-foot (1,524-meter) runway. The closest major commercial airport is the
Asheville Regional Airport located approximately 35 miles (56 kilometers) west.
1.6.2.3 Mass Transit
The McDowell County Transportation Planning Board and the Rutherford County Transit
Department provide subscription and dial-a-ride week-day transportation for some county
residents. However, there are no public bus or passenger rail services for either county,
and there are no current plans for such services.
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1.7.1 Demographics
Rutherford County was founded in 1779 during the American Revolution from a portion
of Tryon County (once part of South Carolina). There are eight municipalities within the
county, including the seat of Rutherfordton. The largest municipality is Forest City with
a population of over 7,500.
McDowell County was organized in 1842. There are two municipalities within the
county, Marion and Old Fort. Marion is the largest city and the county seat.
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties have been growing steadily since 1990.
According to the US Census, the total population of Rutherford County grew from
56,918 in 1990 to 62,899 in 2000 (a 10.5 percent increase). Similarly, the population of
May 2003
6
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
McDowell County grew from 35,681 in 1990 to 42,151 in 2000 (an 18.1 percent
increase).
The project area includes Census tracts 9601, 9602, 9605, 9702, 9705, and 9709. The
total population of these tracts increased from 32,173 in 1990 to 39,415 in 2000,
representing growth of 22.5 percent.
1.7.2 Economic Data
Rutherford and McDowell Counties have both experienced growth in new businesses in
recent years. The new business rate in 1999 was 10.8 percent for Rutherford County and
9.6 percent for McDowell County. Rutherford ranked 87 out of 100 counties in North
Carolina for employment associated with new plants in 1999. Similarly, McDowell
County ranked 80 out of 100 for the same indicator.
Despite growth in new businesses, both counties have experienced unemployment rates
above the state average. The unemployment rate in Rutherford County was 4.0 percent in
1999 compared to the state average of 3.2 percent. In McDowell County, the
unemployment rate was 6.8 percent during the same year. Both counties report the
unemployment rate has remained high. In Rutherford County, unemployment rates
remained above 11 percent during 2002 (Rutherford County Economic Development
Commission 2002). In McDowell County, unemployment averaged 8.0 percent in 2001.
Job losses have been primarily among the two largest manufacturing sectors in the
county, furniture and textiles (McDowell County Chamber of Commerce 2002). Per
capita income in both Rutherford ($20,183) and McDowell ($19,522) Counties was
below the statewide average of $25,181 in 1998 (North Carolina Department of
Commerce 2000).
Although considered rural counties, the economies of both Rutherford and McDowell
Counties rely heavily on manufacturing. According to the North Carolina Department of
Commerce, employment in the manufacturing sector during 1999 accounted for
41.1 percent of jobs in Rutherford County and 51.5 percent of jobs in McDowell County.
The next two largest employment sectors in Rutherford County were services
(15.8 percent) and retail trade (14.6 percent). In McDowell County, the next two largest
employment sectors were government (13.4 percent) and retail trade (12.9 percent).
Agriculture accounted for less than one percent of employment in both counties.
The McDowell County Chamber of Commerce reports that tourism is a potential
economic engine for the county (Birdsong personal communication). With their location
in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Rutherford and McDowell Counties offer
many recreational opportunities. In Rutherford County, these attractions include Lake
Lure and Chimney Rock Park. McDowell County is home to Lake James State Park,
Linville Caverns, and the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area.
The US 221 corridor from Spartanburg/Greenville, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina brings many tourists from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Rutherford
and McDowell Counties as they travel to the North Carolina mountains. Travel spending
May 2003
7
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
during 1999 totaled over $86 million in Rutherford County and nearly $32 million in
McDowell County (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2000).
Within the project area, a few service businesses are located along US 221 near the towns
of Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, Glenwood, and Marion. Two industrial plants
are located along the study corridor in Rutherford County, a case goods plant and an
upholstery plant. A lumber company is located along US 221 near Gilkey School Road
(SR 1362). There are service businesses (hotels, restaurants, and gas stations) and
commercial development near the Interstate 40 interchange with US 221.
1.7.3 Proposed Development Plans
Neither Rutherford nor McDowell County has a published development plan. However,
Rutherford County is currently developing a strategic plan that addresses economic
growth. A draft plan was presented to local organizations for input during Fall 2002.
Rutherford County is working to attract businesses for its new 1,150 acre (465 hectare)
Riverstone Business Park. The industrial park is located along US 221 south of the
project area.
McDowell County hopes to increase commercial development at the US 221 interchange
with Interstate 40. Development has been somewhat limited in this location due to the
lack of water and sewer service, but the City of Marion proposes to extend sewer service
along US 221 for approximately 2 to 3 miles (3.2 to 4.8 kilometers) south of I-40
(McDowell County Chamber of Commerce 2002).
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program
The proposed action is included as Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E in NCDOT's
2002-2008 TIP and the draft 2004-2010 TIP. TIP Project R-2597 extends from Old
US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition to begin in 2007 and for construction to begin in 2009. TIP Project R-204
D&E extends from Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) north to US 221-NC 226 and is
scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in 2006 and for construction to begin in
2008. These projects are two of four proposed improvements along the US 221 Intrastate
Corridor from the South Carolina State Line to Marion. These projects are described as
follows and shown in Table 1.1 and Figure 1.3.
May 2003
8
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Planning is underway for an 18.2-mile (29.3-kilometer) segment of US 221 with TIP
Project R-2233, located south of TIP Project R-2597. This project consists of
constructing multilane improvements from the South Carolina State Line to Old US 221
(SR 1536) and includes a Bypass of Rutherfordton. TIP Project R-2233 is scheduled for
right of way acquisition to begin in 2006 and for construction to begin in 2008.
Planning is also underway for replacement of Bridge No. 17 on US 221 over the Second
Broad River. TIP Project B-3673 is scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in
2004 and for construction to begin in 2005.
Table 1.1
TIP Projects Along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor
TIP Route Location Description Status
Project
R-2233 US 221 South Carolina State Line to Widen to Multilanes with Planning in Progress
SR 1536, Rutherford County, Bypass of Rutherfordton
18.2 Miles (29.3 Kilometers)
R-2597 US 221 SR 1536 to SR 1153, Rutherford and Widen to Multilanes Planning in Progress
McDowell Counties, 15 Miles
(24.1 Kilometers)
R-204 US 221 SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226, Widen to Multilanes Planning in Progress
D&E McDowell County, 4 Miles
(6.4 Kilometers)
B-3673 US 221 Second Broad River, McDowell Replace Bridge No. 17 Planning in Progress
Count
Several other TIP projects are located in the surrounding area. These improvements are
listed below in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2
Other TIP Projects in the Vicinity of US 221
TIP Route Location Description Status
Project
U-2711 SR 2241/ West of US 74A to US 221A (South Widen to Five Lanes and Part in Acquisition,
SR 2179 Broadway St.), Forest City, Rutherford Extend on New Location Part Under
(Oak St.) County, 1.6 Miles (2.6 Kilometers) Construction
B-4199 SR 1782 Second Broad River, East of US 221, Replace Bridge No. 198 Planning in
McDowell Count Progress
R-2643 SR 1001 Sugar Hill Road, I40 to Marion Widen to Multilanes Under Construction
Bypass, McDowell County, 2.3 Miles
(3.7 Kilometers)
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans
The 1995 McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan recommended multilane improvements
along US 221 within McDowell County to accommodate future traffic volumes and
preserve the integrity of this intrastate route. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area
May 2003
10
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Thoroughfare Plan includes the southern end of TIP Project R-2597 as a major
thoroughfare.
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics
This segment of US 221 is generally a two-lane roadway that expands to three lanes near
the southern limit of TIP Project R-2597 at Old US 221 (SR 1536). The alignment is
sufficient with moderate curves and grades, except in the areas of Vein Mountain and
I-40, where sharper curves limit travel speed and sight distance. Photographs of the
existing roadway are shown on Figure 1.4.
No control of access exists on this route. Numerous driveways and intersecting roads are
located throughout the project area, particularly near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vein Mountain, Glenwood, and Marion. All intersections are at grade and stop
sign controlled, except for a traffic signal at the US 221-NC 226 intersection.
The speed limit is 55 mph (90 km/h) throughout most of the project length. Two short
sections, totaling approximately one mile (1.6 kilometers), have 45 mph (70 km/h) speed
limits. These sections are at the southern end of TIP Project R-2597 and in the Gilkey
community.
1.9.2 Existing Conditions
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
The 2002 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along this portion of US 221 range from
4,200 vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Thermal City to 9,600 vpd near Rutherfordton.
These volumes are shown on Figure 1.5. Lower traffic volumes are encountered in the
less developed areas between Gilkey and Vein Mountain. Higher traffic volumes are
encountered near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Glenwood, and Marion. The estimated design
hourly volumes along US 221 are 10 percent of the average daily traffic. During the
afternoon peak hour, the northbound direction carries the heaviest movement (60 percent)
of the traffic.
Truck traffic makes up 7 to 13 percent of the total US 221 traffic volumes. Near Marion,
trucks account for 7 percent of the volumes, of which 4 percent are medium sized
dual-axle trucks and 3 percent are heavy tractor-trailer trucks. From Rutherfordton to
Gilkey, trucks account for 9 percent of the volumes, of which 4 percent are medium sized
dual-axle trucks and 5 percent are heavy tractor-trailer trucks. From Gilkey to Vein
Mountain, trucks account for 13 percent of the volumes, of which 5 percent are dual-axle
trucks and 8 percent are tractor-trailer trucks.
May 2003
11
Looking North at
Broyhill Road
Looking South at
Vein Mountain
Looking North at the
Second Broad River
Looking North
toward 1-40
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 1.4 Existing US 221 Photographs 771

p rn?

1 -I o o CO o
° C:) 0)
aO
- - ?
yv o
O
O
mm
0
?
Z3
10?y?
A
?>
N
a.
`
co rN.
5
?
o i
0 1
_ v
0 0

..,
1 N
CO
co J?l
O
>

1

0
n
O rn O
CD
0 o a - ,-. O °
°
o I

N

eO
>C
)
Rd l o
C)
"

N (n
A
N Q

i

(D
CD -4
CCD
? n o
?
ji
-i
x
v
O ? O O
g 351 o O ,

C) C) C) 's mm'
o

N)
yak S
enn -
9s /dry \

1
cif O 1

c
?

oa
-5
°
\

O n
I
5,

i
i

)
C/ cn
C
)
4 l
C'O
?
J?
VI
CD
(D
O Cb

O? O C7 ?

Jl SR13?5 1 •-
p?N!
rn
W
? o\
t
V
O o rn
o ° °
'
(D 0~o N GQ
(7 O
? ? ,
'-? O O ,te
a
' :
'
•
S
CF)

?CD ?i

c)

O(Jow

e.
cn r?
C7 O o ?•' r;
moo ?•
?.1• 1
o C3
CO)
G Cb
? Sao yA;»
cn cil
O O (n Ile O
C7 N O I
CD O O J
CJ7 I- C- O < 0) •y` U1
O O cn?m
U) Cj) CD E C:
3 n) 61 (/) Z
QO < n -I N U i
(D CD (D r?
N Z< -0 (A ? O N O CD I i i Io.
N N N , (D p? °O O SR1.1gg';
O O a)C NO n ! _
N O C 0 3 O
Ul N (D ' 0 - d C .
L y N C D< C/) /loo 0
nm N? 7 CD Cl)
O CD I - ° ,
Q ' W -0 -0 v
CD 3
D r•' tNit _• O } rn p cn
?N N
m < < -?? W? 3 O - CD
N X CD n , CD a) C) CD CD N (A
X N C p? S2o (7 (b co
-0. x ID < o cn U' O CL o 7 m o o Matchline; ::r 0
a CD =r < o ;.? See Sheet 2
0 o3m (n NcO9 i O pO
3
(D -<
CD -< -
CD
-
a
? CD o - °
a
Z. o v
=3 a) a
cD ' ?
• o 3
•• o
O 00
;,

