20000368 Ver 1_Complete File_20000322

e.w STrVj . I
t7ATEft
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT Jft• DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 7, 2000
Mr. Ronald E. Ferrell, Program Manager
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1619
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Dear Sir:
oib\
Subject: Stream mitigation in Rutherford County, SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) from west of
US 74 Alt. to Young Street , State Project No. 8.2890401, T.I.P. No. U-271 IA.
This letter is in regard to our previous request, dated 01 June 2000, for stream mitigation for
U-271 IA. The NCDOT has reduced the length of culverts, therefore reducing stream impacts.
As a result, the NCDOT will not need stream mitigation for the subject project.
Thank you for your help. If you have any questions or need additional information please
contact Lynn Smith at [phone].
Sincerely
G-t William . Gilmore,?P.E-., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. F. Daniel Martin, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: W ..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
A
44 ®0
t
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 31, 2000
Rutherford County
DWQ Project # 000368
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
NC DOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
c/o William D. Gilmore
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 61 feet Bracketts
Creek in Rutherford County for the purpose of road widening, as you described in your application received by the Division of
Water Quality on March 22, 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this action is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when the
Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water
Supply Water shed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions below and those listed in
the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sin • 1
Stevens
Attachment 7
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files 000368
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/ t 00,% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.htmi

r ?
LC-
L I V11
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 28, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
1 00368
` ?1? 2 ? 2600
}
"TL NDS GROUP
"ATER QUALITY SECTIOtd
Subject: Rutherford County, Proposed Widening of SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
from west of the intersection with US 74A to SR 2213 (South Church
Street) in Forest City, State Project No. 8.289040 1, T.I.P. U-271 IA.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) to a multi-lane section from west of the intersection with US
74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street) in Forest City, Rutherford County. The 2.4-
kilometer (1.5 mile) long project will widen the existing four-lane curb and gutter
roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter section from the US 74 Bypass to SR 2178
(Hardin Road) and widen the two lanes from SR 2178 to SR 2213 (Church Street) to a
five-lane curb and gutter. The proposed cross section will consist of two 3.6 meter (12
foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Areas: The project will not impact any wetlands. Impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters will occur at five sites and are itemized in the summary
sheet. Only two of these sites (site A and B) were determined to be mitigable. Site A
impacts 55.8 linear feet of stream channel and site B impacts 4.9 linear feet of stream
channel. Since there are no wetland impacts and each stream impact is less than 150
linear feet, no mitigation is proposed for this project.
Threatened and Endangered Species. The December 20, 1999 species lists has
four -species for Rutherford County, the Indiana bat (lfyotis sodalis), dwarf-flowered
• I T
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflomi), white irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), and rock
gnome lichen (Gymnocler•nia linew-e). NCDOT evaluation of these species resulted in a
Biological Conclusion of No Effect for all four species.
Cultural Resources. There are no known archaelogical sites nor structures within
the area of potential effect that are eligible for National Register. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with these findings and recommended that no
further investigations be conducted.
It is requested that these activities will be permitted under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, we are requesting a 401 General Water
Quality Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions
or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Tanner Holland at (919) 733-
1200.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
U Project Development & Environmental Analysis
WDG/tell
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Archie Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Willliam Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer

ALT GIN PRO ECT ENQ • , PPOJECT
QZ4j o? a ' FORS T?CITY
St
St, re
Oak _
" % ` r 2241 co St 2179 13 r? Eaa
2241` \ k? +l ` y? ALT A,-, t 'n St. .71 74
. a •2179 too st
A? ` 2213 r
2159 2179 2178 v 0/a
2248
22
2228 28 1
A 1•
?q 2258 1 \ 2173
q _
.20
? ? 2222 \? yr?,lne?' `y
p '? xk?tt,? ?d•
16
2159 \\_ 2177, 2235 ?r
2198 ?A2173 \ 1
n I C 1
9 2213 - cc
----- 11 74
2174 , -? N
X08 8':A 2173
2214 o ;?24
.75 • i1 .7f o
Q? .15 i . 1903
` 2159 22 ?i?J p?nc so
S ?? \
2172 4 9 1 ALEXANDER
74 ', 11 .?? 'o , •' 1 C
MILLS
7
2267 I ; W ?or.673
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2890401 (U-2711A)
SR 2241 AND SR 2179
(OAK STREET) FROM NEST OF
US 74 ALT. TO YOUNG STREET
SHEET OF
o ?\ I I
IC(
(71 U)
8 \ 0'° \ \
cn I ?? \\
x vii ? ? n F? ? r i i \\ \
? iy 'L7
-3 a O
r
Cif ? ?3
z
O
N
6501 CONC CURB O / ?-
1 7. I
I IO /
It 6501 CONC2C I DR
CA rw4
r J I I t o
?' I f Z I i 1
n a I o
o III I I
I bo ?,< Ii I
rz)
~ I IIn I
I ))Noo ?, l y I I
m Its 1 i /EVE z I
I I co
I I
z 1 I ? 3 S - I I ??? 1-
m ? I I p v II I= I
CT3
19a ?? I n I 1
z I ?SZ! i I I I I I I
~
750 CONC C&G I - i 1 I I /
Q) yl /
I I 141 i? ?. I
I I ? 1?1 I? / I
v v I ?o o I? I? I
0 ?Cm° 1 I OIIZ! Ilol I
0-3 m 0 I - I III, I
0 0? 00
-n I r 1 III I
'r' ?zg ;°° I? Im II III I
o?vo o?Y Iplo II III I
?•, C? cn I m
O
rn .. _
O0 O
z

Ul
0
3
CA
n
r
AVIV
o
m z
O
r r
z z
m
n
z ?
y
m
y
It
a
0 300
I II
C? I i I
I ? II
I o II
I I
i
1 37 m I
? 1 II
rte. 1 1 II
? 1 1 i i II
1 /
1
?) U
U-1 ? ' I nI
r ? i ? I I
1 1 ? ' I
rnl
I
?. 11 V
r
r
\ r 1
\ r 1 ? I
\ I 1 I
?? 1 I
\ to
\\ of /? ??? W 1 SL ? b
?? I , 1 ?-?.ioU I I
i
? o I
i

LD I I I

I I,
I
l
?u W n j

i_ 31 51
I
I n
y I ?
fem.
,

s 14 c ? I I i
? ?
ue. ? I j I I
??
c ?`
z
' • `? ? I
I I
I ? IAN
I r?

?
?
-? I\
O_p p
\Xx
? mm(/) '

\

r
?

oz
I
I
I
I

0

LBO
I p
Im Z
o= _
m
.
r I I
01 V)
z o
C?
°

??

f
'
ro'qCo
te
oc,?
O
I
z
.
a \ m . r

2 -TI

g N.
Sti

v, 59?

of 02

C! ., z D
cn o
o
> p

®?m?00 zz°
00
??
I
I
ao
?
?
z
I
I
0o?o oxz 1 I
?cl)^ cn
z o x I I
2?N z
Y
m ? ?

