19950117 Ver 1_Complete File_19950206

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1/ / _`7 -'?
TO:
mr,Eric GA/Am-6 REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
DEH NR
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-Ro N Lucas F4
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

t@
NOV -.31993
NEITY SECTION
WATER UR
S
it
ys.swE°
H d ? m °3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
November 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Widening of US 70 from east
of the Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221 Business,
Marion, McDowell County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP 70(17), State Project No. 8.1871201,
TIP No. R-3115
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for December 7, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Ron Lucas, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
RL/pl r
Attachment
J N

Tak
? r

!•t .
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: October 27, 1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP ## R-3115
Project ## 8.1871201
F.A. Project ## STP-70(17)
Division: 13
County: McDowell
Route: US 70
Functional Classification: Major Collector
Length: 1.1 miles
Purpose of Project: The proposed widening will relieve existing
and future capacity defiences on US 70.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Widen US 70 to a five lane curb and gutter
facility from east of the Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221
Business.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment
scheduled for completion in October, 1994; Finding of No
Significant Impact scheduled for completion in March, 1995.
Type of funding: Federal-aid funding
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X_
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
1

R-3115 PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Typical Section of Existing Roadway: two and three lane shoulder
section with turning lanes
Typical Section of Proposed Roadway: Five-lane curb and gutter,
64 feet from face to face
of curbs
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges None Grade Separations None Stream Crossings 1
Traffic: Current (1993) 9300 vpd.
Design Year (2016) o Trucks
(Traffic projections have been requested.)
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,500,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,000
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,700,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,700,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,900,000
2

Y '
R-3115 PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_X_ Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 422 , 400
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . $ _100,450
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 199,800
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge X $
Widen Bridge X $
Remove Bridge X $
X New Culverts: Size 10X8 Length 102' . . . $ 48,000
Fill Ht. 2'
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
-Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . $ 92.800
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
X Erosion Control . . . . ... . . . $ 16,200
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,200
X Signing: _X_ New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
x Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
X Revised . . . . . . . $ 80,000
RR signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
3
f

With or Without Arms . . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 24.420
Markers _ X
R-3115 PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . $
XOther clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc.. $ 324,730
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal) : $ 1,331,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . $ 169,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Construction Subtotal: $ 1,500,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
X Existing Right of Way Width: 100'
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $ 200,000
^K_LY11L oL way auJJLOLai: zuu, uuu
Total Estimated Cost $ 1,500,000
(Includes R/W)
*TIP Right of Way estimate
4
•
R-3115
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
INIT. DATE
INIT. DATE
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Pref. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Prepared By: R. Lucas
Date: October 15, 1993
5
r
598 / *.
f.9 1500
LS-O1 4r,
/ r
k` ? / / 25
? ? 1512 0 15,3
- / 301
GARDEN CREEK /
(UNINC.) 1599 9 S
POP. 1,161 °'t S° Is94
Is12 - /?
/ 1596 .36 , 1511 M1p 1~
ry
4r 1506 ,y 1500
i/ 12
12191`121U ° 13,0
J
1509
O H 70 Sp .QS ISOI 15c, I
0/ ti 221° •i? ;so9
1219
1702 i ?A
1301 S? J
ti91, ` ° 226 JS ?j??
1506
1579 T
//? t ` / %% •? 1303
1501 0 \ 3 501
1500 w ,502
° °.;!'ro Rd:.• .15 f
1j
121,
ISOS,::ir`ir 1500 4
0 .20 lob
o lob s3 a ' ec° POP. 3,684
\ o
12de? t°::m/Q
1
y ,29ti p9 5A
1197 %, 7209 .;. 70
7 ; fns
Q ?? \ 006 ? lw:Y'f.'::. E ; J E
o \ 12 .::: N N °8 fh5
5
1212 .24 °1
G\b -Op ? '?'?Q ••1195 ? 51.1327 f'S
1214 ?- o 'OSi;? G? p9
1264 A9 117, 11195 -jl•
121.5 "F!;''g::?b ' V•
1216
\ 221
205
l 2
V/z N 0 1217;.;1. .(?I IU
W41 u` 226
1329 1204
\ 9 ./0 .2`? 1195-' 1202 O
1214 R o? 1205 ':B R9Mer6ordfon
1199 .08 1330c
b ,D N 1331 h ;':;
1329 O j>cl. Tool. You . gs..
?A 1
v
.r s lrttl [zerbyild '
226
woa0
\veft VA% \,aft \\Ridge
\\\ s<
\
/ .101, 'pr -"e
l9
:Cfenwooo
l
Oys3rtsnll?i,
J;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDENING OF US 70, FROM
EAST OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BRIDGE
TO US 70 / 221 BUSINESS
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. R - 3115
9/93 FIG. 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AT.R?FA •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ® F F
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0466; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Widening of US 70 West of Marion, McDowell
County, TIP #R-3115
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. Based on the
information provided, the project appears to cross the Catawba
River where it is classified C by the State of North Carolina.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual ,used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
V
f,
e
Melba McGee
January 21, 1994
Page 2
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
.possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
J. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. .Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification maybe
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10484er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb,o
JAN 2 41994

b ?'°pn
d??o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 27, 1995
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
401 issuED
q(5 111
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
a C? I ? `
k - -6 1995
WATER U;: LI 5?v
Subject: McDowell County - US 70 from East of the Catawba
River Bridge to US 70/221 Business in Marion;
T.I.P. No. R-3115; State Project No. 8.1871201
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes
to improve 1.1 miles of US 70 in Marion. This roadway Will
be widened symmetrically to a five-lane curb and gutter
facility.
This project is being processed as a Categorical
Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.1_ ). We expect to
proceed with this project under a Natio ide ermit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix (B-23 issued November
22, 1991, by the U.S. Army Corps o Eng' eers. The
provisions of Section 330.4 and App A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of this
project.
In accordance with current procedures for projects
located,in the designated trout counties, the concurrence of
WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of this
letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed
project and provide any comments they find necessary. A copy
of the CE document is included for the WRC review.
is