v,
NO
N)
Q° = O .
.._ 4R1152 l? W

o

0)
o o 0

o i °os
53 ;
e
.
leek
Rd \
Z _
_ N
0 U)
200 46900
U) --180 A98001
3000 r _ 1 flarion
6800 (D) _ -^ ??': 100 221 1
12800 (D ? ? --`., 1700
AZ o
Section 9 - '
600
Section
1 4
8000 D
14000 (E) 1700 .SR916 _ 25600
Glenwood 180 Section 11
2800 Section 12
80 - 9000 E
1600 15800 (E) 8200 D
- 14200 (E)
600 __
- 226
00
46900 1600
North Carolina Department of Transportation
??"°""4•? Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
xis
- =, !0
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
tiI
OI R.NSf US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
f
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D & E
Figure 1.5 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
Sheet 2 of 2 (No Build Case) p
Average daily Average daily
traffic volume & traffic volume at
level of service intersection
xxxx (LOS) Year 2002 Year 2002
xxxx (LOS) Year 2025 xxx Year 2025
0 0.5 1 2
Miles Kilometers
226 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability.
Levels of service range from LOS A to F, with LOS A being the best and LOS F the
worst. Level of service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds.
Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating speeds.
Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds close to the
speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and unstable,
low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel; this occurs
at level of service F.
Current US 221 traffic volumes were analyzed using techniques from the Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (2000). The facility was divided into 12
sections to reflect changes in speed and volumes. Each section was evaluated based on
the design hour volume, speed, percentage of trucks, and number of access points per
mile. For the entire length of both projects, 100 percent no passing zones were assumed.
Results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.3.
According to these results, the traffic along US 221 from Gilkey to south of Glenwood
currently operates at level of service (LOS) C. LOS C represents stable traffic flow with
speeds near the posted limit. According to the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines, LOS B is desirable for most rural
arterials, except in mountainous areas where LOS C is acceptable (AASHTO 2001). The
3.1-mile (5.0-kilometer) portion of US 221 between Rutherfordton and Gilkey and the
5.7-mile (9.2-kilometer) portion of US 221 from south of Glenwood to Marion operate at
LOS D and LOS E. These are not acceptable levels of service since LOS D conditions
represent severely restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds and LOS E represents
conditions at or near the roadway's capacity.
Table 1.3
US 221 Existing (2002) Levels of Service (No Build)
Section Description Length Speed Average Average Average Level of
Number mi. mph Trucks in Access Daily Service
(km) (km/h) Peak Points Traffic LOS
Hour % /mi. (/krn) Volume
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 5% 9 9,600 E
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) (70) (15)
2 SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) to 1.8 55 5% 4 8,600 D
SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) (2.9) (90) (7)
3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to 1.0 45 5% 3 7,800 E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) (70) (5)
4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to 1.9 55 7% 4 5,000 C
SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1) (90) (7)
5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 7% 5 4,800 C
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) (2.1) (90) (8)
May 2003
15
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Table 1.3 (Continued)
US 221 Existing (2002) Levels of Service (No Build)
Section Description Length Speed Average Average Average Level of
Number mi. mph Trucks in Access Daily Service
(km) (km/h) Peak Points Traffic LOS
Hour % /mi. (/km) Volume
6 SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to 2.0 55 7% 3 4,200 C
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) (3.2) (90) (5)
7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 7% 1 4,600 C
SR 1781 N (Poll Spout Rd) (5.8) (90) (2)
8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 6% 3 5,400 C
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7) (90) (5)
9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to 1.9 55 5% 2 6,800 D
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90) (4)
10 SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) to 1.5 55 4% 4 8,000 D
SR 1786/1318 (Old US 221) (2.4) (90) (7)
11 SR 1786/1318 (Old US 221) to 1.2 55 4% 7 9,000 E
SR 1306 (Chapel Hill Rd) (1.9) (90) (11)
12 SR 1306 (Chapel Hill Rd) to 1.1 55 4% 5 8,200 D
US 221-NC 226 (1.8) (90) (8)
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build)
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes
Design year (2025) average daily traffic volumes are expected to range from 7,800 vpd
just south of Thermal City to 18,000 vpd near Rutherfordton. These volumes are shown
on Figure 1.5. The future percentages for design hour traffic, the directional split, and
truck traffic are assumed to be the same as for the existing conditions.
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service
The roadway sections described in Section 1.9.2.2, page 15, were evaluated for the
no-build condition using the design year traffic volumes. These results are shown in
Table 1.4. According to these results, the traffic along US 221 from Gilkey to south of
I-40 will operate at LOS D by the design year. The portion between Rutherfordton and
Gilkey and from south of I-40 to Marion will operate at LOS E.
As discussed in Section 1.9.2.2, page 15, LOS D and LOS E are not acceptable levels of
service for this two-lane facility. These are unstable conditions that exhibit severely
restricted traffic flow and low operating speeds. Since higher speeds and improved travel
times are needed along this principal arterial, design year level of service improvements
are warranted.
May 2003
16
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Table 1.4
US 221 Design Year (2025) Levels of Service (No Build)
Section Description Length Speed Average Average Average Level of
Number mi. mph Trucks in Access Daily Service
(km) (km/h) Peak Points / Traffic LOS
Hour % mi. (km) Volume
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 5% 9 18,000 E
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) (70) (15)
2 SR 1532/1367 to SR 1355 (Mtn. 1.8 55 5% 4 16,000 E
Creek Rd) (2.9) (90) (7)
3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to 1.0 45 5% 3 14,400 E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) (70) (5)
4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to 1.9 55 7% 4 9,200 D
SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1) (90) (7)
5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 7% 5 9,000 D
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) (2.1) (90) (8)
6 SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to 2.0 55 7% 3 7,800 D
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) (3.2) (90) (5)
7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 7% 1 8,600 D
SR 1781 N (Poll Spout Rd) (5.8) (90) (2)
8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 6% 3 10,200 D
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7) (90) (5)
9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to 1.9 55 5% 2 12,800 D
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90) (4)
10 SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) to 1.5 55 4% 4 14,000 E
SR 1786/1318 (Old US 221) (2.4) (90) (7)
11 SR 1786/1318 (Old US 221) to 1.2 55 4% 7 15,800 E
SR 1306 (Chapel Hill Rd) (1.9) (90) (11)
12 SR 1306 (Chapel Hill Rd) to 1.1 55 4% 5 14,200 E
US 221-NC 226 (1.8) (90) (8)
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
During the three year period from November 1997 to December 2000, 192 reported
accidents occurred along this portion of US 221. Five fatal accidents and 91 injury
accidents occurred. Approximately 88.1 percent of the accidents occurred during the day
and 80.2 percent occurred in dry conditions.
The most common accidents included rear-end collisions (26.1 percent), run off the road
crashes (20.8 percent), angle accidents (15.1 percent), and left turn collisions
(18.3 percent). These accident patterns, summarized in Table 1.5, typically occurred at
intersections and driveways. The intersections with Thompson Road (SR 1367/
SR 1532), Mountain Creek Road (SR 1355), Polly Spout Road (SR 1781), and Mud Cut
May 2003
17
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Road (SR 1135) had the most reported accidents in the project area near TIP Project
R-2597. The intersections with Old US 221/ Ward Drive (SR 1786/ SR 1318),1-40, and
US 221-NC 226 had the most reported accidents in the project area near TIP Project
R-204 D&E.
Table 1.5
Primary Accident Types Along US 221
Accident Type Number of
Accidents Percent of
Total
Angle 29 15.1%
Animal 6 3.1%
Backing Up 1 0.5%
Fixed Object 10 5.2%
Head On 4 2.1%
Left Turn 35 18.3%
Other Non-Collision 3 1.6%
Movable Object 2 1.0%
Overturn/ Rollover 5 2.6%
Ran off Road 40 20.8%
Rear End 50 26.1%
Right Turn, Different Roadways 6 3.1%
Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 1 0.5%
192 100.0%
Report Period November 1, 1997 to December 31, 2000.
Table 1.6 summarizes the number of accidents and rates for US 221 compared with the
statewide average rates for similar two-lane rural US routes. In the project area along
TIP Project R-204 D&E, the total accident rate for US 221 [282.9 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (mvm) (175.8 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers (mvk))]
is higher than the statewide average rate [193.9 accidents per 100 mvm (120.5 accidents
per 100 mvk)]. The fatal accident rate [7.2 accidents per 100 mvm (4.5 accidents per 100
mvk)] is higher than the statewide average [2.6 accidents per 100 mvm (1.6 accidents per
100 mvk)], and the non-fatal injury rate, the night-time rate, and the wet rate are also
higher than the statewide averages. However, for the US 221 project area, the total
accident rate [171.4 accidents per 100 mvm (106.3 accidents per 100 mvk)], the non-fatal
injury rate, the night-time rate, and the wet rate are lower than the statewide averages.
Only the fatal accident rate for the US 221 project area [4.5 accidents per 100 mvm
(2.8 accidents per 100 mvk)] is higher than the statewide average.
May 2003
18
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Table 1.6
Accident Rates Along US 221
US 221 Accidents and Rates Statewide Average Rates
(Rural US Routes)
Accident Type Number Percent of Accident Accident
of Total Rate Rate
Accidents per 100 mvm per 100 mvm
(per 100 mvk) (per 100 mvk)
Project R-2597 (US 221 from SR 1536 to SR 1153)
Total 113 100.0% 134.4 (83.3) 193.9 (120.5)
Fatal 3 2.7% 3.6 (2.2) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 53 46.9% 63.0 (39.1) 88.4 (54.9)
Night 22 19.5% 26.2 (16.2) 57.3 (35.6)
Wet 23 20.4% 27.3 (17.0) 40.7 (25.3)
Project R-204 ME (US 221 from SR 1153 to NC 226)
Total 79 100.0% 282.9 (175.8) 193.9 (120.5)
Fatal 2 2.5% 7.2 (4.5) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 38 48.1% 136.1 (84.6) 88.4 (54.9)
Night 20 25.3% 71.6 (44.5) 57.3 (35.6)
Wet 15 19.0% 53.7 (33.4) 40.7 (25.3)
Project Totals (US 221 from SR 1536 to NC 226)
Total 192 100.0% 171.4 (106.3) 193.9 (120.5)
Fatal 5 2.6% 4.5 (2.8) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 91 47.4% 81.2 (50.4) 88.4 (54.9)
Night 42 21.9% 37.5 (23.2) 57.3 (35.6)
Wet 38 19.8% 33.9 (21.0) 40.7 (25.3)
Report Period November 1, 1997 to December 31, 2000.
May 2003
19
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
2.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001.
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C. p. 448
Birdsong, Rod. Executive Director, McDowell County Chamber of Commerce. Personal
communication, 9 August 2002
Federal Highway Administration. October 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8A
Federal Rail Administration, Office of Safety Analysis Web Site. 2002.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/Crossing/Default.asp
Geographic Information Systems Unit. 2002. Highway and Road Mileage. North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
Lancaster, Jim. Executive Director, Rutherford County Economic Development
Commission. Personal communication, 8 August 2002
McDowell County Chamber of Commerce Web Site. 2002.
http://www.mcdowellnc.org/chamber/
North Carolina Department of Commerce. 2000. County and Regional Scans.
http://www.nccommerce.com/econscan/
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2002. Accident Report for
1 November 1997 to 31 December 2000
Rutherford County Economic Development Commission Web Site. 2002.
http://www.econonuc-development.com/
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity
Manual. Special Report 209. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Census. 2000. Census Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Census Tracts
9601, 9602, 9605, 9702, 9705, and 9709; Rutherford County, NC; McDowell
County, NC; and State of North Carolina. December 2000. Washington: U.S.
Department Of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Viewed 7 August 2002.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServiet
May 2003
20
Re: R-2250 Termini
Subject: Re: R-2250 Termini
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:38:40 -0500
From: John Wadsworth <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @ vnet.net>
CC: "[e-mail]" <Emi ly.Law ton@ fhwa.dot.gov>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]. miI" <[e-mail]>,
"Renee.Gledhill-Earley @ncmail.net" <[e-mail]>,
Mark Reep <[e-mail]>, Stacy Harris <[e-mail]>
The northern terminus of R-204 is the intersection of US 221 and NC 226
approximately 2 miles north of the I-40 interchange. The Marion Bypass from
this point on around the western side of Marion is complete. Although we
discussed extending R-2597 study only to I-40 at the merger meeting, we plan
to extend it to the NC 226-US 221 intersection to complete all
planning/environmental work on US 221 between the Rutherfordton Bypass and the
completed portion of US 221 at Marion.
John Wadsworth
"Marla J. Chambers" wrote:
> I don't have a problem with studying the 2 projects together, but I'd like
> to know what is the "remaining portion of R-204", where is it's northern
> temini ?
> Marla J. Chambers
> Highway Projects Coordinator, Western Region
> NC Wildlife Resources Commission
> 12275 Swift Rd.
> Oakboro, NC 28129
> [phone]
> [e-mail]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wadsworth (SMTP:j [e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:13 AM
> To: Emily. [e-mail]. gov; Clarence. Coleman@fhwa. dot. gov;
> [e-mail]. nc.us; cynthia. [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Renee. [e-mail]
> Cc: Mark Reep; Stacy Harris
> Subject: R-2250 Termini
> Good morning everyone,
> As you will recall, at our merger team meeting on October 16, the
> team indicated they were satisfied with the data presented in the
> meeting materials to support the purpose and need for the
> project, however, several team members questioned the logical
> termini for the north end of the project. It appeared that I-40
> was the logical end for project R-2597 rather than SR 1153 in
> Glenwood.