O
I
' L I ? I
l
p
co °7
,

? 3-1 5
y I I ? I

C' I I ~

v I
It
i
I I I I ?J
o
? ? I ? ?, 1
I rFt
I
z A
? I ° o
r oNp p
m I Im m
o 3
y \ 0r oz I B 0 I..
.
p= _
r-M?' ?
v
r= X c
co?'
I z
frl L7 ? ? i x
_
\
\?
I
?
I

?z \\ /
mo
S Y ?
I
?
4
z m tom ?+? ' o I ?
d`8.
`
vdi
' ? O

C / /
59? 9`
co
D
z N z Cl) r
C,) CO0/ 1 02
DO 23
m ° d % I I I
E lp
o `?
mb-3 MG; ?1
-v1 I I

C)
co ?.

1 I

I I
zo ?, X
1 I I
z I I
,;,
? cn 1

0
-
2 ?
I -
Ut
3
0
O
3
n
Y
r-
m
ZE
r
r_
D
O
W
m
Ro
-h
(D
It
x
° ° `tea
m m
z c
y N
r
z z
m ?
r Y
y ?
z
v ?
m
N
0
z
h
~3 "'

o

n Y

?

b

v
? b

,
x
y
v

v

d

C

z

x n

?

Y
?
Y
? ° z

a
i
I
I
rt
I? :s
I ? .
I
I /
I /
I / t
I /
h
C
IL
I n
I
?I /
0
C"

x
? -.
0 z

t v c7 y

z
c
0
w
0
m m v n a ? ?,.