If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely,
B J., u' P. E.
Asslstant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville Field Office
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
W.D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ronald Lucas, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
US 70
From East of the Catawba River Bridge
to US 70/221 Business
Marion, McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-70(17)
State Project 8.1871201
TIP Project R-3115

a
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

Date _4;r.H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date fi* Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 70
From East of the Catawba River Bridge
to US 70/221 Business
Marion, McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-70(17)
State Project 8.1871201
TIP Project R-3115.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
4 4 LZ - Z- 0-2, --
Ronald G. Lucas, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
' v • ?i2
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
•jN CARp? eee
* ?EEssiq-s9 "
?•
: SEAL Imp
17282 :
?o'•FNCI Nt •?? o•
r P HP 0
,? Z 8 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
PAGE
I. General Description ........................................ 1
II. Need for Project
A. General. ... ...................................... 1
B. Thoroughfare Plan ..................................... 1
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes ................................. 1
D. Level of Service ...................................... 1
E. Accident History ...................................... 2
F. School Buses .......................................... 2
III. Existing Facility Inventory
A. Length of Section Studied ............................. 3
B. Existing Typical Section .............................. 3
C. Right of Way .......................................... 3
D. Structures............. ...... ...... ............. 3
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control .............. 3
F. Speed Limits .......................................... 3
G. Access Control ........................................ 3
H. Utilities .............................................. 3
IV. Alternatives
A. Build Alternative..................................... 4
B. Transportation System Management Alternative.......... 4
C. No Build Alternative .................................. 4
V. Proposed Improvements
A. Design Speed/Speed Limit .............................. 4
B. Typical Section ....................................... 4
C. Alignment ............................................. 5
D. Right of Way .......................................... 5
E. Access Control. .................................. 5
F. Bicycle Accommodations ................................ 5
G. Sidewalks ............................................. 5
H. Structures ............................................ 5
I. Cost Estimate ......................................... 5
L
VI. Env ironmental Effects of the Proposed Project
A. Natural Systems......... ....... ................... 6
B. Cultural Resources ............ ... 15
C. Relocation Impacts ............ ... 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
D. Social Impacts ........................................ 17
E. Land Use ... .......................................... 18
F. Noise Impacts ......................................... 19
...... ... ...................... 25
G. Air Quality Analysis...................................
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns......... 28
I. Hazardous Sites ....................................... 28
J. Section 4(f) Involvement .............................. 29
VIII. Comments, Coordination, and Public Involvement ............. 29
Figures
Appendix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - USGS Quad Map
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 4 - Proposed Typical Section
Figure 5 - Recommended Signalized Intersection Configurations
Figure 6a- 1996 Traffic Projections
Figure 6b- 2016 Traffic Projections
Figure 7 - Floodplain Map
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 - County Soils in Project Area ....................... 7
Table 2 - Water Best Usage Classification ... ............... 8
Table 3 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ........... 10
Table 4 - Federally Protected Species for McDowell County ..... 12
Table 5 - Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for
McDowell County .................................... 14
Table 6 - Comparison of Typical Sounds ........................ 20
Table 7 - Noise Abatement Criteria ..... ..................... 21
Table 8 - Ambient Noise Levels ... ........................... 22
Table 9 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ....................... 22
Table 10 - Traffic Noise Increase Summary ...................... 23
US 70
From East of the Catawba River Bridge
to US 70/221 Business
Marion, McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-70(17)
State Project 8.1871201
TIP Project R-3115
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposes to widen US 70 in Marion, North Carolina.
The 1.8 km (1.1 mile) project will symmetrically widen the existing
two lane facility to a five lane curb and gutter facility from east
of the Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221 Business in Marion.
Sufficient right of way for most of this widening already exists at
31 m (100 feet), symmetrical to the existing roadway centerline. The
estimated cost for this project is $1,300,000, including $1,100,000
for construction and $200,000 for right of way acquisition.
2. Environmental Effects - The proposed project will have a positive
impact by improving the safety and traffic handling capacity of US 70
Business. One relocation of a business will be required. No
significant impacts to natural resources will result from the
project. There will be no impact to any architectural and historical
resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Two archaeological sites were discovered within the proposed
project area. Further research of the archaeological sites will be
conducted prior to project construction. There will be no
significant impact to air quality and traffic noise increases are
expected to be minimal.
3. Environmental Commitments - It is anticipated that a Nationwide 404
permit will apply to t Fe stream crossings of this project. A 401
water quality certification will also be required for this project.
Best Management practices will be implemented as a part of this
project. Additional testing will be conducted on one archaeological
site prior to project construction to determine if significant
remains will be disturbed.
4. Coordination - Several federal, state and local agencies were
consulted uring preparation of this document. Written comments were
received from the following agencies:
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Army Corps of Engineers
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Env. Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
5. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the
proposal can be obtained by contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
US 70
From East of the Catawba River Bridge
to US 70/221 Business
Marion, McDowell County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-70(17)
State Project 8.1871201
TIP Project R-3115
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
US 70 from a two and three lane facility to a five lane curb and gutter
facility, from east of the Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221 Business.
The 1.8 kilometer (1.1 mile) project is included in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P) with right of way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1995, and construction scheduled
to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1996. The project will use federal and
state funds. The costs estimated in the 1995-2001 T.I.P. include
$200,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,700,000 for construction.
Currently, the total estimated cost of the project is $1,300,000.
Construction is estimated at $1,100,000; right of way costs are estimated
at $200,000.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. General
The proposed project
and handling capacity of
facility are projected to
year 1999.
B. Thoroughfare Plan
will relieve congestion by increasing the safety
this section of US 70. Traffic volumes on this
increase beyond its handling capacity by the
a major thoroughfare
The five-lane proposed
thoroughfare plan.
in the mutually adopted
cross-section for US 70
US 70 is designated as
Marion Thoroughfare Plan.
is in conformance with the
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Projected volumes for average daily traffic (ADT) are as follows:
1996 2016
Low High Low High
14200 18200 25600 33000
Truck traffic is projected to be 9% of the total ADT (See Figure 6).
D. Level of Service
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists and passengers. Operating conditions are based on
such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
2
interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service