1 of 2 10/31/02 11:37 AN
e.,. SiA1t u?
rr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING MINUTES
DATE: October 23, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Report of Merger Team Meeting, October 16, 2002, for US 221 from
SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County,
State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597
FROM: John Wadsworth, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PARTICIPANTS: Donna Dancausse Federal Highway Administration
Emily Lawton Federal Highway Administration
Clu-is Militscher Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Sarah McBride N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, SHPO
Cynthia Van Der Wiele N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT PD&EA
Nya Boayue NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Doug Calhoun, P.E. NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Gail Grimes, P.E. NCDOT PD&EA
John Wadsworth, P.E. NCDOT PD&EA
Ted Walls NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Aileen Mayhew, P.E. Buck Engineering
Mark Reep, P.E. Buck Engineering
Claudette Roque, P.E. Buck Engineering
Suzanne Unger, P.E. Buck Engineering
via video conference:
Steve Lund U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Max Phillips, P.E. Division 13 Construction Engineer
Roger Bryan Division 13 Environmental Supervisor
The meeting began with each of the Merger Team members introducing themselves, after
which John Wadsworth explained the purpose of the meeting, including discussion and
concurrence on Concurrence Point No. 1 - Purpose and Need.
OCT 3 0 ?G02
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: IN1 W.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
October 23, 2002
Page 2
Mark Reep gave a description of the project which involves improving a 15-mile portion
of existing US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in
Rutherford and McDowell Counties. Mark Reep highlighted the project area on the snaps
provided at the meeting stating that the project begins north of Rutherfordton, at the
proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near R. S. High School, and passes through Gilkey,
Thermal City, Vein Mountain, crosses the Second Broad River, and ends in the
community of Glenwood. A 5-mile stretch of US 221 near Vein Mountain contains steep
and mountainous terrain and sharp curves. Mark Reep stated that the section of US 221
within the project area is part of the Intrastate System, which provides access from the
foothills, South Carolina State Line, to the mountains, Boone. In addition, a map
depicting other related transportation improvements along US 221 was shown at the
meeting. In particular, TIP Project R-2233 (Rutherfordton Bypass) is located to the south
and R-204 (US 221 improvements near Marion) is located to the north.
Mark Reep indicated that the existing traffic volumes along US 221 range from
4,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to about 10,000 vpd (see Table 1). The majority of existing
US 221 operates at a level of service (LOS) C and has limited passing areas. The
portions of US 221 between Rutherfordton and Gilkey operate at LOS D and LOS E. In
the design year (2025), US 221 has a LOS D along the majority of the roadway with the
exception of -the southern end, which has a LOS E. He commented that American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines
recommend LOS B for rural arterials.
The accident rates along US 221 are lower than the statewide average rates, with the
exception of the fatal accidents (see Table 2). The fatal accident rate along this section of
US 221 is higher than the statewide average rate. In addition, the majority of the
accidents along this section of US 221 were rear end and run off the road accidents.
Improvements to this two-lane section of US 221 are demonstrated by the following
conditions: current and future traffic volumes on portions of US 221 between
Rutherfordton and Gilkey operate at or near the facility's traffic carrying capacity; this
section of US 221 is on the National Highway System and is part of the Intrastate System;
and three fatal accidents occurred within the project area during a recent three-year
period. Mark Reep indicated that the purpose of the proposed project included improving
the level of traffic service by reducing travel time and increasing operating speeds along
the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increasing safety (i.e. decreasing fatalities along
US 221).
At this time, questions from the Merger Team were solicited. John Wadsworth added
that the alignment of US 221 is substandard near Vein Mountain, particularly regarding
the horizontal curvature north of the Second Broad River crossing to Thermal City.
Steve Lund asked why the northern project terminus ended at Goose Creek Road and was
not extended to I-40. There is concern among the Merger Team members regarding the
lack of logical tennini and project segmentation. TIP Project R-204 includes
improvements to US 221 from Goose Creek Road to north of 1-40, and has a similar
schedule to Project R-2597. Max Phillips asked about any improvements that may be
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
October 23, 2002
Page 3
needed on Goose Creek Road as a part of this project. At this time, Goose Creek Road
does not appear to require improvements with Project R-2597.
The Merger Team discussed the sequencing of projects adjacent to Project R-2597. The
environmental study for Project R-204 near Marion is underway, but is not currently
following the Merger Process. Project R-2233 (Rutherfordton Bypass) is at Concurrence
Point No. 2 (Alternatives). Chris Militscher stated that not constructing Project R-204
would create a bottleneck in the vicinity of Goose Creek Road where the multi-lane
improvements with Project R-2597 would end. He is not opposed to construction
phasing, but does not support segmentation. Gail Grimes indicated that Project R-204
has been in the TIP a lot longer than Project R-2597 and may not follow the Merger
Process.
Chris Militscher indicated that the Purpose and Need Statement contains adequate
information to justify the project, and he is willing to agree on the Purpose and Need
provided Project R-204 is incorporated into this project. He also mentioned that when
addressing logical project termini, jurisdictional boundaries may be utilized in the
absence of roadway boundaries. Several members of the Merger Team were not in
agreement with the project study area and asked for the project limits to be extended to
I-40 for a more logical terminus.
A brief discussion regarding the type of facility proposed ensued and it was suggested to
include a statement in the Purpose and Need regarding the need to multilane US 221 to
accommodate the Intrastate System. A brief discussion regarding the bridge replacements
in the vicinity of the project followed. TIP Project B-4199 is located on a road adjacent
to US 221 near the McDowell County Line. In addition, Project B-3673 (Bridge No. 17
over the Second Broad River) may be planned separately from Project R-2597 since this
bridge is deteriorating quickly. In 2000, this bridge had a sufficiency rating of 47.8
percent and six years of life remaining.
In summary, TIP Project R-2597 needs a logical northern terminus. The NCDOT will
examine the possibility of combining this project with Project R-204 or re-addressing
Project R-2597 limits. The Merger Team members did not have any other concerns
regarding the Purpose and Need Statement. The NCDOT preferred that concurrence on
the purpose and need not include conditions; therefore, Concurrence Point No. 1 (Purpose
and Need) was not achieved and would be re-examined once a logical northern project
terninus was detennined.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact John
Wadsworth, Project Development Engineer at [phone], ext. 209.
cc: Meeting Participants
Merger Team Members
Project File
Attachments
AGENDA
US 221
FROM SR 1536 IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TO SR 1153 IN MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2597
NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM MEETING
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. 1 (PURPOSE AND NEED)
October 16, 2002 - 3:00 p.m.
NCDOT Board Room
Transportation Building
• Welcome
• Meeting Purpose and Goals
• Brief History of Project
- Project Description
- Intrastate System
o Existing Conditions (Tables 1 and 2)
Existing Roadway Characteristics
Existing Traffic Volumes
- Existing Levels of Service
Accident Analysis
Y Projected Conditions (No Build) (Table 1)
Design Year Traffic Volumes
Design Year Levels of Service
• Summary of Need for Proposed Action
• Purpose of Proposed Action
0 Comments / Questions
• Discussion of Concurrence Point No. 1 (Purpose and Need)
0 Summary and Conclusions
US 221
FROM SR 1536 IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TO SR 1153 IN MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2597
NCDOT proposes to improve a 15-mile (24.1-kilometer) portion of existing US 221 from
Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Rutherford and McDowell
Counties. The 15-mile (24.1-kilometer) proposed improvements begin at the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221 (SR 1536) and pass through the Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood communities. The proposed improvements end at
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Glenwood, south of Marion.
In 1989 the North Carolina General Assembly established the Intrastate System to
provide high-speed and safe travel through North Carolina. NCDOT designated US 221
as part of an Intrastate Corridor between the South Carolina Line and Boone.
Existing US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) is
generally a two-lane roadway that expands to three lanes near the southern project limit at
Old US 221 (SR 1536). This segment of US 221 is a rolling two-lane roadway with
moderate curves and grades, except for a 5-mile (8-kilometer) portion near Vein
Mountain, where the terrain is steep and mountainous and sharper curves limit travel
speed and sight distance.
No control of access exists on this route. Numerous driveways and intersecting roads are
located throughout the project area, particularly near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood. The speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) (90
kilometers per hour (km/h)) throughout most of the project length. Two short sections,
totaling approximately one mile (1.6 kilometers), have 45 mph (70 km/h) speed limits.
These sections are at the southern end of the project and in the Gilkey community.
SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
Improvements to this two-lane segment of US 221 are demonstrated by the following
conditions:
• Current and future traffic volumes on portions of US 221 between Rutherfordton
and Gilkey operate at or near the facility's traffic carrying capacity (level of
service E (LOS E)). Future traffic volumes on most of the project between
Gilkey and Glenwood will operate at LOS D. LOS D represents severely
restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds, and LOS E represents conditions
at or near the roadway's capacity. These arc not acceptable levels of service for a
viral arterial.
• This segment of US 221 is on the National Highway System and is part of the
Intrastate System, designated in 1989 by the NC General Assembly to provide
safe, high-speed travel throughout North Carolina. US 221 is part of a corridor
that extends from Spartanburg/Greenville, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina. This is an important arterial that links the foothills and the northwest
mountains.
• Three fatal accidents occurred within the project area during a recent three-year
period. The fatal accident rate [3.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (mvm)
(2.2 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers (mvk))] is higher than the
statewide average [2.6 accidents per 100 mvm (1.6 accidents per 100 mvk)];
however, the non-fatal injury, night-time, and wet rates are lower than the
statewide averages. The most common accident patterns are run off the road
crashes, rear-end collisions, angle accidents, and left turn collisions. These
patterns account for 64.5 percent of the total accidents and typically occur at
driveways and intersections along this uncontrolled access facility.
PURPOSE Or PROPOSED ACTION
The main purposes of the project are:
Improve the levels of traffic service by reducing travel time and increasing
operating speeds along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
0 Increase safety.
TABLE 1
US 221 LEVELS OF SERVICE
NO BUILD
Section Description Length Speed Existing 2002 Design Year 2025
Number mi mpli Average Level of Average Level of
(km) (km/h) Daily Service Daily Service
Traffic LOS Traffic LOS
Volume Volume
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 9,600 E 18,000 E
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) 70)
2 SR 1532/1367 ('Thompson Rd) 1.8 55 8,400 D 15,200 E
to SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) (2.9) (90)
3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to 1.0 45 7,600 E 14,200 E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) 70
4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) 1.9 55 4,600 C 8,300 D
to SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1 90)
5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 4,800 C 8,800 D
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) (2.1 (90
6 SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to 2.0 55 4,000 C 7,200 D
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd 3.2) 90
7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 4,400 C 8,300 D
SR 1781 N (Poll Spout Rd) 5.8 90
8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 5,200 C 9,900 D
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7 90)
9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) 1.9 55 6,650 C 12,400 D
to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90)
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT RATES ALONG US 221