M ? P > P T
P ?
W
61 CIA
O C.1
O R'°J
00 N
O

O
V O
O O
O co
C'm
N
z
r r r ? ? r

o Y ? r
o 0 0 0
O G? ? v
m

n m
? z
. n
CIA o ° c - 3 z
?' 0 o

m m
v

x r
o
z
" z a
n m
?
o
THIS PACKET OF INFORMATION .TS
PROVIDED TO ASSIST YOU IN
COMPLETING THE PRE-
CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATIOAT (PCN)
FORK THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE
U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AND THE NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT WHEN APPLYING
FOR CERTAIN NATIONWIDE
PERMITS AUTHORIZED BY THE U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
3/25/96
03 u
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT ##):14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept. of Transportation; Project Development &
Environmental Analvsis
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): SR 2241 and SR 2179 (Oak Street) from west of
US 74 alt. to Youna Street
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): '919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manaaer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Rutherford NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Forest Cit
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
SR 2241 and SR 2179 (Oak St.) from west of US 74 alt. to Younq St.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Brackett's Creek
RIVER BASIN: Upper Broad River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
71D. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE: 0.0
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION: N/A
FLOODING: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: N/A
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 503.6 FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):VARIABLE FT
WIDTH AFTER: VARIABLE FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: VARIABLE FT AFTER: VARIABLE FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widening of existing roadway. Heavy duty trucks, dozer, crane
and other various mechanical equipment necessary for construction of a
road.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transporation
3
14. STATE} REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Protect crosses jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Minimization efforts are outlined in environmental documents.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Urban
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGE 'S SIGNATURE
. 2;, Za -9
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
AGENCY ADDRESSES
ENDANGERED SPECIES:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. BOX 33726
RALEIGH, NC 27636-3726
TELEPHONE [phone]
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
PIVERS ISLAND
BEAUFORT, NC 28516
TELEPHONE [phone]
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 EAST JONES STREET
RALEIGH, NC 27601
TELEPHONE [phone]
STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES:
MR. JOHN DORNEY
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607
TELEPHONE [phone]
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIELD OFFICES:
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
6508 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD,
SUITE 120
RALEIGH, NC 27615
TELEPHONE [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOX 1000
WASHINGTON, NC 27889-1000
TELEPHONE [phone]
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
160 ZILLICOA STREET
ASHEVILLE, HC 28801
TELEPHONE[phone]
MR. STEVE BENTON
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
POST OFFICE BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611-7687
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 143
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801-5006
TELEPHONE [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
TELEPHONE [phone]
5uluuuld loafo.Id "a d `suonZ
yYtu, r cY w+ a e??
Xuu aIU a1agl3I ssooolduluuuld Inojo,?u;, L..,... 3 111..
•alup lugl of loud sn of uuogl
Iiuul .io fullaauz agl lu sluotuwoo .InoX gltn? sn aprno.id Xlow noA •(OLt? wOOI) tuOOZI aoua.IajuOD
gouu.Ig Iuluau UO.IInug puu Ouiuuuld aqI ut -w-d 00:Z lu 6661 `L XJunuuf ioj pajnpagos si loofoid
slgl .Ioj fuilaauz fuidoos V •laafold aql luauualdull .Iallocl of sn olquua Xgo.Iagl puu pauuoj.Iad
aq plnogs lugl -pom do odoos oql of su ,sputtu oql jo fuipow,, XJIVO uu anuq of si a.Inpoooid
Malna.I palula.z oql puu slaags asagl jo asodind oqj •(uo?luool loafozd Ioj duuz pagoullu oos)
laafo.Id loafgns oql ioj slaags 3uidoos agl a.Iu sluauluIOO puu Maina.t anoX Ioj pagoullV
911 LZ-fI Ioafo.Id 'd•I',L
`(Z)OI£I-d.LS Ioafoad pid Iu.I3p33 `£Ob068Z'8 loafo.ld alulS
`(Iaa.IIS SLIMPuo.Ig) VIZZ Sf1 of (Iaa.IIS funoA) 8£ZZ dS
wo.Ij uo?sualxg lao.IlS jvO Ioj slaagS guidooS jo AXOIAO-d
gouu.Ig IuluaWuo.Ilnug puu fuluuUld
139uuuW `•H 'd `NORD .Q UJUIIIIO-?-,
UNHQ - MCI
Ilag puX3 'sw
8661 `£ .IaqulaoaQ
ANVII-dDIS
NOSIO.L SI-d-dON 'I IOZS-1I9LZ 'D'N'HJl3IV7CIOZ9XO9'0'd
N0I1VIdOdSNVU 30 INJW.L?d9Q
ur'1?'fl y. VNIIOd J HIdON 30 J.LVIS
??)1V15 W0
:.LDHf Elf is
Ni02I3
01 WfIQNVIlo aw
vONN3nOO
--d f INnH -q s3wV(
I
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date November 20, 1998
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP No.: U-2711 B
State Project No.: 8.2890403
F.A. Project No.: STP-1310(2)
Divisions: 13
Counties: Rutherford
Towns: Forest Citv
Route: SR 1310 (Oak St.)
Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial
Length: 0.6 km (0.4 miles)
Purpose of Project: The purpose of this project is to provide an alternate east-west
route in Forest City and relieve congestion in the central business district.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
Construct a multi-lane facility on new location from Young St. to US 221 A (Broadway
St.)
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact are scheduled.
Environmental study schedule:
Complete Environmental Assessment: December, 1999.
Complete Finding of No Significant Impact: October, 2000.
Right of way and Construction schedule:
Begin Right of Way: October 2001
Begin Construction: December 2002
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed typical section is a five-lane facility with
two 12-foot travel lanes with a 12-foot center turn lane.
Proposed Right of Way: 100 feet of right of way is proposed.
Traffic Data: Year: 2003 2025
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 10,900 23,000
Truck Traffic is estimated to be 3% of the total traffic
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 40 mph
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Typical Section of the Existing Roadway: N/A
Existing Right of Way: 30 foot, reserved by Forest City from Young St. to Park Av.
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost for U-2826DA
(including engineering and contingencies) $ 788.000
Right of Way Cost
(including rel., util., and acquisition)
$ 1,450,000
Force Account Items $
Preliminary Engineering $
Total Cost $ 2,238,000
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost
Right of Way
Total Cost Listed in TIP
$ 400,000
$ 1,100,000
$ 1,500,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
Estimated Cost of Improvements
ITEMS COST
x Pavement
x Surface $
$ 352,000
Pavement Removal $
Milling and Recycling $
Turnouts $
Shoulders: Paved $
Earth $
x Earthwork $ 126,400
Subsurface Items $
x Subgrade and Stabilization $ 69,750
x Drainage (List any special items) $ 100.000
Sub-drainage $
Structures Width X Length $
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge X $
Widen Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size_ Length Fill Ht. $
Culvert Extension $
Retaining Walls: Type Avg. Ht. Skew $
Noise Walls $
Any other Misc. Structures $
x Concrete Curb and Gutter $ 42.240
Concrete Barrier $
x Utilities $
Fencing $
x Erosion Control $ 28,000
Landscape $
Lighting $
x Traffic Control $ 10,000
Signing: New $
Upgrading $
Traffic Signals: X New $ 45,000
Revised $
RR Signals: New $
Revised $
-
With or Without Arms $
_
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEM
COST
Roadside Safety Enhancement $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
x Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo x Markers $ 10,000
Delineators $
x Other (clearing, grubbing, mobilization, misc.) $ 486,610
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal) $ 1,270.000
Contingencies & Engineering
PE Costs.
Force Account
$ 180,000
CONSTRUCTION COST (TOTAL)
Right of Way:
Will the project be contained within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width: N/A
New Right of Way Needed: 31 m (100 feet)
Right of Way Subtotal:
* This is the right of way estimate included in the TIP.
$ 1,450,000
No X
$ 788,000*
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W):
$ 2,238,000
4
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
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
Scoping Sheets were forwarded to the Town of Winston Salem for their comments.
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.
•
Thermal C,tv l -d1
Orr-
?hlmnevROCA?R U T H E jRU?;O""O,?/R-D sin:n?nt
L,.Af Lure GdkeV \\'lWest- r
,^*-t M."' 1 ? +? s ` minster Hollis Poiy
.`'e lure ice, y a? Loian
v 1-1 w\I1,
7
eWasnburn
w Ruth t r
Rum±nraro Forest y1 ast c
108 6 1\? r ?I Yl 1 JIB
SplnoaIle
n0w
\ \•? Alex r
7 v r/MtIt
Caroletn l ertro9
i 4 Q??IO 7iI T
ALT
17 tt ]S. _ -- Jal1e1 ???
1
to c:ey et7_
eus
, 7a o i39e ?, e1 v_, T ?\? ?57e
711e 'j? pied 13e ?
6A 2W
4
:. 7?92 ?a 7? ° i
r-12
••
^° 4
nee a / \ iti
2- 71ey= ? ??
PriFNS10 - 7a ` 41 r,9 ?L. F 157.
N
ewNO?q s FORJOTY
\\ POP. 4,688
t \ e
e2 o°v \\YY _u s
(uf -. ee SI. On• 67 S' ? \ 721 ?r a^o;n
o° Sr
.05 2171 .?
2139
.0: O ?\ ?`}. \ ,fie ? ??4\, ? ?nGr°` SI. 1001 VVV
.. :eye L1
° • ?;
11 2179 I •?i..
2?1 11]1 ? Od ?? ?. p• LP
- 7
711 J?O
7].?, o
F 2177
7721 1? `? 4 St.
,D J, Sp 273
i? ryyV1P•
2271
2222 \ 6.nr41n 54
?° 2177 i
7179
717
16 2?ti 2131
43
:l T
M, 1 217.
1
I
N
0
F MONTH C
/O
b ,9\
O
?' .
1\
vORTII C.VROLI?'a DEPARTMENT OF
N
I, 1\
,1
TRANSPORTATION
io yfw-
? DIN ISION, OF 111GH%V.%l'S
_ i
.f! ?r PLANNING AND ESVIROS>lENTAL BRANCH
f1?
NS
Oi TPA
VICINITY MAP
FOREST CITY
OAK ST EXTENSION
FROM YO CNG ST TO CS „I A 1 UROAD',VAY STl
RUTI IERFORD COU"n'
TIP PROJECT U•'_' I I D
FIG. I
w
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorf From: Cyndi Bell pl_f
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widening to Multi-lane Facility from US 74A to SR 2213 (South
Church Street) in Forest City
Rutherford County
State Project DOT No. 8.2890401, T.I.P. No. U-2711A; EHNR ;# 97-0097
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. NCDOT's Preferred Alternative would involve fill in approximately
0.36 acre of jurisdictional wetlands. Existing culverts/pipes at Brackett's Creek
and two unnamed tributaries will be extended and/or replaced. No new stream
crossings will be required. DWQ offers the following comments based on the
document review:
A) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken
from upland sources in the construction contract awarded for this
project.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands. This commitment should be
incorporated into the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the FONSI, an General
Certification 3103 will be applicable if wetland impacts do not exceed 0.33 acre.
Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and
written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be
contingent upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream
mitigation where necessary.
Division cf Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 500/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
e
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
June 13, 1997
Page 2 of 2
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. NCDOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Howard Hall, FWS
David Cox, WRC
U2711FON.DOC

11140
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Quality Section
24:
vG
40
12A J
Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
-p- Cyndi Bell (DoT)
O Greg Price (airports, COE)
O Steve Kroeger (utilities)
O
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Coleson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oxw/1iQw)
O
* Toxicology
O Larry Ausley
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
RESPONSE DEADLINE: •
O NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th) O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
116 .
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE:
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any,
by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at: V ?'k4' k f\c ` l ? _ _5C , x.15
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:Ncircmemo.doc

f

Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from US 74A to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS (99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T. I. P. Project No. U-2711A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Date ?r 1-1. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
-s?97
Date icho&a. Graf, P. E.
F4ivision Administrator, FHWA

Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from US 74A to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS (99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T. I. P. Project No. U-2711A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Robert Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
.......... ,.
.FESSIp/; 9
r` SEAL
17282
NEEQ; •??
0, G1
7
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION .........................................................................................................I
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................. I
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ................................ I
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 3
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ........................................................................4
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment ..............................
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment ..................................4
C. Public Hearing Comments ..................................................................................6
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................7
A. Intersecting Roads and Tyne of Control .............................................................7
B. Corrections to the Environmental Assessment ....................................................7
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................8
APPENDIX
Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from US 74A to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS (99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T. I. P. Project No. U-2711A
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the
environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) to a multi-lane section from west of the intersection with US
74A to SR 2213 (South Church Street) in Forest City. This project is approximately 2.33 km
(1.45 miles) in total length and has an estimated cost of $ 5,125,000 including $ 1,825,000 for
right of way acquisition and $ 3,300,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 1998 and
construction in federal fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is
$3,550,000. This estimate includes $1,400,000 for right of way and $2,150,000 for construction.
A five lane curb and gutter section on 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way plus
construction easements, with two outside travel lanes 3.9 meter (13 foot), two inside travel lanes
3.3 meter (1 1 foot), and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane, is proposed for SR 2241/2179
(Oak Street).
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will be followed
during the construction of this project to prevent siltation of nearby streams. Non-point sediment
sources will be identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff.
No property from the Forest City Municipal Golf Course will be taken as part of the
proposed project.
Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of Oak Street between Hardin Road (SR
2178) and Church Street (SR 2213).
To better accommodate bicycles, inside through-lanes will be striped at 3.3 m (11') wide
and outside through-lanes will be striped at 3.9 m (13') wide. Bicycle safe drainage grates will
be used.
The proposed project will impact three geodetic survey markers. The North Carolina
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
In accordance with provision of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the Untied States." A nationwide permit may be
applicable for impacts associated with this project; final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the COE.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department
of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Rutherford County is a designated "trout" county. A letter of concurrence from the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission will be obtained during the project permitting process, prior to
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Fish passage will be maintained with the extension of the structure at Brackctts Creek.
At the Bracketts Creek crossing, the existing double barrel 2.4 in X 2.4 m (8 ft. X 8 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert will be extended. In addition, pipes smaller than 1800 m (72 in)
will be required at the two locations where tributaries will cross the proposed project.
Access to public facilities will be maintained throughout project construction. Project
plans will be coordinated with the town to ensure proper access to the fire station.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The purpose of this project is to provide improved access from eastern Forest City and
the Central Business District to the retail shopping district located in western Forest City.
Widening Oak Street will improve traffic capacity and reduce accident rates on Oak Street with
the construction of additional travel lanes and a center turn lane.
It is anticipated that the project will result in the relocation of nineteen residences and two
businesses. The relocation estimate includes nine minority residences. In the immediate project
vicinity, there are no historic properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Wetland losses are anticipated to be less than one acre for the entire project. Any erosion
and siltation caused by the project will be short term in effect and minimized through
sedimentation control measures. No federally protected species will be impacted by this project.
Overall air quality of the area will not be adversely affected.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of
this proposed highway project is the approval date of this FONSI. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise
compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
This project's traffic noise analysis predicted twenty-three residences would be impacted
by the widening of SR 2241/SR2179; however, only three of these will experience substantial
increases. Noise abatement measures were evaluated, but noise abatement is not considered
appropriate for this project. The following table shows the predicted maximum extent of the 72
and 67 dBA noise level contours:
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED NOISE IMPACTS
Number of Impacted Receptors 23
Countours
--------- -J---------------T-------------- ------------------
___ _ Ma__ I ro ect_Section _ , 72 dBA 6
_ , _______7 BA
_d_ll I?ntrance to US 74 Bypass T 14.7 meters_ 1 17.6 meters
-----------
------------ ----- ------------
U_S_7_4_B_y_p_as_s_toS_R 2178 T 14.7 meters T
meters
SR 2178 to SR 2213 14.7 meters
17.6 meters
* Measured from the center of the proposed roadway.
This information was included on Table N5 in the Appendix to the Environmental
Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdictions.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was completed for this project on June 28, 1996. Copies
of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the following federal, state, and local agencies for
review and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the
agency. Copies of the correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Mayor of Forest City
Rutherford County Commissioner
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: As noted in the flood hazard evaluation oil page 32 of the Environmental
Assessment, both Rutherford County and Forest City are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Both the county and community are considered to have minimal
flooding and do not have detailed flood evaluation information. However, it appears that the
project will cross the identified flood hazard area of Bracketts Creek. We suggest that the
respective jurisdictional authority (town or county) be consulted to ensure that the project
complies with the applicable flood plain ordinance.
Response, The proposed roadway widening and culvert extension will not have any
significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain, nor on the associated flood hazard. The
local jurisdictional authority is consulted as standard procedure.
Comment: A review of information provided and available maps indicate that there may be
impacts to Bracketts Creek and unnamed tributaries. Any discharge of excavated or fill material
into these streams and/or any adjacent or isolated wetlands that may be present will require
4
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization. This authorization may include various
Nationwide Permits, depending upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the U. S. and their
associated wetlands to be impacted, and the type of construction techniques to be employed.
Response: NCDOT will apply for a permit for any discharge of dredge or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: The Service has no major objections to this project and believes it will not result
in significant environmental impacts. The Service appreciates the fact that the North Carolina
Department of Transportation will attempt to minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters
through the specific measures listed on Page 20 of the Environmental Assessment. However, we
must highlight that we see no reason for any "in-stream activities" associated with the
construction of this project.
Response-, Tile proposed project will extend the double barrel 2.4 m x 2.4 in (8 ft x 8 ft)
reinforced concrete box culvert at the Bracketts Creek crossing. In addition, pipes smaller than
1800 mm (72 in) will be required where two tributaries will cross the proposed project.
Comment: We have reviewed our records and concur with your determination that the project
as proposed should have "no effect" on federally endangered or threatened species. In view of
this we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations
under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Response: Noted.
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: Page 6 - The Environmental Assessment indicates that the existing box culvert in
Bracketts Creek will be retained and extended. This should be done in such a manner as to
maintain fish passage upstream and downstream of the advert.
Response: Fish passage will be maintained with the extension of the structure at Bracketts
Creek.
Comment, Page 13 - 'File Environmental Assessment describes five tributaries to Bracketts
Creek that arc located in the project area; however, it fails to describe how these streams will be
impacted by the project. Are there existing stream crossings that will be extended? Are potential
impacts mainly related to sedimentation due to the proximity of these streams to the project site?
Response: There are three stream crossings along the proposed project. At the Bracketts
Creek crossing, the existing double barrel 2.4 m x 2.4 m (8 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete box
culvert will be extended. In addition, pipes smaller than 1800 mm (72 in) will be required where
two tributaries will cross the proposed project.
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
Comment: Should stream relocations be necessary, the Division of Water Quality requests
that these relocations be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Response: Presently, it is anticipated no stream relocations will be required for the proposed
project. Should stream relocations be necessary, NCDOT will consult with the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission as a part of the project permit process.
Comment: The Division of Water Quality requests that a computerized traffic signal system
(TSM option) be considered as part of the widening section of the preferred alternative. This
should allow for a higher LOS and increase the life for this facility.
Response: Since two or more signalized intersections are located within 0.8 kin (0.5 mile) of
each other on the proposed project, a signal system may be considered during the signal design
phase of the project.
Comment: Borrow and waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Response; The construction contract will commit to avoiding wetland impacts in waste and
borrow areas. If wetland impacts can not be avoided in waste or borrow areas, it will be
NCDOT's responsibility to get a permit modification for the project.
Comment: The project is not located near sensitive waters (Bracketts Creek has a NC Surface
Water Classification of C) and it does not appear that this project will have significant impacts
from the standpoint of stormwater runoff. However, we would recommend that DOT review the
project to attempt to minimize the potential impacts of stormwater outlets from the new curb and
gutter sections of the road. They should try to outlet these flows to vegetated/forested areas,
swales, etc. as much as possible and avoid direct outlets to surface waters.
Response, This is done as standard operation procedure where practicable.
C. Public Flearint; Comments
A public hearing was held on January 21, 1997. Approximately eighty citizens attended
the hearing. The following comments and questions are typical of those raised during the public
hearing:
6
Comment: The Town of Forest City is concerned about access to its proposed fire station
during and after construction.
Response, Access to public facilities will be maintained throughout project construction.
Project plans will be coordinated with the town to ensure proper access to the fire station.
Comment: The Town has requested sidewalk on both sides of Oak Street between Hardin
Road and Church Street.
Response, The request for sidewalk has been approved. In accordance with NCDOT's
Pedestrian Policy, the Town will participate in the funding of these sidewalks. The estimated
cost of these sidewalks is $100,000; estimated Town participation is $ 34,000.
Comment: The Town of Forest City requests bicycle accommodations as part of the project.
Response-, To better accommodate bicycles, differential lane striping will be implemented.
Inside through-lanes will be 3.3 m (I V) to allow wider 3.9 m (13') outside through-lanes. This
will better accommodate bicycle travel in the outside lanes.
Two other property owners sent in comments. These comments were related to specific
right of way acquisition and project construction procedures.
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Descri tp ion
Project limits were designated in the EA "from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church
Street)". US 74 Bypass has been redesignated "US 74A".
B. Section III-A Length of Project and III-J Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
According to the Environmental Assessment, the project's eastern terminus is at SR 2213
(South Church Street). To allow for proper lane alignment at the Church Street intersection, a
three lane section will be constructed between Church Street and Young Street. This changes the
project from 1.9 km (1.2 miles) to 2.33 km (1.45 miles) in total length.
C. Section III-D Right of Way
A 30 m (100') right of way will be acquired for the project rather than 27 in (90') as
mentioned in the EA.
7
D. Section III-H Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
In response to a request from the Town of Forest City, sidewalks will be provided on both
sides of Oak Street between Hardin Road (SR2178) and Church Street (SR2213). In accordance
with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, the Town of Forest City will participate in funding of these
sidewalks. Sidewalk costs are estimated at $100,000. Town participation is estimated at
$34,000.
The Town has also requested bicycle accommodations. Differential lane striping [3.3 m
(I F) inside through-lanes and 3.9 m (13') outside through-lanes] will be implemented to better
accommodate bicycles. Bicycle safe drainage grates will also be used.
E. Section VI-J Geodetic Markers
The number of impacted geodetic survey markers is currently estimated at three.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies and with the public, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and
the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no
significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental
impact statement will not be required.
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FI-IWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Off-ice Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone [phone]
•