are defined and designated with letters from A to F. Level A represents
the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay at
signalized intersections. Level F represents the worst operating
conditions when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the facility. At
level of service F, long queues of traffic tend to form and delay at
signalized tends to exceed 60 seconds.
A capacity analysis of the subject project yielded the following
results:
1. US 70 is currently operating at an overall level of service D.
2. If no improvements are made to the subject section of US 70, the
level of service will deteriorate to level of service F within
seven years.
3. Widening US 70 to five lanes will improve operating conditions
to an overall level of service B initially and maintain
operating conditions at LOS C or better through the design year
(2016).
Projected design year level of service for each signalized
intersection are as follows:
West McDowell J.H.S Access Rd (SR 1302) - LOS B
Shopping Center - LOS C
US 221/NC 226 Bypass - LOS D
US 70/221 Business - LOS C
F. Accident History
The accident rate for this section for US 70 over a recent three year
period (August 1, 1990-July 31, 1993) was 549.95 accidents/100 million
vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm). This greatly exceeds the statewide average of
253.0 acc/100 mvm for similar routes over that' same time period. There
were no fatalities along this section of US 70 during the three year study
period. Rear-end accidents were the predominant type of accidents. The
proposed improvements will improve the facility's operating conditions and
should reduce the accident rate.
G. School Buses
A total of 40 school buses per day use the studied section of US 70
daily during the school year. Most of these buses are generating from
West McDowell J.H.S. and West McDowell H.S. whose entrance is along US 70.
3
III. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY
A. Length of Section Studied
The length of this project is 1.8 km (1.1 miles).
B. Existing Typical Section
Currently, this section of US 70 is primarily a two lane facility
with 3.3 meter (11 foot) travel lanes and grassed shoulders approximately
1.2 to 3.0 meters (4 to 10 feet) wide.
C. Right of Way
US 70 has an existing right of way width of 31 m (100 feet).
Existing right of way widths along intersecting streets are as follows:
SR 1197 - 7 m (22 feet)
SR 1302 - 18 m (60 feet)
US 221/NC 226 - 62 m (200 feet)
US 70/221 Bus. - 31 m (100 feet) from SR 1197 to US 70/221 Bus.
13.4 m (44 feet) from east of the Catawba River
Bridge to SR 1197
D. Structures
There is one culvert in the proposed section. The 1.5 m X 2.1 m
(5' X 7') reinforced box culvert is to be retained and extended.
E. Intersecting Streets and Type of Control
1. SR 1197 (Ruby Conley Rd.): stop sign controlled
2. SR 1302 (West McDowell J.H.S. Access Rd.): signal controlled
3. Wal-Mart entrance: signal controlled
4. US 221/NC 226 Bypass: signal controlled
5. US 70/US 221 Business: signal controlled
F. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along the project is 90 km/h (55 mph) from
the Catawba River Bridge to the West McDowell J.H.S. school zone, and
60 km/h (35 mph) from the school zone to US 70/221 Business intersection.
G. Access Control
• There is no control of access along the project.
H. Utilities
Overhead powerlines parallel the project on both sides. The
powerlines are setback 15.1 m (50 feet) from centerline.
Underground utilities along the project include a sanitary sewer
line, a water line, and telephone lines.
4
The overall degree of utility conflict is expected to be medium.
Utilities which will be impacted by the project will be located prior to
construction. During construction, care will be taken to prevent damage
to utilities along the project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule which will minimize impacts on water and other utility service.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Build Alternative
The build alternative consists of widening the studied section of
US 70 to a 19.2 m (64 foot) five lane curb and gutter section. The five
lane section will provide two travel lanes in each direction and a
continuous center left turn lane. The roadway is to be widened
symmetrically about the centerline of the existing roadway. The proposed
project will relieve congestion by increasing the safety and handling
capacity of the studied section of US 70.
B. Transportation System Management Alternative
Transportation system management involves improvements designed to
optimize use of the existing facility with minimal additional
construction. Traffic volumes are projected for this facility and
additional through-lanes are required. Transportation system management
will not provide an acceptable level of service for this section of US 70.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build alternative were chosen, it would have a
considerable negative impact on transportation on the subject section of
US 70. US 70 is a highly congested facility at the present, especially
during peak periods. Projected increases in traffic would deteriorate the
level of service to an undesirable level. Increased congestion would lead
to higher operating costs and increased travel times. Automobile accidents
would increase. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been rejected.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed/Speed Limit
The recommended design speed is 80' km/h (50 mph). The posted speed
will be 70 km/h (45 mph) from the Catawba river to the West McDowell
J.H.S. school zone and 60 km/h (35 mph) from the West McDowell J.H.S. to
US 70/221 Business.
B. Typical Section
The project cross section will consist of a five lane curb and gutter
facility. Pavement width will be 19.2 m (64 feet) from face to face of
curbs. 2.4 m (8 foot) berms will be provided behind the curbs.
5
Two left turn lanes and one right turn lane will be provided for
US 70 eastbound at the intersection of US 221/NC 226 Bypass. One left and
right turn lane will be provided for US 70 westbound at the intersection
of US 221/NC 226 Bypass.
C. Alignment
US 70 will be widened symmetrically about the existing roadway
centerline.
D. Right of Way
• The existing 31 m (100 feet) wide right of way, symmetrical to the
existing roadway centerline will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed
roadway, from SR 1197 to US 70/221 Business. From east of the Catawba
River Bridge to SR 1197, existing right of way is approximately 13.4 m
(44 feet). 31 m (100 feet) of right of way will be acquired for this
project. Some temporary easements will be required where slopes extend
beyond existing right of way.
E. Access Control
There will be no control of access along this project.
F. Bicycle Accommodations
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended or requested for
this project.
G. Sidewalks
No sidewalks will be constructed as part of this project. The 2.4 m
(8 feet) berms will provide an area for pedestrians. Sidewalks could be
constructed at a later date on the berms.
H. Structures
The 1.5 m X 2.1 m (5' X 7') reinforced box culvert will be retained
and extended on the south (inlet) end to accommodate widening.
I. Cost Estimate
The project cost is estimated at $1,300,000. Construction is
estimated at $1,100,000. Right of way acquisition is estimated at
$200,000.
6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Systems
1. Study Area
McDowell County lies in the mountain Physiographic Providence.
The topography of this County is characterized by low elevation
mountains.and the flood plain for the Catawba River. Elevations in
the study area are approximately 367 m (1200 ft) above sea level.
2. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to natural systems field
investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (West Marion), National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) Maps, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2000) and
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of McDowell County. Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from
the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis publication of
the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of McDowell County.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists on June 13, 1994. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques:
active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks
and burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were conducted
using visual observations; tactile searches for benthic organisms
were administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches
were identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of. Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual".
3. Soils
Soils found in the study area are highly disturbed and include
areas altered by excavation, filled, and where impervious surfaces
have been constructed. These soils occur on moderate slopes and are
generally well drained. Some map units may contain inclusions of
hydric soils. An inventory of specific soil types which occur in the
project area can be found in Table 1.
7