US 221 Accidents and Rates
From SR 1536 to SR 1153 Statewide Average
Rates
Rural US Routes
Accident Type Number Percent of Accident Accident
of Total Rate Rate
Accidents per 100 nivin per 100 nrvm
(per 100 mvk (per 100 mvk
Total 113 100.0% 134.4 (83.3) 193.9 (120.5)
Fatal 3 2.7% 3.6 (2.2) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 53 469% 63.0 (39.1) 88.4 (54.9)
Night 22 19.5% 26.2 (16.2) 57.3 (35.6)
Wet 23 20.4% 27.3 (17.0) 40.7 (25.3)
Report Period (November 1, 1997 to October 31, 2000)
R-2250 Termini
Subject: R-2250 Termini
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:12:50 -0400
From: John Wadsworth <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail], Clarence.Coleman@f iwa.dot.gov,
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: Mark Reep <[e-mail]>, Stacy Harris <[e-mail]>
Good morning everyone,
As you will recall, at our merger team meeting on October 16, the
team indicated they were satisfied with the data presented in the
meeting materials to support the purpose and need for the
project, however, several team members questioned the logical
termini for the north end of the project. It appeared that I-40
was the logical end for project R-2597 rather than SR 1153 in
Glenwood.
The project to the north of R-2597 is TIP project R-204. R-204
is a very old TIP project that was originally studied in the late
1970's and has an approved environmental document signed in
1978. This project began at SR 1153 because one alternative
began at SR 1153 and proceeded west around the Town on Marion.
This alternative was dropped in favor of improving the existing
US 221 location. Since this document is over 20 years old, NCDOT
decided to prepare a new EA for the remaining portion of R-204
rather than trying to update the existing document. The southern
terminus of R-204 in the new document was not revised from that
previously studied in the original document.
As a result of the discussion at the merger team meeting, NCDOT
is agreeable to combining the environmental documents for the two
TIP numbers into one document. Each project will keep the same
TIP numbers but there will be only one EA or EIS as the case may
be. The next printing of the TIP will indicate these two
projects are being studied together. I believe this action will
address the concerns about logical termini. Does everyone
agree? If so, what revisions are necessary in the purpose and
need statement, other than revising the description of the
project, in order for the team to sign the concurrence form? I
await your responses.
John Wadsworth
1 of 1 10/23/02 2:31 PD
r +
AGENDA
US 221
FROM SR 1536 IN IMMERFORD COUNTY
TO SR 1153 IN MCDONYEI,L COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. IZ-2597
NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM MEETING
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. I (PURPOSE AND NEED)
October 16, 2002 - 3:00 p.m.
NCDO'T Board Room
Transportation Building
• Welcome
• Meeting Putpose and Goals
• Brief History of Project
Project Description
Intrastate System
0 Existing Conditions (Tables 1 and 2)
- Existing Roadway Characteristics
Existing Traffic Volumes
- Existing Levels of Service
- Accident Analysis
• Projected Conditions (No Build) (Table 1)
- Design Year Traffic Volumes
- Design Year Levels of Service
• Summary of Need for Proposed Action
• Pu?posc ol'Proposed Action
• Colllmenls / Questions
0 Discussion of Concurrence Point No. 1 (Pu?-pose and Nccd )
0 Summary and Conclusions
US 221
FROA1 SR 1536 IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TO SR 1153 IN IMCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP PROJEC'T' NO. IZ-2597
NCDOT proposes to improve a 15-mile (24.1-kilometer) portion of cxistin- US 221 from
Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Rutherford and McDowell
Counties. 'File 15-mile (24.1-kilomctcr) proposed improvements begin at the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221 (SR 1536) and pass through the Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vcin Mountain, and Glcnwood conununitics. The proposed improvcments end at
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Glenwood, south of Marion.
In 1959 the North Carolina General Assembly established the Intrastate System to
provide high-speed and safe travel through North Carolina. NCDOT designated US 221
as part of an Intrastate Corridor between the South Carolina Line and Boone.
Existing US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) is
generally a two-lane roadway that expands to three lanes near the southern project limit at
Old US 221 (SR 1536). This segment of US 221 is a rolling two-lane roadway with
moderate curves and grades, except for a 5-mile (8-kilometer) portion near Vein
Mountain, where the terrain is steep and mountainous and sharper curves limit travel
speed and sight distance.
No control of access exists on this route. Numerous driveways and intersecting roads are
located throughout the project area, particularly near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Thernial
City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood. The speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) (90
kilometers per hour (km/h)) throughout most of the project length. Two short sections,
totaling approximately one mile (1.6 kilometers), have 45 mph (70 km/h) speed limits.
These sections are at the southern end of the project and in the Gilkey community.
SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
Improvcnicnts to this two-lane segment of US 221 arc demonstrated by the following
conditions:
• Current and future traffic volumes on portions of- US 221 between Rutherfordton
and Gilkey operate at or near the facility's traffic carrying capacity (level of
service E (LOS E)). Future traffic volumes on most of' the project between
Gilkey and Glcnwood will operate at LOS D. LOS D represents severely
restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds, and LOS E. represents conditions
at or near the roadway's capacity. These arc not acceptable levels of service for a
rural arterial.
• This segment of' US 221 is on the National I igltway System and is part of the
Intrastate System, designated in 1959 by the NC Gcncral Assembly to provide
safe, higlh-speed travel throughout North Carolina. US 221 is part of a corridor
that extends fi-om Spartanburg/Grecnvilie, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina. This is an urlportant arterial that links the foothills and the northwest
nlountallls.
• Three fatal accidents occurred within the project area during a recent three-year
period. The fatal accident rate [3.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (Whin)
(2.2 accidents pcr 100 million vehicle kilometers (nlvk))) is hig}ler than the
statewide average [2.6 accidents per 100 nlvnl (1.6 accidents pcr 100 nlvk)];
however, the non-fatal injury, night-time, and wet rates arc lower than the
statewide averages. 'File most common accident patterns are run off the road
crashes, rear-end collisions, angle accidents, and left turn collisions. These
patterns account for 64.5 percent of the total accidents and typically occur at
driveways and intersections along this uncontrolled access facility.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The main purjloses of the project arc:
• Improve the levels of traffic service by reducing travel tinle and increasing
operating speeds along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
• Increase safety.
TABLE 1
US 221 LEVELS OF SERVICE
NO BUILD
Section Description Length Speed Existing 2002) Design Year (2025)
Number mi mph Average Level of Average Level of
(km) (km/h) Daily Service DaiIY Service
"Traffic LOS Traflic LOS
Volume Volume
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 9,600 I: 18,000 I:
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) (70)
2 SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) 1.8 55 8,400 D 15,200 1;
to SR 1355 (Mtn. Crcck Rd) (2.9) (911)
3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Crcck Rd) to 1.0 45 7,600 E 14,200 1.
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) (70)
4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) 1.9 55 4,600 C 8,300 D
to SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1) (90)
5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 4,800 C 8,800 D
SR 1510 (1ludlow Rd) (2.1) (90)
6 SR 1510 (I ludlow Rd) to 2.0 55 4,000 C 7,200 D
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) (3.2) (90)
7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 4,400 C 8,300 D
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) (5.8) (90)
8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 5,200 C 9,900 D
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7) (90)
9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) 1.9 55 6,650 C 12,400 D
to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90)
TABLE 2
ACCIDENT RATES ALONG US 221

US 221 Accidents and Rates
From SIZ 1536 to SR 1153 Statewide Average
Rates
Rural US Routes
Accident Type Number Percent of Accident Accident
of Total Rate Rate
Accidents per 100 mvm per 100 mvm
per 100 nrvk per 100 mvk
Total 113 100.01!;, 134.4 (83.3) 193.9 (120.5) --
Fatal 3 2.7'i4'? 3.6 (2.2) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 53 46.(P.', 63.0 (39.1) 85.4 (54.9)
Night 22 19.5";, 26.2 (16.2) 57.3 (35.6)
Vet 23 20.4'-;) 27.3 (17.0) 40.7 (25.3)
RCI)MI Pcllull (\mcmbcr I, 1997 lo Octobci 31, 2000)
1 STAI, u
c
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
rOU WA71 R u,Tlhf 1;t? Dn ECT f4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOt;E C? P
P
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPE"IT
GOVI`.RNOR S11CRGTARY
September 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: David Franklin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, P.E., Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Ted Bisterfcld, Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Renee Gledhill-Earley, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, N.C. DENR, Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Dan Martin, P.E., NCDOT Division 13 Office
Ted Walls, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Blake Norwood, P.E., NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Stacy B. Harris, P.E., Consultant Engineerin nit H a
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Merger Team Meeting for US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford
County to SR 1153 in McDowell County, State Project No.
6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597
A merger team meeting is scheduled for Qctober 16, 2002 at 3:00 pm in the Board
Room of NCDOT's Transportation Building in Raleigh. The meeting is being held to
discuss and reach concurrence on the purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1) for the
proposed improvements to US 221 in Rutherford and McDowell Counties (Project
R-2597). The purpose and need statement for this project is attached for your review.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact me at (919) 733-
7844, extension 264 or John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Development Engineer, at (919)
733-7844, extension 209.
SBH/mr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WE©SITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
i SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County
to SR 1153 in McDowell County
T.I.P. Project Number R-2597
State Project Number 6.899002T
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
September 2002
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................1
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........................................1
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................2
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................2
1.5.1 Project Setting .............................................................................................2
1.5.2 History of Project ........................................................................................4
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE ..........................................................................................4
1.6.1 Existing Road Network ...............................................................................4
1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships ........................................................................... ..4
1.6.2.1 Railways ................................................................................................ ..4
1.6.2.2 Airports .................................................................................................. ..6
1.6.2.3 Mass Transit .......................................................................................... .. 6
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................... .. 6
1.7.1 Demographics ............................................................................................ ..6
1.7.2 Economic Data .......................................................................................... .. 6
1.7.3 Proposed Development Plans .................................................................... .. 8
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ......................................................................... .. 8
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program ............................................... .. 8
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans ......................................................................... 10
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY ................................................................................. 10
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics ................................................................ 10
1.9.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 11
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 11
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service ..................................................................... 11
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build) ............................................................... 14
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 14
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service .............................................................. 15
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 16
2.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 18
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map .................................................................. 3
Figure 1.2 Existing Road Network ............................................................... 5
Figure 1.3 TIP Projects in Vicinity ............................................................... 9
September 2002
I
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
Figure 1.4 Existing US 221 Photographs .........................................................12
Figure 1.5 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (No Build Case) .......................... 13
TABLES
Table 1.1 TIP Projects Along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor ................................10
Table 1.2 Other TIP Projects in the Vicinity of US 221 ........................................10
Table 1.3 US 221 Existing (2002) Levels of Service (No Build) .............................14
Table 1.4 US 221 Design Year (2025) Levels of Service (No Build) ........................ 15
Table 1.5 Primary Accident Types Along US 221 ...............................................16
Table 1.6 Accident Rates Along US 221 ..........................................................17
September 2002
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
An environmental document is being prepared in accordance with the requirements set
forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This is an
informational document intended for use both by decision makers and the public. As
such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the
proposed action.
The content of this document conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
guidelines, which provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural
provisions of NEPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (Technical
Advisory T6640.8A, October 1987).
This project is following North Carolina's NEPA/ Section 404 Merger Agreement
process. The FHWA and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead
agencies for this project.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
NCDOT proposes to improve a 15-mile (24.1-kilometer) portion of existing US 221 from
Old US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Rutherford and McDowell
Counties. The purpose of the project is to improve the level of traffic service and
increase safety along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor.
1.3 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
Improvements to this two-lane segment of US 221 are demonstrated by the following
conditions:
• Current and future traffic volumes on portions of US 221 between Rutherfordton
and Gilkey operate at or near the facility's traffic carrying capacity (level of
service E (LOS E)). Future traffic volumes on most of the project between
Gilkey and Glenwood will operate at LOS D. LOS D represents severely
restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds, and LOS E represents conditions
at or near the roadway's capacity. These are not acceptable levels of service for a
rural arterial.
• This segment of US 221 is on the National Highway System and is part of the
Intrastate System, designated in 1989 by the NC General Assembly to provide
safe, high-speed travel throughout North Carolina. US 221 is part of a corridor
that extends from Spartanburg/Greenville, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina. This is an important arterial that links the foothills and the northwest
mountains.
September 2002

Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
• Three fatal accidents occurred within the project area during a recent three-year
period. The fatal accident rate [3.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (mvm)
(2.2 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers (mvk))] is higher than the
statewide average [2.6 accidents per 100 mvm (1.6 accidents per 100 mvk)];
however, the non-fatal injury, night-time, and wet rates are lower than the
statewide averages. The most common accident patterns are run off the road
crashes, rear-end collisions, angle accidents, and left turn collisions. These
patterns account for 64.5 percent of the total accidents and typically occur at
driveways and intersections along this uncontrolled access facility.
1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The main purposes of the project are:
• Improve the levels of traffic service by reducing travel time and increasing
operating speeds along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor, and
• Increase safety.
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.5.1 Project Setting
The project area is located in north central Rutherford County and southeastern
McDowell County within the Inner Piedmont of western North Carolina. This 15-mile
(24.1-kilometer) project begins at the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221
(SR 1536) and passes through the Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood
communities (see Figure 1.1). The project ends at Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in
Glenwood, south of Marion. The terrain within the area is mostly rolling except for a
5-mile (8-kilometer) portion near Vein Mountain where the terrain is steep and
mountainous. Elevations range from 940 to 1380 feet (287 to 421 meters) above sea
level. The land area of Rutherford County is 564 square miles (1,461 square kilometers).
McDowell County is 442 square miles (1,145 square kilometers) in area, of which
approximately 75 percent is forested.
US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System linking
the foothills and the northwest mountains. This segment of US 221 is a two-lane
roadway with moderate curves and grades, except in the area of Vein Mountain, where
there are sharper curves that limit travel speed and sight distance.
Other important highway routes near the project area include Interstate 40, US 64,
US 74A, and NC 226. Many secondary roads intersect and run parallel to portions of the
project, but US 221 is the primary north-south highway serving northern Rutherford and
southern McDowell Counties. Other transportation facilities in the area include the CSX
Transportation railroad and the Rutherford County Airport.
September 2002
Jr.
ds _
Creek` --.,_ -- _,\?!\ ?_ _ _ ?_
V O
Ilk
0r,
X
CL t'
O• ?o
T ,?-
1
m
n
l
f
ol?
r
P°c??o ?'?. Ate- ,r•?,/? ??l
f0 aid A sr -l7 ?l 1 d S ?, ?\ ?, '?
0 3 v o ? o, ?a SSA ?! m
m n °' o o E, N P r O
in ?Oj'
o < a q .. ,
m CD
Cil
C) CD 3
.?Id ?'-
? \v
^' a O / } S
3 ? ? o OCO r Cjr
°: N 0
N CD
O
w I I _
-03
cn m
Lrl
W .D /..- j..? -
cn m
C O j m
m
m
3 O c0 < J o+ G l
W m `" p O, (D ?? \ o ?i ose reek Kd
U1 Y
Q C .?. -? \ _ ?---'? ?• SR X75
o v
a
° I-
l?
f ,
°
m g v
r ,?
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
1.5.2 History of Project
In 1989 the NC General Assembly established the Intrastate System to provide high-
speed and safe travel throughout North Carolina. NCDOT designated US 221 as part of
an Intrastate Corridor between the South Carolina State Line and Boone.
In November 1989, this segment of US 221 was first included in the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Currently, the project is part of the 2002-
2008 TIP and the draft 2004-2010 TIP. It is scheduled for right of way acquisition to
begin in 2007 and for construction to begin in 2009.
1.6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.6.1 Existing Road Network
Rutherford County has a total of 1,068.3 miles (1,719.3 kilometers) of roads on the state
highway system. This includes 875.1 miles (1408.3 kilometers) of secondary roads and
193.2 miles (310.9 kilometers) of primary and urban roads. Rutherford County has no
interstate highways, six US routes, and four NC routes. The US routes include US 64,
US 74, US 74A, US 74B, US 221, and US 221A. The NC routes include NC 9, NC 108,
NC 120, and NC 226 (see Figure 1.2).
McDowell County has a total of 592.3 miles (953.2 kilometers) of roads on the state
highway system. This includes 443.1 miles (713.1 kilometers) of secondary roads and
149.2 miles (240.1 kilometers) of primary and urban roads. McDowell County has one
interstate highway, I-40. It has three US routes and four NC routes. The US routes
include US 64, US 70, and US 221. The NC routes include NC 80, NC 126, NC 226, and
NC 226A.
The main north-south highways in the two counties are US 221 and NC 226. US 221
connects Spartanburg with Boone. NC 226 connects Shelby with Spruce Pine. The
main east-west routes in the counties are I-40, US 64, US 70, and US 74. 1-40 and
US 70 connect Hickory with Asheville. US 64 connects Morganton with Hendersonville,
and US 74 connects Shelby with Hendersonville.
1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships
1.6.2.1 Railways
The CSX Transportation Railroad generally follows US 221 along the east side between
Glenwood and Thermal City. The railroad line does not cross US 221 within the project
area. Approximately 29 trains per day use this rail line with maximum speeds of 45
miles per hour (mph) (70 kilometers per hour (km/h)).
September 2002
4

SOUTH CAROLINA
1 ?
I
A cn
*L l
CD
' y
v
i .? lu ;o o j o o
o j % ,. n
r- 00
mic
I
1 °
a I m 010
oj;u
of 0
r
.0 (D
o
1
i N ?•
°' po
O B
by?.?,rco
1 m r? a ? ?
i o s-
00
^^ o
•O N
I E:n ?.
to
O ?
CY)
N •T
(D
ON
% 6p \?
a
Z
U) O
80
i
U3 N
co 0 91 0
:1 O
G) a) 8 0
?.
C.0 CD (D ;L 0
"• a
=3 3 CO ° _<
w =r
W 1
o
C> RN 0 (D
_<
0 :3
N
N
N ?

cn -?