? ? i ,?
1
?
~ ? iAtrmel Cit
-

Q? y (i,
64
Union IS
5 O Mills
A
n:m?ly ock U T H ?E R
F R D I'
sunemne
1
I dA Lu'e G.11,1
,
\7 West•
161 4 I mmsler
.eM! lure ??j 6 ?Ip S a?`Y' 01&n
eshhurn
?- ^ - 1W r
HOlhs Polk
\ F i
Ruth
.Ru herlordio FORS
r osllc
•, d O 1 CI y
pml ere 4

_
- e r
Mid der 74
' t11 C r0ltan 1 ` Id
annt
? lillsld ?
011111 S
° :I''i: q ?• e
'1 111E ..I:.:?:?u?•:11'"'?' :. ...: ;`.- u '
rul .I .. la:•:.r.: •' C• : 1114
mil
Y V e
1 `!' :, ,old 1111
4.
1
'
11
y net ?`,•.`:iii;i:.s '' ? °?eP'? ?•"` `±•
all '.70 . '.'::7,r ?' 1ir1 ??u:+y".:• IVJ:` 1111 ^,
7132
.
4ylNSIpH 71
2111 `? Iiiliii ..:{4? ? il• bW •? J
,e !pi 0:,; I •°+ FOREST CITY
•7y ?,;, , POP. 7.688
¦ ii6m ¦,&& ¦ ¦ A. 0 711 71
rr ¦r. J7 r?' f
211• `?wV::: 1311 A. 1 t? it "1 A
.02
J0 R<
BEGIN
1111
PROJECT a 53 22-U
q
L III! 10 ...u??,? e S r.
lin oe ri:• 1M ` ° END
tail I
111 0\ it PROJECT
` Siu i'' i 11Zi a
1214 ?b J. Ne ]713 .v Nij ?• SI.
ti0 0e ? :i 711.1 W e
1A
1111 \ , !.«?." s. _ -
ZM \
e
ne 171E
Wl
V 11a2 'goo ce 7e _ 1121 y. ili ?' ?I "q:'.•'•.
7 1133 rAr
If 1. .?'1 ?•• _ 7171 _ .: -7'• ?''iis °? S'Mr
1
71
17" yi gut ?!. 111 ALEXAND
o E A MILLS
rA 1111 - :•,,,;:I
--_____. i --- 1112
POP. 643
" NORTH CAROLINA IMPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMFN7'AL
BRANCII
WIDENING OF SR 2241/SR 2179
(OAK STREET) FROM US 74 BYPASS
TO SR 2213 ( SOUTH CHURCH STREET)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-2711AB
FIGURE 1