Table 1. County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Ur Urban land moderate--
IoA Iotla Sandy loam 0-2; occass.
flooded B
Uo Udorthents, loamy 0-60 --
Uf Udifluvents, sandy freq flooded B
Note: "B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet
spots.
4. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
The proposed project is located in the Catawba River Basin and
crosses a single unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. This stream
crosses the proposed alignment just east of US 221/NC 226 and the
existing structure is a single barrel pipe culvert.
This small stream has steep banks, with sandy substrate and
large rocks. The channel is 15 to 35 cm (6 to 14 in) deep and has
little flow. The channel for this.stream has been relocated during
past construction projects and experiences heavy siltation. -
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed streams carry
the same best usage classification as streams to which they are
tributaries. Table 2 lists best usage classifications for all water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
8
Table 2. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE
Catawba River
CLASSIFICATION
Class C
Note: Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The proposed project is not located in a High Quality Water
(HQW) Zone, however, an HQW zone and a water supply intake is located
less than 1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of the study area on the Catawba
River. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1
mile) of project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed 'monitoring sites.
Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. Specific BMAN information is not
available for the specific project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a
permit. The NPDES lists no sources of discharge into this unnamed
stream.
Construction related impacts include reduced water quality,
increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations of the water level
due to interruptions or additions to water flow, and the destruction
of natural substrate due to stream channel relocation. Reduced water
quality could include changes in turbidity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and nutrient limitation. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sediment Control Guidelines
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project.
5. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
9
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed.
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the
project study area: The Man Dominated Community and Secondary Forest
Community. Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined;
contiguous communities generally merge without any transition zone
between them. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Man dominated communities are found along roadside shoulders,
powerline right-of-ways, cutovers, and clearings. The composition of
this community is highly variable in the study area and controlled by
human intervention. Common species found in this community include:
fescue, daisy fleabane, plantain, common yellow woodsorrel,
verbisina, violet, catbrier, and knotweed.
This community offers a wide range of habitats that allow
certain animal species to flourish. Those species which flourish are
often species which are highly adaptable or those which do not have
specific habitat requirements, such as, American toad, five-lined
skink, black racer, blue grosbeak, northern cardinal, woodchuck,
eastern chipmunk, and striped skunk.
A secondary forest community is typical of areas where the land
has been cleared and then allowed to revert to a natural condition.
The canopy in this community is composed of a high diversity of even
aged species, with none achieving dominance. Species observed
include: tulip poplar, river birch, scrub pine, and black cherry. A
thick understory of mountain laurel is located in the forest fringe
and clears opened by fallen canopy trees. The ground covering in
this community is sparse and limited to shade loving species because
of the high density of the canopy. Common groundcover species are:
ebony spleenwort, downy rattlesnake plantain, and species found in
the man dominated community.
Animal species found in this community are those species which
prefer shrubby habitats. Many of these species are the same as those
found in the man dominated community. Other species which are likely
to occur in shrubby habitats in the study area are: slimy salamander,
spotted salamander, upland chorus frog, broadhead skink, copperhead,
black-and-white warbler, prairie warbler, blue-gray gnatcatcher, gray
fox, gray squirrel, and white-tailed deer.
The intermittent stream that crosses the proposed project
provides a habitat necessary for many semiaquatic species. Factors
such as water quality, length of inundation, and substrate
composition control the number and diversity of species that can
utilize the habitats provided. The terrestrial communities adjacent
to the stream channel also greatly influence aquatic community
composition.
10
Intermittent streams often experience interruption of flow
during dry spells. Periods of flow interruption are generally
seasonal, with the summer months being dryer than the winter. During
dry spells streams retain water in shallow pools along their course.
It is these pools which are influenced in size and depth by
climatological events that provide habitat for a great diversity of
aquatic and semiaquatic species. A higher diversity of species can
be found in streams which have a dense canopy of trees.
Despite the dry conditions present during the warmer months of
the year many species are adapted to living in this environment.
These species are those that complete their life cycle quickly or
form cysts that are better able to withstand the periods of
desiccation. Species likely to occur in the habitats provided by
small intermittent streams include benthic invertebrates such as
rotifers, flatworms, roundworms, as well as insect larvae, crayfish,
and snails. Many higher animals such as amphibians and reptiles also
rely on these intermittent streams as a source of food and water.
Some common vertebrates likely to utilize habitats provided by
intermittent streams include: northern dusky salamander, two-lined
salamander, pickerel frog, upland chorus frog, and northern water
snake. A variety of the mammals found in the terrestrial communities
in the study area may forage in intermittent streams.
A few species of shiners and sunfish may be found inhabiting the
larger pools in these streams during periods of inundation.
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities
in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of
these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses
to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction.
Estimated impacts are derived using the entire right of way width of
31 m (100 ft). Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Man Dominated Community 4.0 (9.9)
Secondary Forest Community 0.5 (1.3)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
11
The construction of the proposed project will result in
temporary impacts to the existing man dominated community and the
conversion of the secondary forest community in the study area to a
man dominated community. The proposed construction will also result
in the permanent loss of the man dominated community in some portions
of the study area. The loss of secondary forest will result in the
displacement of some species of plants and animals that are not
adapted to exist in man dominated communities. Potential impacts to
the aquatic environment are those that act to decrease water quality
and include increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff, and toxic
runoff from construction related erosion.
Organisms that utilize this intermittent stream to complete
their life cycles can be affected by increased sedimentation and
toxic runoff from construction related erosion, and nutrient runoff
from chemical fertilizers used in roadside landscaping. These
factors act to decrease successful reproduction in individual species
and decrease community diversity. Other species which utilize these
streams to forage are affected through biomagnification of pollutants
and the loss of potential prey species. NC0OT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation
Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project to minimize impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic
organisms.
6. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands are those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence
of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
No jurisdictional wetlands are located in the subject project's
study area.
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) is likely to be
applicable at most ditch and stream crossings found in the project
study area.
12
Since the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout"
county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the COE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resource Commission
(WRC). A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of the Army.
7. Endangered Species
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
effect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to
review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 12, 1994, the
FWS lists the following federally-protected species for McDowell
County (Table 4). A brief description of each species
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species
for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern
coloratus flying squirrel E
Hedoyti ur urea
var. montana Roan Mountain bluet E
Hudsonia montana mountain golden heather T
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its rang e).
13
Northern Flying Squirrel E
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying
squirrel in the western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee
border. This squirrel is found above 1517 meters (5000 ft) in the
vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests.
Both forest types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest
is used for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Elevations in the study area are approximately 367 m (1200 ft).