?
W
?
N r
C Z
O

O U) ? m

N ?
??? mop
<
V, ? D

? O, ? rn cn ? ?

? o ;n "
N ? C = Q° m
.=i.

c a >

-?Zv' c
c

m
C'q m i
r Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
1.6.2.2 Airports
The Rutherford County Airport - Marchman Field is located north of Rutherfordton and
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) east of US 221. The most direct access to the
airport is from US 64 using Fowler Road (SR 1523) and Airport Road. This airport has
one 5,000-foot (1,524-meter) runway. The closest major commercial airport is the
Asheville Regional Airport located approximately 35 miles (56 kilometers) west.
1.6.2.3 Mass Transit
The McDowell County Transportation Planning Board and the Rutherford County Transit
Department provide subscription and dial-a-ride week-day transportation for some county
residents. However, there are no public bus or passenger rail services for either county,
and there are no current plans for such services.
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1.7.1 Demographics
Rutherford County was founded in 1779 during the American Revolution from a portion
of Tryon County (once part of South Carolina). There are eight municipalities within the
county, including the seat of Rutherfordton. The largest municipality is Forest City with
a population of over 7,500.
McDowell County was organized in 1842. There are two municipalities within the
county, Marion and Old Fort. Marion is the largest city and county seat.
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties have been growing steadily since 1990.
According to the US Census, the total population of Rutherford County grew from
56,918 in 1990 to 62,899 in 2000 (a 10.5 percent increase). Similarly, the population of
McDowell County grew from 35,681 in 1990 to 42,151 in 2000 (an 18.1 percent
increase).
The R-2597 study area includes Census tracts 9601, 9602, 9605, and 9709. The total
population of these tracts increased from 24,744 in 1990 to 30,798 in 2000, representing
growth of 24.5 percent.
1.7.2 Economic Data
Rutherford and McDowell Counties have both experienced growth in new businesses in
recent years. The new business rate in 1999 was 10.8 percent for Rutherford County and
9.6 percent for McDowell County. Rutherford ranked 87 out of 100 counties in North
Carolina for employment associated with new plants in 1999. Similarly, McDowell
County ranked 80 out of 100 for the same indicator.
September 2002
6

Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
Despite growth in new businesses, both counties have experienced unemployment rates
above the state average. The unemployment rate in Rutherford County was 4.0 percent in
1999 compared to the state average of 3.2 percent. In McDowell County, the
unemployment rate was 6.8 percent during the same year. Both counties report the
unemployment rate has remained high. In Rutherford County, unemployment rates have
remained above 11 percent during 2002 (Rutherford County Economic Development
Commission 2002). In McDowell County, unemployment averaged 8.0 percent in 2001.
Job losses have been primarily among the two largest manufacturing sectors in the
county, furniture and textiles (McDowell County Chamber of Commerce 2002). Per
capita income in both Rutherford ($20,183) and McDowell ($19,522) Counties was
below the statewide average of $25,181 in 1998 (North Carolina Department of
Commerce 2000).
Although considered rural counties, the economies of both Rutherford and McDowell
Counties rely heavily on manufacturing. According to the North Carolina Department of
Commerce (2000), employment in the manufacturing sector during 1999 accounted for
41.1 percent of jobs in Rutherford County and 51.5 percent of jobs in McDowell County.
The next two largest employment sectors in Rutherford County were services (15.8
percent) and retail trade (14.6 percent). In McDowell County, the next two largest
employment sectors were government (13.4 percent) and retail trade (12.9 percent).
Agriculture accounted for less than one percent of employment in both counties.
Major employers in Rutherford County include National Textiles (textiles), Watts-
Regulator Company (valves), Cone Mills Corporation (denim), Mastercraft Corporation
(silk and manmade fibers), AG Industries (cabinets), Torrington Company (ball
bearings), and Tanner Companies (women's apparel) (Lancaster personal
communication). Major employers in McDowell County include Baxter Healthcare
Corporation (medical supplies), Coats American (thread finishing), McDowell County
Schools (public education), Collins & Aikman Corporation (automotive carpet), Ethan
Allen (furniture), and Galey & Lord (textile) (McDowell County Chamber of Commerce
2002).
The McDowell County Chamber of Commerce reports that tourism is a potential
economic engine for the county (Birdsong personal communication). With their location
in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Rutherford and McDowell Counties offer
many recreational opportunities. In Rutherford County, these attractions include Lake
Lure and Chimney Rock Park. McDowell County is home to Lake James State Park,
Linville Caverns, and the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area.
The US 221 corridor from Spartanburg/GreenviIle, South Carolina to Boone, North
Carolina brings many tourists from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Rutherford
and McDowell Counties as they travel to the North Carolina mountains. Travel spending
during 1999 totaled over $86 million in Rutherford County and nearly $32 million in
McDowell County (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2000).
Within the project study area, a few service businesses are located along US 221 near the
towns of Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood. Broyhill Furniture
Industries operates two plants along the study corridor in Rutherford County, a case
September 2002
7
r
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
goods plant and an upholstery plant. The Gilkey Lumber Company is located along US
221 near Gilkey School Road (SR 1362).
1.7.3 Proposed Development Plans
Neither Rutherford nor McDowell County has a published development plan. However,
Rutherford County is currently developing a strategic plan that addresses economic
growth. A draft of the plan will be available in November 2002.
Rutherford County is working to attract businesses for its new 1,150 acre (465 hectare)
Riverstone Business Park. The industrial park is located along US 221 south of the
project study area. An automotive company recently became the first tenant.
McDowell County hopes to increase commercial development at the US 221 interchange
with Interstate 40. Development has been somewhat limited in this location due to the
lack of water and sewer service, but the City of Marion recently won a grant to extend
sewer service along US 221 for approximately 2 to 3 miles (3.2 to 4.8 kilometers) south
of I-40 (McDowell County Chamber of Commerce 2002).
1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
1.8.1 NC Transportation Improvement Program
The proposed action is included as Project R-2597 in NCDOT's 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the draft 2004-2010 TIP. This project is
currently scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in 2007 and for construction to
begin in 2009. Project R-2597 is one of three proposed improvements along the US 221
Intrastate Corridor from the South Carolina State Line to Marion. These projects are
described below and shown in Table 1.1 and Figure 1.3.
Planning is underway for an 18.2-mile (29.3-kilometer) segment of US 221 with Project
R-2233, located south of Project R-2597. This project consists of constructing multilane
improvements from the South Carolina State Line to SR 1536 and includes a Bypass of
Rutherfordton.
Planning is also underway for a 5.8-mile (9.3-kilometer) segment of US 221 with Project
R-204, located north of Project R-2597. This project proposes multilane improvements
from SR 1153 to NC 226 in McDowell County. Multilane improvements are completed
on US 221 from NC 226 Business to SR 1434 on the north side of Marion.
September 2002
8
I
J rv ?! 4,,
?? I V Low r r /clD 1 ?'? ?• \? ?i
13
C)
I' f / y ca / ?-? f G O
00
00
77
' i •
r ? _t 1
Cil
:i
1
} OJ
.00
-4
,
- O D D D 0 Ca y?r'i++?a * fr'F i ?? , r'"•? I ? 6?j I J _ ??. 'I? \ ? ,i?
Q A A R , l; O E? 1
CD CD
N O O CD s -D
(D CD T CD =r f"
n
2. (D
CD ?? r«O i \
C
.A ? w? 7 D I- I r '' , l
O (D
u) 3
(D p? ?'?3
ao O co CD
03
M. B CD n m O c - . } ( -
-- CD ti
CD -4O O ?? f i
\.
O 7 a O
O o 3 cn
D (D p (D
? p
C .?•r i( (- A ?i. Cl
i - o •?
•?
LID
o
7]..?..-.. --.] M_-J -_-__-
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
Table 1.1
TIP Projects Along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor
TIP Route Location Description Status
Project
R-2233 US 221 South Carolina State Line to SR 1536, Widen to Multi-Lanes Planning in Progress
Rutherford County, 18.2 Miles (29.3 with Bypass of
Kilometers) Rutherfordton
R-2597 US 221 SR 1536 to SR 1153, Rutherford and Widen to Multi-Lanes, Planning in Progress
McDowell Counties, 15.0 Miles (24.1 Including Replacement of
Kilometers) Bridge 17 Over the
Second Broad River
R-204 US 221 SR 1153 to NC 226 and US 221- Widen to Multi-Lanes Planning in Progress
NC 226 Business to SR 1434, Part Complete
McDowell County, 5.8 Miles (9.3
Kilometers)
.? .$ !q liri cr) 7'oiO_ (j5 ---),2J . J t wj .jam 22-1
Several other TIP projects are located in Che surrounding area. These improvements are
listed below in Table 1.2. 4 -,e
Table 1.2
Su`C?PrY Other TIP Projects in the Vicinity of US 221
YTa ? n G tr . ?,7 .
TIP Route Location Description Status
Project
U-2711 SR 2241/ West Of US 74A to US 221A (South Widen to Five Lanes and Part in Acquisition,
SR 2179 Broadway St.), Forest City, Rutherford Extend on New Location Part Under
(Oak St.) County, 1.6 Miles (2.6 Kilometers) Construction
B-4199 SR 1782 Second Broad River, East of US 221, Replace Bridge No. 198 Planning to Begin
McDowell Count
I1-2643 SR 1001 Sugar Hill Road, I-40 to Marion Widen to Multi-Lanes Under Construction
Bypass, McDowell County, 2.3 Miles
(3.7 Kilometers)
1.8.2 Local Thoroughfare Plans
The 1995 McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan recommended multilane improvements
along US 221 within McDowell County to accommodate future traffic volumes and
preserve the integrity of this intrastate route. The 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan includes the southern end of the project as a major thoroughfare.
1.9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.9.1 Existing Facility Characteristics
This segment of US 221 is generally a two-lane roadway that expands to three lanes near
the southern project limit at Old US 221 (SR 1536). The alignment is adequate with
moderate curves and grades, except in the area of Vein Mountain, where sharper curves
September 2002
10
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
limit travel speed and sight distance. Photographs of the existing roadway are shown on
Figure 1.4.
No control of access exists on this route. Numerous driveways and intersecting roads are
located throughout the project area, particularly near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood. All intersections are at grade and stop sign
controlled.
The speed limit is 55 mph (90 km/h) throughout most of the project length. Two short
sections, totaling approximately 1 mile (1.6 kilometers), have 45 mph (70 km/h) speed
limits. These sections are at the southern end of the project and in the Gilkey community.
1.9.2 Existing Conditions
1.9.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
The 2002 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along this portion of US 221 range from
3,600 vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Thermal City to 9,600 vpd near Rutherfordton.
These volumes are shown on Figure 1.5. Lower traffic volumes are encountered in the
less developed areas between Gilkey and Vein Mountain. Higher traffic volumes are
encountered near Rutherfordton, Gilkey, and Glenwood. The estimated design hourly
volumes along US 221 are 10 percent of the average daily traffic. During the afternoon
peak hour, the northbound direction carries the heaviest movement (55 percent) of the
traffic.
Truck traffic makes up 9 to 13 percent of the total US 221 traffic volumes. From
Rutherfordton to Gilkey, trucks account for 9 percent of the volumes, of which 4 percent
are medium sized dual-axle trucks and 5 percent are heavy tractor-trailer trucks. From
Gilkey to Vein Mountain, trucks account for 13 percent of the volumes, of which 5
percent are dual-axle trucks and S percent are tractor-trailer trucks.
1.9.2.2 Existing Levels of Service
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability.
Levels of service range from LOS A to F, with LOS A being the best and LOS F the
worst. Level of service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and operating speeds.
Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating speeds.
Level of service C represents restricted maneuvering and operating speeds close to the
speed limit. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering and unstable,
low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel; this occurs
at level of service F.
Current US 221 traffic volumes were analyzed using techniques from the Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (2000). The facility was divided into nine
sections to reflect changes in speed and volumes. Each section was evaluated based on
September 2002
11
a