??otroiieslG
t +
goam 0f7-0'1&it cit?
(9. fox %_'?
?o1c?t Cdy, eA011f Ca101'Mil 2Sog3
January 21, 1997
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Hendricks:
We are pleased the Oak Street Project is moving toward final design and construction.
We have some concerns about the design but see no major problems and will cooperate in
every way to expedite this project.
The Town of Forest City owns property at four locations along the proposed route.
1. The municipal golf course does not seem to be involved in the construction.
2. A lot on south side of Oak Street that is no problem in any manner.
1. Tile proposed fire station in the northwest quadrant of Oak and Church Streets.
A detailed analysis is attached to this letter.
4. 'f'ile police station between Church and Young Streets on the north side of Oak
Street. A letter has been mailed to you with our concerns in this area. More
information is attached to this letter.
In addition to our needs in regard to these properties, we wish to request that the project
be provided with bicycle lanes. We understand that this will not have any change in design
other than the type of grates in the drop inlets and the spacing of the lines designating the
lanes. Your consideration of this will be appreciated.
The Town of Forest City is interested in sidewalks on portions of this project. We now
have sidewalks on both sides of Oak Street between Church Street and Young Street, we
assume these will be replaced as part of the project at no cost to Forest City.
We also request and expect to reimburse the Department of Transportation for sidewalks
as listed below:
1. North side of Oak Street from Church Street to Golf Street
2. South side of Oak Street from Church Street to Hardin Road
3. We originally voted to install one sidewalk from Hardin Road to US74-A on the
side widened by this project. We may need to review this portion and inform you
of our decision.
The Town of Forest City understands we are responsible for removing our utilities as
needed during construction. We are prepared to fulfill that obligation. We also
understand and agree that the cost of this is not reimbursable.
We appreciate this project and want to work with the transportation officials in every way
possible to expedite it. if we can be of assistance, contact Mr. Chuck Summey, Town
Manager, at 704-2454747.
Yours truly,
Harold K. Stallcu
P
Conunissioner
PUBLIC INVOLVAENT
HECEIVED
JAN 30 1997,
RUTHERF0RD COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
141 WEST THIRD STREET SUITE 102
RUTHERFORDTON, NC. 28139
CHAIRMAN
HAROLD STALLCUP
VICE CHAIRMAN
HAROLD THOMPSON
January 28, 1997

Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Offices
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Subject: Project 8.2890401-T.I.P.NO. U-271 IA
Oak Street in Forest City
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. (-Hendricks:
SECRETARY
HOMER ARNOLD
The Rutherford County Transportation Committee met January 28, 1997. In
that meeting the Committee endorsed including bicycle lanes on the new Oak Street
project in Forest City.
This would be the first bicycle lanes in Rutherford County.
Your Assistance is appreciated.
Sincere y,
i07'yle,?, A
Homer Arnold
Secretary
gown 0[70,tEst
+ ?+
?J? ??. bux• v. ?'
y c?a p
\URT 0?? ?Juqrjl ei(y, .JVua??e ?.?uvufi?eurdPy
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
RECEIVE-c
FEB 1991
February 10, 1997
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation +. -- _...
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Oak Street from U.S. 74 Bypass to Young Street in
Forest City, Project 8.2890401 - TIP No U-2711 A
Rutherford County •
Dear Mr. Hendricks:
4& i a,.
The attached map section of Forest City delineates the location of a low income,
predominately minority community in the Oak Street section. Many of these people walk
to and from the downtown area to work and shop.
The town has had concerns about this pedestrian traffic on the present Oak Street facility.
We have also placed some funds in reserve to be used for at least one sidewalk on this
new section. 1 understand that state funds are available for sidewalks where they are
needed and we feel this section fully qualifies. We feel that this section will be very
hazardous for pedestrians after construction unless we have walks on both sides. We
would like for state funds to be available to help us accomplish this for the safety and
convenience of our citizens between Hardin Road and Church Street.
Your assistance in this undertaking will be very much appreciated.
Your truly,
C?111?-' el
Harold K. Stallcup
Commissioner
cc: Honorable Grover Fr. Bradley
Mayor
Q) f10 yk?i J? FCO
ti N
/NCO ti? ST/R Sr G? ST eRY c?? ???? ?'
??. 'p ?? ??O PLC S
e- A_
OGZFDR RECREATION y?PQ? oLSI RINGS I( L"
LEM.SCH. 4?
CENTER
L
o °?• ? ? pC? ST Cy 'llq/??F Sp Mo N.
s FOREST CITY R(y o ODY r
1 0? Z MUNICIPAL NF Q sI'
EDGE OD GOLF COURSE cl N
cr Q 4 Fj? xP
K MART O
C) ct:
SHOP CTR. ?' oo° KENT [ R BELLVUE ST. co
__ ° ST co "u rtEVa e
k_. -
OAK o 6) c "
V A Z O O r
ti
s o .? J r -1, iu
TRI CIfY
FifiO MALL u; J ?? ?S p
sf ?? ?PC? ? s r? CPOr
yy,
SPR o S.
p?>y? ?pP4k F? u J W D ROSS
i
DUNBAR ??0? 1?? ?F `fly R F v L, MA uls onr
T.
?\ - pqR F CLEM. ?F,P "% sf?,y GLC MER S F. ''
RD. o
o SCII. y ?s . o 14p sr
\ / f T GN P? ?? s? 5 U SPHOC? ST r ,
L _? \ QQER S?
L L Y o o 16E
j Q??OQ` r n 1 LN m G2 ??' s??O o? DE TA 'T. c^ W L
GREENW00
`??PQ oR 'f'D \ ST. o m 0\ 5? CAL WELL T ,\? • N?? S?? °2
0R HA WD
GN?M n FRANKLIN 0? `r'0 41YFR Lp o?P 40
0 pp° I ?SEDGEFI`?'?' CRESEN /F(O ??
O
???'? otz ?c74A DR. s?Fs 5L DR. `o
A o r Gp.
:LCR RD. % \ s BRACKETT
1Ci
r,. f t 1?1 ;
I"X 1. 41
? ?•V ?4'.?1dr lltlir?f'?tn;?i ! ??'??1 •v? F;, , tiJ??; .i: iI
? CR /^v?ei?l, '?;? ? ,p?,???,,, ? ??'?ir? O? a?'•r?l a., i j?' 1 ?? ?'? t ?a
r.VIEW.
4 QV
Byp
AT F ISR-DR-:`-
Al DAD P
?a BY
Q?c, 74
3 4 5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIG1-1. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 9, 1997
Mr. Homer Arnold
Rutherford County Transportation Committee
141 West Third Street
Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Thank you for your interest in Project U-2711A,
Oak Street from west of US 74A to Young Street
Mr. Len Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer, has
follow up on your request for bicycle lanes on
GARLAt"D B. GARRETT JR.
SFC:RF.TARY
the widening of
in Forest City.
requested that I
this project.
Forest City's request for bicycle lanes made at the Design Public
Hearing and the County's endorsement of this request sent to
Mr. Hendricks on January 28, 1997, was forwarded to The Office of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation for review. Subsequently,
this request has been approved by the appropriate officials and
bicycle accommodations will be included in the project. These
accommodations will consist of striping the inside travel lanes
3.3 m (111) wide and the outside lanes 3.9 m (131) wide for
bicycles.
Thank you again for your interest in project U-2711A. If you
need further assistance, please contact me or Mr. Glenn Mumford,
Project Design Engineer, at [phone].
Sincerely,
John Alford, PE
Project Engineer
JEA/gwm
cc: Mr. Tom Shearin, PE
Mr. Len Hendricks
Mr. Rob Hanson, PE
0
57Ar'.
1/? t• ?1
r is ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIG1-I. N.C. 27611-5201
April 9, 1997
Mr. Harold Stallcup
Commissioner
Town of Forest City
P. 0. Box 728
Forest City, North Carolina 28043
Dear Commissioner Stallcup:
GARLAND Q. GARRETT IR.
S (c iu r,\R),
This is in response to your February 10, 1997 letter to L. L. Hendricks concerning
sidewalks along the Oak Street widening project (TIP Project U-271 1 A). Your request
for sidewalks along both sides of Oak Street between Hardin Street and Church Street has
been approved.
In accordance with our Department's Pedestrian Policy, the Town will be asked to
participate in the funding of these sidewalks. The sidewalks requested by the Town would
extend along 1070 meters (3510 feet) of the project. Total estimated cost of these
sidewalks is $ 100,000. This is the total combined cost for sidewalks on both sides.
NCDOT's share of the sidewalk would have cost $80,000 (80% NCDOT share
applies per our pedestrian policy). However, NCDOT participation is capped at 2% of the
project constriction cost. 'File funding cap limits NCDOT cost to $66,000 (total
construction cost estimate is $3,300,000).
The Town of Forest City is requested to fund $34,000 of the sidewalk cost.
This correspondence is to inform you of the status of the sidewalk request and
alert you to the Town's share of the cost. A municipal agreement will be arranged through
our Program Development Branch to finalize the details. If you have any questions
regarding this, you may contact me or Robert Hanson, P.E., at [phone].
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
I-1FV/rph
0