This elevation is not high enough to support suitable habitat for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel. No effects to this species will
result from the construction of the proposed project.
Mountain Purple or Roan Mountain Bluet E
This plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and
in the gravelly talus associated with cliffs. Known populations of
Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations of 1400-1900 meters
(4600-6200 ft). It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full
sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous,
metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Elevations in the study area are approximately 367 m (1200 ft).
This elevation is not high enough to support suitable habitat for the
Roan Mountain bluet. No effects to this species will result from the
construction of the proposed project.
Mountain Golden Heather T
Mountain Golden Heather occurs in weathered rocky soils on
mountain tops, with known populations found at elevations of 850-1200
meters (2800-4000 ft). It can be found on exposed quartzite ledges
in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds dominated by
Leiophyllum which merge into pine forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Elevations in the study area are approximately 367 m (1200 ft).
This elevation is not high enough to support suitable habitat for
mountain golden heather. No effects to this species will result from
the construction of the proposed project.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon
and protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of
federally-protected species in or near the project study area.
14
OTHER RARE SPECIES
There are nine federal candidate (C2) species listed for
McDowell County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table -5 lists federal candidate species, the species' state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species may
be upgraded in the future.
Table S. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Myotis subulatus eastern small-
leibii footed bat SC No
Neotoma floridana
magister eastern woodrat SC No
Dendroica ceruleacerulean warbler -- Yes
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary
butterfly -- Yes
Juglans cinerea butternut -- No
Lilium grayi Gray's lilly T-SC No
Shortia galacifolia oconee-bells E-SC No
Shortia galicifolia short-styled
var. brevistyla oconee-bells E-SC No
NOTE: "--" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data
base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
15
B. Cultural Resources
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
An architectural survey was conducted to determine if any significant
resources occur within the area of potential effect according to National
Register of Historic Places criteria. McDowell County survey files were
searched in the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) in Raleigh and
Asheville, as were the National Register and State Study List. An inten-
sive survey was conducted which covered 100% of the APE to identify those
properties that appeared potentially eligible for the National Register.
Although five properties were evaluated for National Register
eligibility, none were determined to be eligible for the National
Register. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with
this finding in an October 6, 1994 letter (See Appendix).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A survey of the project area was conducted by NCDOT archaeologists to
determine if the widening will disturb significant archaeological or
historical resources.
Two archaeological sites were found within the proposed road widening
project area. Site 31MC200, the McDowell House and grounds, was determined
to lack archaeological significance and no additional archaeological
investigation is recommended for this site.
Site 31MC39, a prehistoric site, was found to extend into the
project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). The part of the site within the
APE is covered with 20th-century earthen road fill which probably was put
in place before 1950. The fill, up to one meter thick in some places, has
protected part of the archaeological site from agricultural and other
disturbances in recent decades. It is possible that archaeological
features are preserved beneath the road fill within the area that is to be
widened.
Additional archaeological testing of site 31MC39 will be conducted
to determine if preserved archaeological contexts are present within the
APE. The testing will incorporate backhoe trenching in order to examine
the area beneath the fill. Also, areas where utilities and drainage
excavations extend outside the present right of way will be identified to
ensure a full assessment of project effects on site 31MC39 can be
determined. The archaeological testing will be conducted when preliminary
design plans have been prepared, but well before any scheduled
construction. Should significant archaeological remains be found within
the existing right of way, archaeological data recovery excavations may be
required before construction can proceed. SHPO has reviewed the
Archaeological resources report and it is anticipated that they will
concur with the findings.
Because it is unlikely the archaeological sites identified within the
proposed project area will be used for public interpretation, Section 4(f)
of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal-Aid Highway Act, as
amended, will not likely apply to this road widening project.
16
C. Relocation Impacts
Catawba River Produce, a one story brick business, lies just west of
SR 1197 where we have only 13.4 m (44 feet) of right of way.
Relocation of one business will be unavoidable due to right of way
acquisition. This relocation is not expected to cause a breakup of a
community, nor the disruption of services. It is anticipated that an
adequate.replacement property will-be available. The relocation action
will be in accordance with the revised North Carolina General Statutes,
Chapter 133.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do-business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and individ-
uals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
17
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
' information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable-incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
D. Social Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive social effect. Widening
US 70 will improve operations for vehicular traffic and increase safety
for all users. Those who must use US 70 to get to their employment,
deliver services, or other travel will realize improved efficiency.
18
The proposed widening of US 70 will not disrupt community cohesion,
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services, and will not
displace community residents and businesses.
E. Land Use
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of
McDowell County and -the City of Marion. McDowell County recently adopted
its first Land Use and Development Plan, which provides policies for the
management of growth throughout the County. The County does not currently
enforce a zoning ordinance, although it has adopted a watersupply
watershed protection ordinance which restricts developments within the
critical areas of the County's watersupply watersheds.
The City of Marion's primary planning document is its Land Analysis
and Land Development Plan Update, which was adopted in 1978. The City has
also adopted and enforces a zoning ordinance.
The project area is best characterized as an area in transition from
rural to suburban land uses. McDowell High School and West McDowell
Junior High School are located near the project's western terminus,
accessed from SR 1302. A baseball diamond and soccer field are located in
front of the schools parallel to the roadway. To the east beyond the
schools the land is undeveloped and includes woodlands and agricultural
fields. A strip shopping center is located on the north side of the
roadway, and includes Wal-Mart, a grocery store, and several fast food
restaurants. Strip commercial development continues to the east of the
shopping center to the intersection of US 70 with US 221 Business.
US 70 serves as the Marion municipal boundary through a portion of
the project area. The land on the south side of the roadway is within the
City of Marion's jurisdiction. Only the land occupied by the shopping
center on the north side of the roadway is included in the city's
jurisdiction. According to the City's Land Development Plan, land fronting
the entire length of US 70 within the study area is designated for
commercial development. The plan indicates commercial development should
be orientated to highway travelers. The General Business zoning districts
within this area are consistent with the plan.
The McDowell County Land Use Plan also indicates that the US 70
vicinity will continue to develop, with the land beyond the roadway
classified as a Urban Transition area. This area will primarily support
commercial and industrial land uses.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which has been developed or is committed to urban development
by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act.
As previously mentioned, the project area has been designated for
commercial development by both the City of Marion and McDowell County.
Some commercial development has already occurred. Therefore, no further
consideration of impacts to prime farmland soils is required.
19
F. Noise Impacts
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of US 70 on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation included an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also included a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table 6
Review of Table 6 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table 7. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
20
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating.
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The existing Leq noise level along US 70 as measured at 15.1 m (50 feet)
from the roadway ranged from 63.0 to 70.1 dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise
levels are presented in Table 8.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SOUNDS
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