Looking North at
Broyhill Road
Looking South at
Vein Mountain

Looking North at the ta''.
Second Broad River

'F? c? i .wwrM??
{
V
111 ??
t 3
I
Looking South
at Goose Creek
k
a

ai?a
yx
r

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
? Analysis Branch

o
' US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
*+?rorn?N°"ofi SR 1153 in McDowell County
TIP Project R-2597
Figure 1.4 Existing US 221 Photographs
: -? 0)N) I i'
00
0 0 00 cO
0, C) CY)
CD C)
0 C:)
m A
C) CF)
0 0
O o
?) - co (D Ui O NZ N
41- 00 OO O O O O
=3 F?
?j
N
1 ? ? Chil j
?? j , ?ye?ty? O o
Rd ° o
--,
N }( _ aa?,..
J A N ` Q?
Q) Cb S
o0 0 tPQ =3
0 0 j:(CM=:I)
` yak Sprmgs Rq 4 >C?l
CD co
w rn
00 00
O (7
i `1 Rr
u.
y4 a9e R '
p 0 0
i ` I an Jets ?
Cl)
00
( 00 03
\? o O O
Qa 'o
n
5ZE6#2j`
C) pz? w
o o
cn
(D v C
0 0 00
.? O o
0
=3 O (7 y ,°
r - soo /`l
CD
(D cc) jt 4:?
C) CD
moo \
j ? O (.
l •- ? - O O C? ?.
J ?
' C
.?J
(D Ul
O O 0 O O
_ ° o / r-? '
O. O
0 X ?? D fD a j?`?? O
O X C) ('D rr?y ro `"-
(n P r- O < CD °N 1 OD v
O O (nom i ) "?1
(f) CD (D 0
-U ;I
r
CD
(D CD 90 N
O G c I
W CL) O p ? v
- C7 N i la
= C
. 3 o .00 + o 0o t, i J SRI,
0 0 0 149;/-
0
N) C) CL
w Cp r' -0 cn CD O CD ?7 \ i O
N .... r., o w j t/
_.W D < (D o0) N CD ?o
U0 x o cD N ?7 0 CO Q° .D , CD N O
(o 0 (D -« N- s m 0 O cn
0 m cn CD O o o
0 0CD? o moo ?n
CD (D n' =3 a ?y oo
CD n a O O I i!
CD
n? m , _1?96??` d o rno
N o o CD =3
UNi N
•? - % i O
/-!
a3000
11

_•1 i

?t
i

i

i?

Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
the design hour volume, speed, percentage of trucks, percentage of no-passing zones, and
number of access points per mile. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.3.
According to these results, the traffic along most of US 221 north of Gilkey currently
operates at level of service (LOS) C. LOS C represents stable traffic flow with speeds
near the posted limit. According to the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines, LOS B is desirable for most rural
arterials, except in mountainous areas where LOS C is acceptable (AASHTO 2001). The
3.1-mile (5.0-kilometer) portion of US 221 between Rutherfordton and Gilkey operates at
LOS D and LOS E. These are not acceptable levels of service since LOS D conditions
represent severely restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds, and LOS E represents
conditions at or near the roadway's capacity.
Table 1.3
US 221 Existing; (2002) Levels of Service (No Build)
Section Description Length Speed Average No Average 2 way Level of
Number mi. mpll Trucks in Passing Access Hourly Service
(km) (km/h) Peak Zones Points Volume LOS
Hour % % /mi. (/km) vela/ hr
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 5% 67% 9 960 E
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) (70) (15)

2 SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) to 1.8 55 5% 72% 4 840 D
SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) (2.9) (90) (7)

3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to 1.0 45 5% 71% 3 760 E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) (70) (5)

4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to 1.9 55 7% 76% 4 460 C
SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1) (90) (7)

5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 7% 77% 5 480 C
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) (2.1) (90) (8)

6 SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to 2.0 55 7% 61% 3 400 C
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) (3.2) (90) (5)
7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 7% 78% 1 440 C
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) (5.8) (90) (2)
8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 6% 41% 3 520 C
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7) (90) (5)

9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to 1.9 55 5% 71% 2 665 C
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90) (4)
1.9.3 Projected Conditions (No Build)
1.9.3.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes
Design year (2025) average daily traffic volumes are expected to range from 6,600 vpd
just south of Thermal City to 18,000 vpd near Rutherfordton. These volumes are shown
September 2002
14
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
on Figure 1.5. The future percentages for design hour traffic, the directional split, and
truck traffic are assumed to be the same as for the existing conditions.
1.9.3.2 Design Year Levels of Service
The roadway sections described in Section 1.9.2.2, page 11, were evaluated for the no-
build condition using the design year traffic volumes. These results are shown in Table
1.4. According to these results, the traffic along most of US 221 north of Gilkey will
operate at LOS D by the design year. The portion between Rutherfordton and Gilkey
will operate at LOS E.
As discussed in Section 1.9.2.2, page 14, LOS D and LOS E are not acceptable levels of
service for this two-lane facility. These are unstable conditions that exhibit severely
restricted traffic flow and low operating speeds. Since higher speeds and improved travel
times are needed along this principal arterial, design year level of service improvements
are warranted.
Table 1.4
US 221 Design Year (2025) Levels of Service (No Build)
Section Description Length Speed Average No Average 2 way Level of
Number mi. mpli Trucks in Passing Access Hourly Service
(kin) (km/h) Peale Zones Points Volume LOS
Hour % % /mi. (/km) veh/ hr
1 SR 1536 (Old US 221) to 0.3 45 5% 67% 9 1800 E
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) (0.5) (70) (15)

2 SR 1532/1367 to SR 1355 (Mtn. 1.8 55 5% 72% 4 1520 E
Creek Rd) (2.9) (90) (7)

3 SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to 1.0 45 5% 71%O 3 1420 E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) (1.6) (70) (5)

4 SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to 1.9 55 7% 76% 4 830 D
SR 1508 (Old US 221) (3.1) (90) (7)

5 SR 1508 (Old US 221) to 1.3 55 7% 77% 5 880 D
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) (2.1) (90) (8)

6 SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to 2.0 55 7% 61% 3 720 D
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) (3.2) (90) (5)

7 SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to 3.6 55 7% 78% 1 830 D
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) (5.8) (90) (2)

8 SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to 1.7 55 6% 41% 3 990 D
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) (2.7) (90) (5)

9 SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to 1.9 55 5% 71% 2 1240 D
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) (3.1) (90) (4)
September 2002
15
1% - b
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
1.10 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
During the three year period from November 1997 to October 2000, 113 reported
accidents occurred along this portion of US 221. Three fatal accidents and 53 injury
accidents occurred. Eighty-five percent of the accidents occurred during the day and 79.6
percent occurred in dry conditions.
The most common accidents included run off the road crashes (21.2 percent), rear-end
collisions (21.2 percent), angle accidents (12.4 percent), and left turn collisions
(9.7 percent). These accident patterns, summarized in Table 1.5, typically occur at
intersections and driveways. The intersections with Thompson Road (SR 1367/
SR 1532), Mountain Creek Road (SR 1355), Polly Spout Road (SR 1781), and Mud Cut
Road (SR 1135) had the most reported accidents.
Table 1.5
Primary Accident Types Along US 221
Accident Type Number of
Accidents Percent of
Total
Angle 14 12.4%
Animal 4 3.5%
Backing Up 1 0.9%
Fixed Object 9 8.0%
Head On 3 2.7%
Left Turn 11 9.7%
Other Non-Collision 3 2.7%
Movable Object 1 0.9%
Overturn/ Rollover 5 4.4%
Ran off Road 24 21.2%
Rear End 24 21.2%
Right Turn, Different Roadways 2 1.8%
113 100.0%
Table 1.6 summarizes the number of accidents and rates for US 221 compared with the
statewide average rates for similar two-lane rural US routes. Tile total accident rate for
US 221 [134.4 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (mvm) (83.3 accidents per 100
million vehicle kilometers (mvk))] is lower than the statewide average rate [193.9
accidents per 100 mvm (120.5 accidents per 100 mvk)]. The fatal accident rate [3.6
accidents per 100 mvm (2.2 accidents per 100 mvk)] is higher than the statewide average
[2.6 accidents per 100 mvm (1.6 accidents per 100 mvk)], but the non-fatal injury, night-
time, and wet rates are lower than the statewide averages.
September 2002
16
1 4, 1
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
Table 1.6
Accident Rates Alona US 221

US 221 Accidents and Rates
From SR 1536 to SR 1153 Statewide Average
Rates
(Rural US Routes)
Number
Accident Type of Percent of Accident Accident
Accidents Total Rate Rate
per 100 mvm per 100 mvm
(per 100 mvk) (per 100 mvk)
Total 113 100.0% 134.4 (83.3) 193.9 (120.5)
Fatal 3 2.7% 3.6 (2.2) 2.6 (1.6)
Non-fatal Injury 53 46.9% 63.0 (39.1) 88.4 (54.9)
Night 22 19.5% 26.2 (16.2) 57.3 (35.6)
Wet 23 20.4% 27.3 (17.0) 40.7 (25.3)
Report Period (November 1, 1997 to October 31, 2000)
17
September 2002
4 ,.. V
Purpose and Need Statement
US 221 Improvements, TIP No. R-2597
2.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001.
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C. p. 448
Birdsong, Rod. Executive Director, McDowell County Chamber of Commerce. Personal
communication, 9 August 2002
Federal Highway Administration. October 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8A
Federal Rail Administration, Office of Safety Analysis Web Site. 2002.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/Crossing/Default.asp
Geographic Information Systems Unit. 2002. Highway and Road Mileage. North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
Lancaster, Jim. Executive Director, Rutherford County Economic Development
Commission. Personal communication, 8 August 2002
McDowell County Chamber of Commerce Web Site. 2002.
http://www.mcdowelInc.org/cliamber/
North Carolina Department of Commerce. 2000. County and Regional Scans.
http://www.nccommerce.com/econscan/
Rutherford County Economic Development Commission Web Site. 2002.
http://www.economic-development.conV
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity
Manual. Special Report 209. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.
September 2002
18
A .
ni r
COPY
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: L. Gail Grimes, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: September 5, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of NCDOT request for comments for proposed improvements to
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell
County. State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP No. R-2597.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments
from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to
fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to widen a 15-mile portion of US 221 from two to four
lanes, some realignment may be needed. The project will likely include replacement of
the Second Broad River bridge.
The NCWRC has no specific concerns at this time regarding this project.
However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general
information needs are outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
US 221
Rutherford & McDowell Counties 2
species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be
developed through consultation with the following programs:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable,
include the linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland
acreage should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). If the USACE is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct
and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify
the contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will
result from secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. Provide details of storm water treatment in the project area.
. I ,
10. Provide details of bridge demolition techniques to be used. We prefer demolition
techniques that are non-shattering and prevent debris from being dropped into the
water.
r
US 221
Rutherford & McDowell Counties 3
It. If construction of this facility is to he coordinated with other state, municipal-, or
private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in
the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (704)
485-2384.
Cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
OW A T ?RQG
,' r
August 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Manager
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator ct'd a -
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP
Project R-2597.
In reply to your correspondence dated July 29, 2002 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water resources lie within the
project area:
¦ Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030802
Stream Index
UT to Mountain Creek 9-41-12-6
Catheys Creek 941-13
Stoney Creek and unnamed tributaries 9-41-9
Rockhouse Creek 9-41-8
Scrub Grass Branch 9-41-6
Second Broad River and UTs 9-41
Class
WS-IV
WS-V; §303(d) list impaired waters
WS-V
W S-V
WS-V
WS-IV Critical Area
¦ Catawba River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030830
Stream Index Class
UT to Huntsville Creek 11-32-1-2-1-1 C
UTs to North Muddy Creek 11-32-1 C
Goose Creek and UTs 11-32-1-2 C
The NCDOT plans to widen a 15-mile section of US 221. This project will connect with the US 221
improvements south of this section, known as the Rutherfordton Bypass. The Division of Water Quality
offers these comments:
1. US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System. The proposed
purpose of this project is to: (1) improve the level of traffic service, (2) decrease travel time and (3)
improve safety. DWQ strongly urges the use of Access Management techniques to prolong the life of
these three objectives.
2. DWQ recommends that NCDOT and the applicable Rural Planning Organization staff work in
concert to develop long-term solutions to transportation issues that insures environmental protection,
continued economic growth and preserves the quality of life enjoyed by McDowell and Rutherford
County residents. This would include, but is not limited to, the development of comprehensive access
management plans and policies for the region.
Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a manner
that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between water quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Rules f 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
N dM??D?
due - ?? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 29, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM: f-V1
A30W
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRE'PARY
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assi&W toer"qr
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Request for Comments for the Proposed Improvements to US 221
from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell
County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing a
Federal Environmental Assessment for the proposed improvements to US 221 from Old
US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell and Rutherford
Counties (See Figure 1). This study will be guided by the Section 404 / NEPA merger
process, which has been mutually adopted by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the
Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The project consists of widening this 15-mile portion of US 221 from two to four
lanes. A four-lane divided section with 46-foot median is currently being considered.
Alternatives will include combinations of widening to the east side and to the west side of
the existing highway. Between the communities of Thermal City and Glenwood, some
realignment may be needed to straighten curves and meet current roadway geometric
design standards. The project will likely include the replacement of the Second Broad
River bridge. This project is included in the Draft 2004 - 2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (as amended). Right-of-way acquisition and
construction are scheduled for fiscal years (FY) 2007 and FY 2009, respectively.
The following paragraphs provide preliminary summary descriptions of the
general characteristics, purpose and need, natural resource issues in the study area and the
project schedule.
General Characteristics of the Project Area
The project area is located in northern Rutherford County and southeastern
McDowell County within the Piedmont of western North Carolina. The project begins at
the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221 (SR 1536) and passes through the
Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood communities. The project ends at
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Page 2
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Glenwood, south of the City of Marion. The terrain
within the area is mostly rolling except for a five-mile portion near Vein Mountain where
the terrain is steep and mountainous.
US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System
linking the foothills and the northwest mountains. This segment of US 221 is a two-lane
roadway with moderate curves and grades, except in the area of Vein Mountain, where
there are sharper curves that limit travel speed and sight distance.
US 221 is classified as a principal arterial in the mutually adopted 1995
McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan. It is also identified as a major thoroughfare in the
mutually adopted 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to improve the level of traffic service, decrease travel
time, and increase safety along the US 221 intrastate corridor. Current (2002) average
daily traffic volumes range from 3,600 vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Thermal City
to 9,600 vpd near Rutherfordton. By the design year (2025), these volumes are expected
to range from 6,600 vpd to 18,000 vpd in the same locations. Portions of the existing
two-lane roadway will not provide an acceptable level of service in the design year. As
the level of service improves, travel time is decreased, congestion is lessened, and
accident rates are expected to decline.
The planning study will develop a comprehensive purpose and need statement
fully discussing how the proposed improvements will impact level of service and safety
together with the anticipated benefits that will result from the proposed widening
improvements.
Natural Resources
Most of the project is located within the Broad River Basin, except the northern
end, which is within the Catawba River Basin. Seventeen perennial streams are located
in the project area. The largest streams include Second Broad River and Goose Creek.
Much of the surrounding land is rural and forested. Maintained lands are
scattered throughout the area and include roadsides, low residential areas, and pastures.
In accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the
project corridor will be evaluated for potential habitat for federally threatened and
endangered species listed for Rutherford and McDowell Counties. These species include
(USFWS, 2002):
• Rock gnome lichen Rutherford
• Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Rutherford
• Indiana bat Rutherford
• White irisette Rutherford
• Small whorled pogoma Rutherford
Page 3
• Bog turtle McDowell
• Bald eagle McDowell
• Mountain golden heather McDowell
A field review of the study corridor will be conducted to determine the existence of
habitat for any of the listed species.
Schedule
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this
project. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project
and notification of the start of study. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the
proposed project, pleas_ a respond in writing by September 10, 2002, concerning any
beneficial or adverse impacts of the propose improvement to US 221 relating to the
interest of your agency. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals, which
may be required by your agency. We also request your agency's comments or concerns
regarding bridge demolition.
The next step in the study process will be an initial Merger Team meeting that is
being scheduled for November 2002. This meeting will be held to present a Purpose and
Need Statement for discussion. If the discussion is favorable, concurrence will be sought.
The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $41,300,000 including $4,900,000
for right of way, $ 35,600,000 for construction, and $800,000 spent in prior years.
The target completion date for the Federal Environmental Assessment is
December 2003.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact Mr. John
Wadsworth, P.E., Project Development Engineer, at [phone], extension 209.
Thank you for your cooperation.
LGG/mr
Attachments
I 1
'o pia °ll a??ys C
e
i
I ? ,7 o i 1
a
o LI°
O \ ??`?ys
n ?
I \ - - ??? I
= O ;I /
o o
? I P^
nN 00
SAO' C
cl)
v
rm
l 46
Sew ? ° f
?2C?
® ?, I 1 I O r?++' Jr, FO J? y?
r
0 0_ (("'++ to o a a ?' a _ °?J
I1 ? 01 C ? J V V, ry
1 '.I
J
r
l
l

ri

?-
g
O i m N a co NNi ?e
W m o cn
Cn o< N s?o an d (n Z
O N N C, O
m m 3 N a
o y a o o I c°° '1M\y 1
m ? m ?o ~'o f
io 'v°c v °o C ?3 O v m 11 ? SP? .? -

VV
' o e
?
? y W
" CD
0 :TH []
D o ? ? N
N + (n c
Q `
o Z cow ?3 rQ .
m
m
3 -

0
f r
<Nn d. 3
co o y 2 m
an d
a .. D O
?7
O c
N c W
f?o

=
?,?
i
q
`\
n (D O
ur O O a L"
7 n < :3 O
-h -
O ?
J

w o C O o
C) -O O v
:3
8
m Z: CL

G 0 :3

3 (n
(D '0
0
0 f?
v
1

I I
rr
-
m O
I
N Q ?
I ?
i
o?OF W AT ?RQG
August 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator GvdXA)
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP
Project R-2597. State Clearinghouse Project No. 03-E-0040.
In reply to your correspondence dated August 7, 2002 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water resources lie
within the project area:
¦ Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030802
Stream Index
UT to Mountain Creek 9-41-12-6
Catheys Creek 9-41-13
Stoney Creek and unnamed tributaries 9-41-9
Rockhouse Creek 941-8
Scrub Grass Branch 9-41-6
Second Broad River and UTs 941
Class
WS-IV
WS-V; §303(d) list impaired waters
WS-V
WS-V
WS-V
WS-IV Critical Area
¦ Catawba River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030830
Stream . Index Class
UT to Huntsville Creek 11-32-1-2-1-1 C
UTs to North Muddy Creek 11-32-1 C
Goose Creek and UTs 11-32-1-2 C
The NCDOT plans to widen a 15-mile section of US 221. This project will connect with the US 221
improvements south of this section, known as the Rutherfordton Bypass. The Division of Water Quality
offers these comments:
1. US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System. The proposed
purpose of this project is to: (1) improve the level of traffic service, (2) decrease travel time and (3)
improve safety. DWQ strongly urges the use of Access Management techniques to prolong the life of
these three objectives.
2. DWQ recommends that NCDOT and the applicable Rural Planning Organization staff work in
concert to develop long-term solutions to transportation issues that insures environmental protection,
continued economic growth and preserves the quality of life enjoyed by McDowell and Rutherford
County residents. This would include, but is not limited to, the development of comprehensive access
management plans and policies for the region.
Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a manner
that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between water quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
y
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
N d (,.
-/ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 29, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
FROM: L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Manage /MML'V
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Request for Comments for the Proposed Improvements to US 221
from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell
County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing a
Federal Environmental Assessment for the proposed improvements to US 221 from Old
US 221 (SR 1536) to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell and Rutherford
Counties (See Figure 1). This study will be guided by the Section 404 / NEPA merger
process, which has been mutually adopted by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the
Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The project consists of widening this 15-mile portion of U"21 from two to four
lanes. A four-lane divided section with 46-foot median is currently being considered.
Alternatives will include combinations of widening to the east side and to the west side of
the existing highway. Between the communities of Thermal City and Glenwood, some
realignment may be needed to straighten curves and meet current roadway geometric
design standards. The project will likely include the replacement of the Second Broad
River bridge. This project is included in the Draft 2004 - 2010 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (as amended). Right-of-way acquisition and
construction are scheduled for fiscal years (FY) 2007 and FY 2009, respectively.
The following paragraphs provide preliminary summary descriptions of the
general characteristics, purpose and need, natural resource issues in the study area and the
project schedule.
General Characteristics of the Project Area
The project area is located in northern Rutherford County and southeastern
McDowell County within the Piedmont of western North Carolina. The project begins at
the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221 (SR 1536) and passes through the
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Page 2
Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood communities. The project ends at
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in Glenwood, south of the City of Marion. The terrain
within the area is mostly rolling except for a five-mile portion near Vein Mountain where
the terrain is steep and mountainous.
US 221 is a principal north-south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System
linking the foothills and the northwest mountains. This segment of US 221 is a two-lane
roadway with moderate curves and grades, except in the area of Vein Mountain, where
there are sharper curves that limit travel speed and sight distance.
US 221 is classified as a principal arterial in the mutually adopted 1995
McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan. It is also identified as a major thoroughfare in the
mutually adopted 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to im rop ve the level of traffic service, decrease travel
time, and increase safety algpZ the US 221 intrastate corridor. Current (2002) average
daily traffic volumes range from 3,600 vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Thermal City
to 9,600 vpd near Rutherfordton. By the design year (2025), these volumes are expected
to range from 6,600 vpd to 18,000 vpd in the same locations. Portions of the existing
two-lane roadway will not provide an acceptable level of service in the design year. As
the level of service improves, travel time is decreased, congestion is lessened, and
accident rates are expected to decline.
The planning study will develop a comprehensive purpose and need statement
fully discussing how the proposed improvements will impact level of service and safety
together with the anticipated benefits that will result from the proposed widening
improvements.
Natural Resources
Most of the project is located within the Broad River Basin, except the northern
end, which is within the Catawba River Basin. Seventeen perennial streams are located
in the project area. The largest streams include Second Broad River and Goose Creek.
Much of the surrounding land is rural and forested. Maintained lands are
scattered throughout the area and include roadsides, low residential areas, and pastures.
In accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the
project corridor will be evaluated for potential habitat for federally threatened and
endangered species listed for Rutherford and McDowell Counties. These species include
(USFWS, 2002):
• Rock gnome lichen Rutherford
• Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Rutherford
• Indiana bat Rutherford
• White irisette Rutherford
4W
Page 3
• Small whorled pogonia Rutherford
• Bog turtle McDowell
• Bald eagle McDowell
• Mountain golden heather McDowell
A field review of the study corridor will be conducted to determine the existence of
habitat for any of the listed species.
Schedule
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this
project. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project
and notification of the start of study. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the
proposed project, please respond in writing by September 10, 2002, concerning any
beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed improvement to US 221 relating to the
interest of your agency. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals, which
may be required by your agency. We also request your agency's comments or concerns
regarding bridge demolition.
The next step in the study process will be an initial Merger Team meeting that is
being scheduled for November 2002. This meeting will be held to present a Purpose and
Need Statement for discussion. If the discussion is favorable, concurrence will be sought.
The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $41,300,000 including $4,900,000
for right of way, $ 35,600,000 for construction, and $800,000 spent in prior years.
The target completion date for the Federal Environmental Assessment is
December 2003.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact Mr. John
Wadsworth, P.E., Project Development Engineer, at [phone], extension 209.
Thank you for your cooperation.
LGG/mr
Attachments
? W ATE Michael F. Easley, Governor
9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\O'? pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 16, 2004
Greg Price
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject: Streams and Wetlands in the R-2597/R-204 D&E Project Area
Dear Greg:
Based on the August 3, 4, and 12 site visits, DWQ agrees with the stream and wetland locations
identified within the project area for the referenced project. If any additional stream or wetland
locations are identified during further field investigations, DWQ requests notification of these
locations. DWQ, in conjunction with the US Army Corps of Engineers, will verify the additional
stream and wetland locations through site visits. This letter serves only to agree with the scope
of the stream and wetland locations within the project area and does not identify the points of
origin of streams or the boundaries of wetland areas. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please contact me at 919-733-5715.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Wrenn
Cc: Angie Pennock, Asheville Field Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mike Parker, Asheville Regional Office of DWQ
File Copy
N?f Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit ?tur91111
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htta://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 23, 2004
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MEMORANDUM TO: Debbie Barbour, NCDOT Preconstruction AUG 2 b 2001
Roy Shelton, NCDOT PD&EA Branch WATER
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE QUALITY SECTION
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Brian Overton, NCDOT PD&EA Branch-ORE
Kevin Moore, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Nya Boayue, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Max Phillips, NCDOT Division 13
Brian Skeens, NCDOT Division 13
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Neb Bullock, NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Emily Lawton, Federal Highway Administration
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Angie Pennock, US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Brian Wrenn, NC Division of Water Quality
FROM: John Wadsworth Avv,'
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: R-2597 and R-204D&E, Rutherford-McDowell Counties, Widening of US
From SR 1536 in Rutherford County to NC 226 in McDowell County
Attached for your information and use are minutes of the Merger Team meeting for Concurrent
Point No. 2, Meeting No. 2, on the subject projects. Also attached is a copy of the signed concurrence
form for Concurrence Point No. 2, Design Options for Detailed Study. Please review the meeting
summary and advise me of any corrections required.
Thank you for your assistance in reaching this point in the project planning and environmental
process.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
»swc
U
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING MINUTES
DATE: August 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Summary of Merger Team Meeting, August 17, 2004, US 221 from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County, State Project
Numbers 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
FROM: John Wadsworth, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PARTICIPANTS: Debbie Barbour NCDOT Preconstruction
John Wadsworth NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Roy Shelton NCDOT PD&EA Branch
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Matt Wilkerson NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Brian Overton NCDOT PD&EA Branch-OHE
Kevin Moore NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Nya Boayue NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Ted Walls NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Max Phillips NCDOT Division 13
Brian Skeens NCDOT Division 13
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Greg Atkins Buck Engineering
Mark Reep Buck Engineering
Greg Price Buck Engineering
Ken Gilland Buck Engineering
Neb Bullock NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Emily Lawton Federal Highway Administration
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Angie Pennock US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Renee Gledhill-Earley NC Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Brian Wrenn NC Division of Water Quality
A Merger Team meeting was held on August 17, 2004 to review the alignment alternatives (design
options) for the subject improvements to US 221 (Projects R-2597/ R-204 D&E). The purpose of the
meeting was to reach concurrence on the design options to be studied in detail in the environmental
document for the project (Concurrence Point 2). John Wadsworth welcomed the Merger Team
participants. Mark Reep provided background information on the design options that have been
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
w
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2004
Page 2
considered for the project, including the design options requested during the previous Merger Team
meeting. The alignments are summarized as follows:
• Al (West Side Widening) and A2 (East Side Widening)
• B1 (West Side Widening), B2 (East Side Widening) and B3 (Formerly AB1 - Avoidance
alternative for the Monteith Historic Property)
• C1 (West Side Widening), C2 (East Side Widening), and C (Best Fit alignment)
• D (Best Fit Alignment), with bridge option EE/EW (retains use of current US 221 bridge)
• El (West Side Widening)and E2 (East Side Widening)
• F1 (West Side Widening) and F2 (East Side Widening)
• G1 (West Side Widening) and G2 (East Side Widening)
• H (Best fit alignment).
Concurrence was reached that the following alignments would be carried forward for the US 221
environmental assessment: A1, B1, B2, B3, C, D (without the EE/EW bridge option), E1, F1, F2, G1,
G2, and H.
Additional items of discussion are summarized as follows:
• Ms. Pennock asked if a best fit alternative could be explores for Segment A. Mr. Reep and Mr.
Atkins provided input on issues associated with transitioning from west side widening to east
side widening.
• Ms. Pennock will work with Mr. Price to verify the remaining streams and wetlands in the
project area.
• Mr. Militscher asked about the number of river crossings with Segments Al and A2.
• Ms. Gledhill-Earley mentioned that Gilbert Town (a village dating to the Revolutionary War era)
may be located along Segment A. Mr. Wadsworth stated that an archaeological screening would
be done on both sides of the Segment A alignment and that modifications to the Alignment
would be made if resources were encountered.
• Ms. Buncick and Mr. Militscher asked about the potential of the Segment Al alignment to
impact a stream running parallel to US 221. Mr. Atkins stated that retaining walls could be used
to minimize impacts to the stream. It was noted that this potential impact would be discussed in
the Concurrence Point 2a meeting on crossings.
• Mr. Hennessy asked about the time required to complete a 4(f) assessment. Ms. Lawton stated
that the timeline for approval was not expected to extend to a year.
• Mr. Wadsworth stated that Segment B 1 is NCDOT's preferred alternative to minimize impacts to
industry and residences. However, he specified that Segments B2 and B3 would be evaluated as
avoidance alternatives in a Section 4(f) evaluation.
w
Memorandum of Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2004
Page 3
• Mr. Wrenn noted the potential stream impacts in Segment C and stated that the replacement of a
6-box culvert at Catheys Creek with a bridge would need to be explored prior to the Concurrence
Point 2a meeting.
• Ms. Buncick and Mr. Militscher asked for a review of the calculated number of stream crossings
in Segments C1, C2 and the Best Fit C alignment.
• Mr. Reep noted that Segment D contained the steepest terrain in the study area, and noted the
need to avoid the historic Albert Weaver Farm and the Second Broad River. These factors
limited design options for this segment, and led to the development of a best fit alignment.
• Mr. Hennessy further discussed split median concepts during the meeting with Mr. Reep and Mr.
Atkins. The need to straighten curves on US 221 to meet geometric design standards and to
minimize impacts to the Second Broad River led the Merger Team to conclude that the split lane
concept would have greater stream impacts.
• Ms. Buncick asked if the existing pavement that would be abandoned under the Segment D
alignment could be removed. Mr. Wadsworth stated that since there were no houses in the area,
it was likely that the pavement could be removed if no access to properties along the existing US
221 was required.
• Mr. Atkins noted that retaining walls could be explored to further minimize stream impacts in
Segment D.
• Mr. Phillips stated that removal of the box culvert in segment D should be explored.
• Mr. Wadsworth noted that data recovery would likely be proposed for potential impacts to the
known archaeological site near Muddy Creek in Segment E1.
A Ms. Chambers noted the stream impacts associated with Segment F1 and asked if F2 and G2
could be carried forward for evaluation.
• Mr. Reep noted that retaining walls may be able to limit stream impacts in Segment F1. Ms.
Buncick asked if right-of-way could be extended to protect the protected stream from subsequent
development.
• Mr. Atkins noted that the I-40 ramp in Segment G2 may provide some design concerns.
• The meeting ended with the Merger Team agreeing with Concurrence Point 2 as described on the
attached concurrence form.
• Mr. Militscher asked about the current typical section for Segment H, a proposed four-lane
divided, 23-foot raised median section.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum in error, please contact John Wadsworth, Project
Development Engineer at [phone], ext. 209.
cc: Meeting Participants
Merger Team Members
Attachments
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA Document
Proiect No./TIP No./ Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
Alternative(s) Selected for Detailed Stud
1. West side widening along the Segments Al, B1, E1, F1, and G1.
2. East side widening along the Segments B2, F2, and G2
3. Best fit widening with minor relocations in the Vein Mountain area to address
substandard horizontal curvature in Segments C, D, and H
4. Avoidance of Montieth House Historic Property in Segment B3.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of August 17, 2004 with the selection of the
above noted Alternative(s) to be evaluated in detail for TIP Nos. R-2597 and R-204 D&E.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR - DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation
kn
o
O N O
N t,
? N
Ei n 00
rn
Project Schedule a z 0, o 0 0
Un rn VI N N N
Completion of Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing
Completion of FONSI
Right-of-Way Acquisition (TIP No. R-204 D&E)
Right-of-Way Acquisition (TIP No. R-2597)
Construction (TIP No. R-204 ME)
Construction (TIP No. R-2597) ? t-t
Comment Sheet
Please fill out this form and send your comments to Mr-John Wadsworth, PE
Improvements to US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to US 221-NC 226
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Name:
Address:
(full postal address - please print clearly)
O Cost/ Funding
O Community Impacts
O Cultural Resource Impacts
O Minority/ Low Income Community Impacts
O Natural Resource Impacts
O Ncw Information
Comments and/or Questions: (please print)
O Project Schedule
O Property Impacts
O Public Involvement Activities
O Road Access
O Safety
O Other:
Mail Completed form to:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT - Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
a,>
r?p?N• ?
M;wm
G) Z
0mZ?
C7 N >
m-1 c
•y+?•??C
+h
ro
ro
2 a CD Cn `d
w ? ? N Q
W CD
o 5 0 0 c
zoo
CAD°Pg°•??
p: o -1
z ?r
.0 CD
?y X
C `? oa o ° C7
ro ro
r. vroi O ? C G.
O C p v
??' n•p o
CD 'a (D Q.
40 roro' p CD CDi
ow
'O CD
? : ? Q. co
??bo
Q
n
?dsu
z
$ R,
?. r m
t1? C ?
? ~ O p
ro d
o ?
bd
er
D
N? Ciny
w
N
ID
0
CD (o
a ID
v, O ro ? :r Q
Crop' °h ro
?• 0o Cy
(faro C?rO
ytr•oa'' ?co'
? Napo axe A
a. CD ro p CD
w
Crop^'? ?.
ap0CD C?
?3 0
A
° a CD
o O ro p
ro n ? p
?-. O
?? ?w
''•' N
r+ 'C7 v, a:
C?
b CD
A CD
?.
CD
W O
0
Or y
o CD.
o rp cr
A
O
lD
O ?; A..
o.
w tTj
v a.5'r, v v-? boo
aao aoCD 'R O
ro L o o
pro ?b < p b +
w o a.w o a•UQ ro
,cD CD A ?..
one p o ° N ? °•CD
O ro CD ro ?' N c0
R + CD
° O
fro rti w C~D ? y pD
CD 0 C) ?. ? co w p O ? O b.
n 'o 0 p o ro o; l, EL w
E.0 p" o Q
)=
.%' p? A ro 0 N ?y, N (A
ID a ?? a X10 oA
b b. b a w ti
M 11D 11
? y b A Z O
rofD n,C7?
a ?F? .? pI
tz,
b .0
CJ O ? cr'D Oa G. d o. Cam CD M
ro?ao° 4o$?
M CO CD O
0 Ca w o o
p O?co CD 9 NC.
1
00
00
00
00
00
I
J
.P
N
o °.
a?
fA+
? y
Cy ?
C?. I
N
d ?
4
CD
C I
O A
o C
CD