H 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10

0 1 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
21
TABLE 7
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E . 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)

Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Depar'...ent of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
22
TABLE 8
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
SITE
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
LOCATION
1. US 70, .21 Mile East of SR 1302 Grassy 70
2. US 70, .76 Mile West of US-70/US-221 Grassy 63
Business
TABLE 9
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. US 70, From SR 1302 to Wal-Mart
2. US 70, From Wal-Mart to US 221/NC 226
3. US 70, From US 221/NC 226 to End
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors Accordinq to
Title 23 CPR Part 772
A B C D E
72 68 62 76' 139' 0 1 2 0 0

73 69 63 85' 153' 0
0
1
0 s
0

70 66 60 56' 111' 0
0
0
0 r
0
TOTAL
0 1 3 0 0
23
TABLE 10
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Section
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Substantial
Noise Level
«0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >- 25 Increaseel
1. US 70, From SR 1302 to 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wal-Mart
2. US 70, From Wal-Mart to 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
US 221/NC 226
3. US 70, From US 221/NC 226 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
to End ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---
TOTAL 0 0 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
0 0
0
----- -- 0
----------
0 0
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise
analysis. Existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting
up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this
report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the
proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design
year 2016, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase.
24
Table 10 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level
increases for this project range from +3 to +9 dBA. When real-life noises
are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA.
A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table 7 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table 7.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. As indicated in Table 9 and Table 10,
there are four impacted receptors in the project area.
NOISE BARRIERS
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety
at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from
the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15.1 m (50
feet) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 121 m (400 feet)
long. An access opening of 12.1 m (40 feet) (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these 2 qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in their case.
25
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
one residence and three businesses would experience traffic noise impacts
by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range
of +2 to +8 dBA. As previous noted, it is barely possible to detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA.. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime
hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise. abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
H. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO & and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO ANALYSIS
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
26
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
of 1996 and the design year of 2016 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #3
at a distance of 18.2 m (60 feet) from the proposed centerline of the
median. The "build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive
receptor for the years of 1996 and 2016 are shown in the following table. '
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest
iti
S Build No-Build
ve
ens
Receptor
1996
2016
1996
2016
R-3 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0
27
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al, A2,
A3 and A4 for input data and output.
OTHER POLLUTANTS
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating
lead emissions. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as
more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or
transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Asheville Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for McDowell County has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect
on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 770, and no additional reports are required.
2s
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hvdraulic Concerns
Ground water elevation is near the stream flow elevation of
approximately 396 m (1300 feet) above sea level.
McDowell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. US 70 lies within the 100 year floodplain for the
Catawba River. The floodplain areas affected by this project are
partially developed with additional development likely. There are no
known buildings in the project vicinity with the floor elevation below the
100 year level. The proposed project will not have any impact on existing
floodplain areas.
I. Hazardous Materials Involvement
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) FACILITIES
One Underground Storage Tank Facility is located along the subject
section of US 70. The UST is located in the northwest quadrant of the
Catawba River and US 70. The diesel UST is approximately 22.9 m (75 feet)
from roadway centerline. It is not on existing right of way and will not
be acquired for new right of way. .
OTHER POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
The files of the Solid Waste Section and the Hazardous Waste
Sections, Division of Solid Waste Management were consulted to ascertain
whether any unregulated dump sites or there were potentially contaminated
properties exist within the proposed project limits. Based on those
records and the EPA's Superfund list, there are no potential environmental
sites that would affect this project corridor.
Though no unregulated dump sites were found in the file search, one
was found on the property of Boyd Sand and Gravel. There is evidence of
oil and fuel spillage at this dump.
J. Section 4(f) Involvement
There is no Section 4(f) Involvement with this project. Soccer
fields of the West McDowell Junior High School are located on the south
side of US 70 just east of SR 1302. These fields will be completely
avoided by project construction and right of way.
29
VII. COMMENTS COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On December 9, 1993, a letter was mailed to the following state, and
local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input
concerning to proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies
which responded to this letter):
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*Army Corps of Engineers
Mayor of Marion
Northwestern Economic Development Commission
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Env. Health and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
A Citizens Informational Workshop was not held on the proposed
project. A letter was sent to adjoining property owners and residents to
inform them of the proposed project and solicit any comments on the
project. A news release was also forwarded to media contacts in the
project area to inform the public and solicit comments. No concerns were
raised concerning the project.
RL/pl r
FIGURES

a-
•Rid

1
I ?
r _..
1300
MARION '
POP. 3,684
lt¢ \ -
? C \ a
IZ
..\b ??;•
TTT ^ a" T TILT • T1T.lif •" alit ATT
i y u i 6 c t ? " A " A ? tr aaucT a.GF
TRANSPORTATION,.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDENING OF US 70, FROM
EAST OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BRIDGE
TO US 70 / 221 BUSINESS
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P.NO..R-3115
9/93 FIG. 1
¦
0001,77
itot
If
P'
A GARDEN CREEK
(UNING)
r POOP. X1,161
V L•
\J '.i
\` ?? • 1 34 ??r= ri ilr ?:?? °? \?'% ?;, • j_ Jr /??? \/?1. ? ??^; ?? \\ ? .\?J ?az? 1 ' ` ' r'?/ •
40
YAU
a
cpj \ . Ch
rte; i %'?, >> \,1?1 =?.,I. w . •??? i ?,?
\ i Q7 `i i ??"' (?"? ,"a ••. \\?\\ /?? Trailers
0, Irk
??,_ \ •ul ??\ry ? \ `:' %?, I /J 1?'//? -m" and Grave VPsi
_•., ..,,` any ;??•--?.'n\?? ti.:;/,. ? \•--?, - '??. •' %/..r /. ?
Ja -V
EM 1322
warden • :,• rsie ;
_ - \ > nd'and Gravel \ Ju. 4? •!l (r_•?
/--? c a % ? f • `"1 ? 14 : \ ,J ? / ?? West' G7 , f . a\\ \ _ "? . / J
'k.(1506
/ ?.
6"N r
'-r"! h2g ?m??, ?.?-, ? i'• ?.^ \?;`, ' I \ "._ 11?i ?? : i`?, ,'? ?Fiigit5ehtll ? \ \ ??`?• •?
n r:. .? rr
/262 ....
"`
•?as ` ?% 13z3•• R/ j(1 P eck.
.70
onve
\ In L
aet? \ \ 1 \'- V 2 2. -?
?? { = 1430 \ ? _•._:.;"' ???• ,r? ?? - ?-?. ? ? , ?, _./ ',?• ,?:
_=1 =' jr•, ? '_ % ? ?/ u\" , 1221 `\? ` \ ? 1'? ? yCQ / ?': Mit ? ?CO.r? 1 ? ' /?? ? lry?
cp 7::
?; c r
It I MI L2!7?9&
dlo Towers Af (i l? ?? '1'_~ `\? •r) `eb?? .. :?,??;/ .
WRBM)Iwo
1214O / t/?ao +f? "7\_ ?\?-. y _1?.? _ ?. •, lI9 ems..
'
• ?a + r, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF • ??
/ ?': ?.• - t ° s ?J ! ??' TRANSPORTATION '•? I '
• "' a 4 z? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?`Oei
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ~i=
i •°? I ?, BRANCH
r ?
WIDENING OF US 70, FROM :? 1 • • , ; / Iiss -'?c,?
EAST OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BRIDGE ?]bmChj?
??`'?, r TO US 70 / 221 BUSINESS
_ IF
._i.fi:•f 4'jir?::
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO.. R -.3115 west Marion;,,.,-,,?
Quad Ma 18'-s^
`' ? _?.?
4
. ?„ ?-?q
??
a.
?.
??
0
0
v vim, t
C ~
. O
v
z ?
? ^ N
m ao ?+
N O