b
0
c
K
y
0
v
N
N
O
W
0
N
N
n
N
N
o n A o r v, R° z
tTl r)
00
Off' w wz?.o ?e
a n CD b
CD CD
CD CL
0 CD (Z"
CD 4
O p ? o Np j? W? ^?
?O CD LT
CD
w 00 ?. O
Q• CD
C O
0
zzz O
A
ao O
CD
o
o y
. A
M
CD DD
vii _W 00 `C g A ?'!
oo C? tlQ m
CAD J N a
C CD D •? Cali `G N oil
N ?--Q ^ a b
N 10, 0 ??•
cAO ? ? ?
O (D
ts N
s
CD
w
.b N (7 ^ t'o r) Oy
0
a
z N
00 % ti N v° O n o ? t j o CD 41 A. by N "'' C vr+i
n ?/ N Cy
t% O p
'? ? `??7dvN,??n00
a?s•? p°' ?? ? ,Naha
ro a .a O? Q
O?
a ° ? 0 5
cn CA
n 0 Co/? y G C M CD
? Lh a cn o
ro
ro 5' ~ a? ?- ?' (7
0 ,?wO ?-wCD
-I o
NO?C'CD
G p ?y'G
b p N ro 'C. d
W? ° N° ?° oa
O ?n1O`<
p tjq (D
a cn 9, a. ro ro a. O p
b
b
b?
ro 3. ?' ti n (C .- w r'. o ro o w a ?, o a Co ?_ cn ?xny
0 0 G cro zy b CoD 0 rz.
?a5?,b c?D 5°5.5?opo??y?
a. '. a ' Co v b E? o o U ,? a rn ?n ?n a r0 w CD
y ro 'o oE o Ya .`d oa ??ro ro Y ,,? A ao zc•?
(D
Fn' CD o lW -. CD a. '" ro Nq9 a 5" O a N f 7d () Uo b O
CD b ob d? ???
?•r y a ? IZ6 o' CD 0
rA'???o l z ?roG r+ ro
o
D n wZ 5i h' Fn" ^ R',?'• ? fD qq°gg .°? a.
0• CD ?• N m ry ro .b CC.
ro a-?i cD v' ro5' y ?j
CC ° It b coo a o• ?° t7 'r1 CD
b b <' O Q. p ro CD p N m '° z
IrD CD O a a ti ti a K° CD CCD y
P Gi C d V? 'a Croy
?yo x° ry a a
n oO
0* O 5
?j? CD `d CS p A
p A a A Cro O CD Fn to a F• < "n ID
ro a N a ra w ?. N ro p '?
Er C 0 o o n o w cCD o vc 5 a, c"o co b
CD C• ro ro a. (o 5 n M EN n' o ? ro? tpy - (94 ?• N A, ? • ?• ?? ? 5. ? to54 y
'InD p p p 9 p ccDD 5' rr
? 'b d o fro A
61 w
E? CD
0 CD M. 0 CD
?? Dry
moo p acDp.aL 'b0 5 c?•
CD CD q CD CA n ":j
C .d < ro o ?. H r CD A. CA m i= CD
co ° co p o 0
r3- CD CD CD
CD Q. CIQ V,' (D to O bQ .. -f CD ?• y
0
0
Ali
b
?n
N
cn
co
V
O
RO
li7
C
O
N
o ?
a+
CD
A'
N
O CD
'b
a
a
0 r
N O
A A
a ?
((D CD
A
?.
a O
A
CD
a A '?
CD
? A
A O
A
5 o CD
(D n
A
CD ?
C
Z
b? d
CD O
? O
D a '_?
CD 0
a ? A
00
CD a
O ?
rn a o
o ?.
O
Q
o?
t0
0
C6
Z
0
0
rn
S
(?D n
"a O
m ?.
m
m
CD
3

r
cD

D:3
CA
rn
o
o
?=3
n
s
m
-p
O
(D
0
O

r m

It
n Z c w o
o
s -
o a 2 ? w
a
F m ?' CO
N N <
CL
m 42
C
co
fD
N N ? ? a
O Ul 2. p
-4 o O
m w v
0 - o i° c?
m : 07
C FD- O
w a
FD' CD
U) 0

O o ?
p
r1n0N * ?Cr

? O
U) n Z
0
-_ICN (D
?
"D ? ? m C7
1
-0 N O
? O
O' 1 03
CD Z (1) (D
U
N ` Qo 0
p mo
N cn=.rn 5
4K
o m
-J p5
o
CL oC
D
U)
4- y
b U)
D = ?' o
m ,Z O
o
o w :3

i

?r..r• ? ire I? `-.Y ? t\
v `
C42 1••,1
(`r O
O
C
ff
Z?\
I
co CD =
- cc a
co I - O
- -- k I 1
Io CD -
uy a to 070
CX, c ° 70 N
1 ?''i N .?? N Cep
?N m V
90
,,I f
11(5 -
CL G) 1i 1 1
7
o
ai =
r, r
cD
/.?
-
x?
v
N -CO
Xrn /
, f
I +
t 3co
I, I I ?
r! N
Na
PO CD
CL
f• . ?
d
'i
r''S1
1 ? 5
,
' tSz
CD
'I, 7
'.t
2
I 2'
CD
v
t y?, 0
0
j'

p rr? ? ? ?I.
CD
r r?
l?
,

1-
w
m