N3 O
r

z 0
m N

n m
v
c
M ?o
j w w
n j
z
D
v r
•• w
Cl)
c m
-? 0

N
~W
i o
z
Of W
.: 3

I
3
`. 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
R-3115
RECOMMENDED SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
WITH DESIGN YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE AS INDICATED
WAL-MART ENTRANCE
LOS B ?
SR 1302
LOS C
W
LOS D ?
LOS C
NC 226 US 70
US 221 221 BUS
FIGURE 6A
US 70 FROM SR 1302 TO US 70/221 BUS
ESTIMATED 1996 ADT IN HUNDREDS

WAL-MART ENTRANCE
IN OD N(h
+-71 4-67 23 ?
8 E? 68 -I L
US 70 ?
71-? s7--)0-
6
1 CD 00
2
SR 1197 SR 1302
3
50
6
.? 1?
7 50 18
68 -? 50
23
41 N N
NC 226
US 221 BYP
TTST 4%
DUAL 5%
DHV 10%
D I R 60%
5 --* I
54
'o Ln
US 70
US 221 BUS
FIGURE 6B
US 70 FROM SR 1197 TO US 70/221 BUS
ESTIMATED 2016 ADT IN HUNDREDS
WAL-MART ENTRANCE
-127 4-123
US 70 *-- 4 f- 11
r? 14-143 ccei v? 5
? 90
?? 11
127 123
1 ? / $ co
14
SR 1197
SR 1302
33
12--*
122 -)Ol 90 90
42 ? cll M
NC 226
US 221 BYP
TTST 4%
DUAL 5%
DHV 10%
DIR 60%
9
97
US 70
US 221 BUS
I
ZONE X
I

C7
a.
END PROJECT
Isu

1237
\ 1239 ZONE X
\40
ti
124,
BEGIN PROJECT
ZONE X
124¢
KX\
ZONE X
100-YEAR FLOOD CONTAINED IN CHANNEL
I
ZONE X
i
i
\i

is,0

ZONE X U
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
LEGEND WIDENING OF US 70, FROM
EAST OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BRIDGE
_ 100 year TO US 701221 BUSINESS
f loodplain McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO., R - 3115
FIGURE '7
APPENDIX
N
1,
?Q?MENT of TyF? TAKE?_
Ns._ I United States Department of the Interior RIDE IN ?
o
X
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?, 69 Asheville Field Office
CH 3 10 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 G C E j?
January 24, 1994
?27
k$
'
Mr. H. Frankl i n Vick, P.E. , ManagerPl
i
d E
i
l
h , tHIGPHWA??
ann
ng an
nv
ronmenta
Branc ONNl?t
Division of-Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Scoping for proposed widening of US 70, from east of the
Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221 Business, McDowell County,
North Carolina, TIP No. R-3115
In your letter of December 9, 1993 (received December 22, 1993), you
requested, for your use in the preparation of an environmental
assessment, information regarding potential environmental impacts that
could result from the subject project. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
..
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the widening of US 70 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility
just west of Marion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is
particularly concerned about the potential impacts the proposed actions
may have on listed or proposed endangered or threatened species and on
stream and wetland ecosystems within the project -Impact area. Preferei-'ce
should be given to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures,
and construction techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and
impacts to these resources.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from McDowell County that may occur within the
area of influence. of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration.
The enclosed page also contains a list of candidate species that are
currently under status review by the Service which may occur in the
project impact area. Candidate species are not legally protected under
the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
\C
give you advance notification. The presence or absence of these species
in the project impact area should be addressed in any environmental
document prepared for this project.
The Service's review of the environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
climbing lanes.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be
filled as a consequence of the proposed road
improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed
project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4856), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(5) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(6) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-028.
Si erely,
r
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
f,

i
A2
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611

Ic
A3
i
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-028
January 24, 1994
McDOWELL COUNTY
MAMMALS
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus)
- Endangered
Eastern small-footed bat (M otis subulatus leibii) - Candidate
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana magister) - Candidate
BIRDS
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) - Candidate
REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenber4ii) - Candidate
A
PLANTS
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) - Threatened
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Candidate
Gray's lily (Lilium gravi) - Candidate
Oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia) - Candidate
Short-styled oconee bells (Shortia galacifolia var. brevistvla)
- Candidate

i

A4

16

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
W REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
February 16, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1993,
our comments on "Marion, Widening of US 70, from east of the
River Bridge to US 70/221 Business, McDowell County, Federal
No. STP-70(17), State Project No. 8.1871201, TIP No. R-3115"
Branch Action ID No. 199401036).

ONNN" OF
W 11ys,
requesting
Catawba
Aid Project
(Regulatory
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective,
involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and other environmental
aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would not
involve any COE-constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in McDowell County, which participates
in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the July 1988
McDowell County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway passes through the.
flood plain of the?Catawba River, a detailed study stream with 100-year'
flood elevations determined but no floodway defined. The hydraulic
effects on the 100-year flood level of this stream should be addressed in
the environmental document. The final project's hydraulic effects should
be coordinated with McDowell County for compliance with their flood plain
ordinance and possible revision to their flood insurance maps and report.
Our Regulatory Branch has also reviewed your letter and has the
following comments. A representative of our Asheville Field Office
recently inspected the entire alignment of this project which involves
the widening to five lanes of..the existing two-lane road along US 70.
Almost the entire alignment lies within uplands. These uplands consist
of either open fields dominated with broom sedge or wooded areas dominated
in the canopy by Virginia Pine. There are very few residences within the
alignment and no business establishments. The front entrance and lawn
area of McDowell High School will be cut off which may present a problem
for the school.

A5
4
? t
s
-2-
There is a small wetland area in the upper headwaters to Garden Creek.
It is located just southeast of the intersection of US 70/221 and US 70.
This wetland is of low value and permitting under Nationwide Permit No. 26
should be no problem.
In conclusion, we see no reason environmentally or otherwise that
would be a problem in proceeding with this project. If you have any
questions relating to permits, please contact Mr. Steve Chapin at the
Asheville Field Office, telephone [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
A% Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Divisio

a

A6
y
n
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH_ CAROLINA 27603-8003
02-24-94
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
,,N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN. C ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
(HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING OF US 70, FROM EAST OF THE CATAWBA
RIVER BRIDGE TO US 70/221 BUSINESS (TIP #R-3115)
SAI NO 94E42200466 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
E%
FEB ? 8 '
i ..
OF P2?'
C.C. REGION C HGSip. `
`pF.. HW.4 N YS

A7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar41
Office of Policy Development ?r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM:, Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0466 - Scoping Widening of US 70 West of Marion,
McDowell County
DATE: January 26, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
A8

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A1YA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N F=?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
. January 21, 1994
A MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0466; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Widening of US 70 West of Marion, McDowell
County, TIP #R-3115
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. Based on the
information provided, the project appears to cross the Catawba
River where it is classified C by the State of North Carolina.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
, F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
A9
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
January 21, 1994
Page 2 -
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
J. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10484er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
Ilk
A,
A10
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 5, 1994
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0466, Scoping
comments for proposed widening of US 70, McDowell
County, TIP #R-3115.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the proposed widening of US 70 from
east of the.Catawba River bridge to US 70/221 Business in
McDowell County. I conducted a site visit-on November 18, 1993
to assess fisheries and wildlife resources of the project area.
A business area exists at the eastern end of the project, and
wildlife habitat is limited to small tracts of disturbed mixed
hardwoods and fields. No fish habitat was observed. We have not
identified any special concerns regarding this project at this
time.
The following information should be included in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) that will be prepared for this
i project:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's
(NCWRC) Nongame and Endangered Species Section maintains
databases for locations of fish and wildlife species. While
there is no charge for the list, a service charge for
computer time is involved. Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
All
US 70 Widening Page 2 January 5, 1994
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agency:
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Chapin at
704/271-4014.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
a
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to
you in the early planning stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8.Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
A12
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
January 18, 1994
Memorandum
L TO: Melba McGee L
FROM: Stephen Hall 7
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Widen US 70, Marion
REFERENCE: 94-0466
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for
Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema), a fish considered significantly
rare in North Carolina, from the Catawba River downstream from
the US 70 bridge crossing. Although this project is unlikely to
have any significant impacts on this species, we recommend that
all best management practices be followed for the control of
runoff and siltation.
1

Al 3
•MI'y?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural.. Pe-sources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary / Director
Project Number: Q?- ov" County: M C /JU 'ZL
Project Name:
Geodetic Surve
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Re er
Erosion and Sedimentation control
No comment
/ 2
Date
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the. Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
Reviewer A,14 Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
r

i
An Equal Opportunity Affirmattve Action Employer
DEPARTMI'l-IN ' OI E.iJVIR??iV\I.E:N'I I-1LAl-TI-1,
. AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name
The applicant should beclvised t1Elans,
th ivisio f
n improvements must be appro?ed.by J
of a contract or the initiation o conVstr?ictio re
t - -
For information, contact the Puo ?.? pP1Y
id specifications for all water system
Environmental Health prior to the award
Iuired by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
Section, [phone].
?---? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
?-? state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r--? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend 'Closure
shellfis-T i sanitation of pjacent
?-? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
r ---? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
?--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito control. measures, the applicant should.
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
r-? The applicant should be advised that prior to the 'removal or demolition of dilapidated.
?--J structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent
he sPubliceHinfo ealth Pest Management Sect on control)
(919)
contact the local health department or t
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.)..
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r----? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?--J facilities required for this project.
-? If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
t relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water t r Supply
[phone].
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street Raleight North Carolina,
Section/Branch Date
Reviewer
A15
DrHNIk 319S (Revised 8/93)
Type of Project
M d'r'y
qwr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T,La ort ation
FROM: David Brook T_t3
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: Widening US 70 from east of Catawba River Bridge to US
70/221 Business, McDowell County, R-3115, 8.1871201,
STP-70(17),. 94-E-4220-0466
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Colonel Joseph McDowell House. On US 70, 0.1 mile west of the junction with US
70/221, 2 miles northwest of Marion. This property was placed on the state study
list on March .29, 1973. We understand that the building is currently used as a
restaurant and craft gallery.
From the information gathered at the scoping meeting, it appears that this is the only
structure over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect. Please verify that this is
correct.
We previously recommended an archaeological survey for this project. Our
recommendation remains the same.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
A16
109 Fast Jones Street • Rakigh, North Carolina 276012807
o r
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 6, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
(Phase Il, Abridged) for widening of US 70 from
east of Catawba River Bridge to US 70/221
Business, McDowell County, R-3115, 8.1871201,
STP-70(17), ER 95-7437
Dear Mr. Graf:
?G'- I
O
, ? pCT 10 1994
22 DIVISION OF ?s
0? HIGHWAYS
Division o FAl ? ory
William S. Price. F irector
Thank you for your letter of September 1, 1994, transmitting the historic
structures survey report by Scott Owen for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) concerning the above project.
On May 26, 1994, representatives of the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and
NCDOT met to review photographs of the five properties over fifty years of age in
the area of potential effect. Based upon the information discussed, we agreed
that the following properties did not require further evaluation in a report since
they do not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Colonel Joseph McDowell House (#1)
Catawba River Produce Building (#2)
Residence (#4)
Shack (#5)
We also recommended that the Catawba River Pottery Building should be further
evaluated in a report. Based on the information in the report we have determined
that the Catawba River Pottery Building is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places since it has no special historical or architectural significance.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
A17
109 East Jones Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
October 6, 1994, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
%?"
"-
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. F. Vick
B. Church

A18