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUN1- JIL
Govriwoii
April 10, 1997
Mr. Harold Stallcup
Town Commissioner
Post Office Box 728
Forest City, North
Dear Mr. Stallcup:
P.O. ROX 25201. RlALOGI I. N.C. 27,11-5201
Carolina 28043
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SrC1ie-r,\1ky
Thank you for your continued interest and assistance in the
development of Project U-2711A, the widening of Oak Street from
west of US 74A to Young Street in Forest City. Mr. Len
Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer, has requested that I follow up
on your concerns expressed at the Design Public Hearing and
comments conveyed in several subsequent letters. In the interest
of brevity, I will attempt to address all of your comments and
concerns collectively in this one letter.
As you are already aware, the project limits have been approved
to Young Street provided the Town is willing to donate the
necessary right of way to construct a three lane curb and gutter
section through the police station property. It is my
understanding that the Town is still undecided concerning
donation of the right of way at this time.
With the construction of a three lane section from Church Street
to Young Street, approximately seven parking spaces will be lost
in the southwest corner of the police station parking lot. As
the development of the project continues, we will attempt to
further minimize damages to the parking lot.
As the project progresses, we will also be in a better position
to determine the effects it will have on the proposed fire
station. We will be able to reduce the right of way limits
through the Town's property. Coordination with the Division 13
Right of Way Office will be necessary for the Town to acquire
surplus right of way from NCDOT on the properties not currently
owned by the Town. Certainly fire station access will be
maintained at all times during the construction of the project.
Your request for bicycle lanes was forwarded to the Office of
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation for approval. Approval has
been received and the following bicycle accommodations will be
included in the project. Inside travel lanes will be striped 3.3
m (111) wide and outside lanes will be striped 3.9 m (131).
0
r?
Jy
Mr. Harold Stallcup
April 10, 1997
Page 2
Finally', your request for sidewalks has also been approved. A
letter from Mr. Frank Vick, PE, Manager of the Planning and
Environmental Branch, is forthcoming. This letter will
"officially" address your request for sidewalk and specify
location, Town participation, funding percentages, etc.
Thank you again for your interest in project U-2711A. If you
have further concerns or questions, contact me or Mr. Glenn
Mumford, Project Design Engineer, at [phone].
Sincerely,
John Alford, PE
Project Engineer
JEA/gwm
cc: Mr. Tom Shearin, PE
Mr. Frank Vick, PE
Mr. Rob Hanson, PE
Mr. Len Hendricks
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 14, 1996
?G I V Z?
Mr. I-I. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways a 1996 z
North Carolina Department of Transportation AU U
P.O. Box 25201
Raleig,h, North Carolina 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Federal Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of SR 2241/2179 (Oak
Street) from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (S. Church Street), Forest City, Rutherford
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2711A
Ill your letter of August 5, 1996, you requested our comments on the subject document. The
following continents are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667c), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the widening of existing
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) from west of the intersection with US 74 Bypass to SR 2213
(S. Cht.u•ch Street), a distance of 1.2 miles. The new facility will be a five-lane curb and gutter
roadway with a 90-toot right-of-way. Zile project will impact approximately 0.26 acre of
wetlands. The existing culvert at Bracketts Creek will be extended. Additional Surface water
impacts to five unnamed tributaries to Bracketts Creek include increased sedimentation and
siltation from constrLICtlon activities and Slibscqucllt erosion. No stream relocations or extensive
use ofculverts is proposed. Approximately 10 acres of primarily disturbed upland forested
habitats will be lost. The purpose of the project is to provide improved access from eastern
Forest City and the central business district to the retail shopping district located in western
Forest City.
The Service has no major objection to this project and believes it will not result in significant
environmental impacts. The Service appreciates the fact that the North Carolina Department of'
Transportation will attempt to minimize impacts to wetlands and Sill'face waters through the
specific measures listed on Page 20 of the environmental assessment. However, we must
highlight that we see no reason for any "in-stream activities" associated with the construction of
this project. We have reviewed our records and concur with your determination that the project
as proposed should have "no effect" on federally endangered or threatened species. In view of
this, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this environmental assessment. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff at
704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-95-062.
Sincerely,
Richard-G. Biggins"
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Garden Street,
Marion, NC 28752
Siate of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • A
0
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs ATJ
k,V
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0097 Environmental Assessment for SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Rutherford County
DATE: August 29, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
Environmental Assessment for the proposed project. We will concur with the
Finding of No Significant Impact provided careful consideration be given to the
concerns made by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of Water
Quality. I encourage the Department of Transportation to continue coordinating
with our commenting agencies prior to circulation of the final document. This
will help avoid unnecessary delays.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments

AUG 3 0 1996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSF
P.O. Box 27687, NW 4 FAX [phone]
Raleigh. North Carolina 2761 1-7687 C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148
. , 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission U
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs
T)ept. of Envirotunent, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Franklin 'I'. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE': August 28, 1996
SiJBJF.CT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 97-0097, Environmental Assessment for SR
2241/2179 (Oak Street), Rutherford County, TIP 40-2711 A.
't'his correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for improvements to SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) in
Rutherford County. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 t i.S.C. 661-6674.) and the National
Fnvirotuncrttal Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
The North C'arolilia Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposcs.to widen @t 1.2-
mile section of SlZ 2241/2179 (Oak Street) to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from west of the
intersection with U5 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street) to Forest City. The project
will impact 9.0 acres ol'road shoulders and grassed lawns, 0.9 acre of mixed pine/hardwood
forest, and 0.2 acre of riparian forest along s(reams. Approximately 0.36 acre of wctlands will be
impacted by the project. An existing two-baiYel reinforced concrete box culvert in Bracketts
Creek will be retained and extended. Five tributaries to Bracketts Creek are also located in the
project area.
In general, we have several concerns but no major objections to this project. However,
before we concur with the findings of the EA, the following concerns should be addressed:
1) ' - The FA indicates that the existing box culvert in Bracketts Creek vill be retained
and extended. 't'his should be done in such a manner as to maintain fish passage
upstream and downstream of the culvert.
2) 1 , - F he I-A describes five tributaries to Bracketts Creek that are located in the
project area: however. it fails to describe how these streams will be impacted by the
project. Are there cxistiiig stream crossings that will be extended? Are potential impacts
mainly related to sedimenlution due to the proximity of these streams to the project site'?
.. _ ? .. _ a .. - i -, . V V L r V J
97-0097 Page 2 August 23, 1996
3) Pale 20 - We appreciate efforts by the NCDOT to avoid wetland areas as much as
possible during the design phase.
4) - What if any "in-stream activities" besides extending the existing box culvert in
Braeketts Creek does the project include'?
Thank you for tlic opportunity to review and comment on this project. if you have tuiy
questions regarding these comments, please contact Stephanie Goudreuu, 'ktt. Region
Coordinator at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James 6. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
I ILT X- M A,
T44Va
NwmmwmL
1:3 EHNFz1
August 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galambyj-
Subject: EA for SR 2[244-111/2179 in Forest City
Rutherford County
State Project DOT No. 8.2890401, TIP # U-2711 A
E H N R # 97-0097
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The document
states that 0.36 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted. The following
comments are based on the document review:
A) Should stream relocations be necessary, DWQ requests that these relocations
be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
B) DWQ requests that a computerized traffic signal system (TSM option) be .
considered as part of the widening section of the preferred alternative. This
should allow for a higher LOS and increase the length of life for this facility.
C) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DWQ would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
u-2711 a.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Tracy Turner, DOT
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Empbyer
FAXED
AUG 2 9 1996
• Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
FAX # [phone]
509'recycleW10 % post consumer paper
'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: .9 7- 00.9 7
PROJECT REVIRW COMMENTS
County: 4olhlerro r-d
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name: 5,42 22 -5ef 1 5,Ie 217.9
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact 3 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)
Fo ore informa ion ntact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Revi?we, Da -e
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
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 Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N•C, 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunlty Ar rmatNv Acticn Efnolcver
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 29, 1996
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch ', I '
THROUGH: Alan Clark, Supervisor
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0097
DOT - SR2241/ 2179 (Oak St.) Widening
Forest City, Rutherford County; Bracketts Creek 09-37-02
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the above EA and offers the following
comment: `
The project is not located near sensitive waters (Bracketts Creek has a NC Surface
Water Classification of C) and it doesn't appear that this project will have
significant impacts from the standpoint of stormwater runoff. However, we would
recommend that DOT review the project to attempt to minimize the potential
impacts of stormwater outlets from the new curb and gutter sections of the road.
They should try to outlet these flows to vegetated/forested areas, swales, etc. as
much as possible and avoid direct outlets to surface waters.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
misA970097ca.doc
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY
ATTENTIO ENTIO N OF October 1, 1996
Special Studies and.
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
r?
4Cr U •;1996
This is in response to your letter of August 5, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Forest City, Widening of SR 2241/2179
(Oak Street) from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (S. Church Street), Rutherford County,
F.A. Project #STP-0005(99), State Project #8.2890401, TIP Project U-271 1X
(Regulatory Branch Action I. D. No. 199604311).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects which would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuf rd, Jr., P. E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
October 1, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Forest City, Widening of SR 2241/2179 (Oak
Street) from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (S. Church Street), Rutherford County, F.A.
Project #STP-0005(99), State Project #8.2890401, TIP Project U-2711A" (Regulatory
Branch Action I. D. No. 199604311)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
As noted in the flood hazard evaluation on page 32 of the Environmental
Assessment, both Rutherford County and Forest City are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program. Both the county and community are considered to
have minimal flooding and do not have detailed flood elevation information. However,
it appears that the project would cross the identified flood hazard area of Bracketts
Creek. We suggest that the respective jurisdictional authority (town or county) be
consulted to ensure that the project complies with the applicable flood plain ordinance.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at (704) 271- 4014
A review of the information provided and available maps indicates that there may
be impacts to Bracketts Creek and unnamed tributaries. Any discharge of excavated or
fill material into these streams and/or any adjacent or isolated wetlands that may be
present will require Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization. This
authorization may include various Nationwide Permits, depending upon the amount of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and their associated wetlands to be impacted, and the
type of construction techniques to be employed.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Chapin.

Widening of SR-2241/SR-2179 (Oak Street) to a multilane
section from US 74 Bypass to SR-2213 (Church Street).
RECEIVED
AU6 u 6 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
TIP No. U-2711
Federal Aid No. STP OOOS (99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2711
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Transportati.on
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Logan Williams, Environmental Biologist
November 21,1995
. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .....................................1
1.1 Project Description .........................1
1.2 Purpose .....................................1
1.3 Methodology .................................1
1.4 Investigator Credentials ....................2
2.0 Physical Resources ...............................2
2.1 Soils .......................................3
2.2 Water Resources .............................3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters ............ 4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............ 4
2.2.3 Water Quality ........................5
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 5
3.0 Biotic Resources .................................6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .....................6
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed .................7
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood ..................8
3.1.3 Riparian Fringe ......................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities .........................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..............10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ............................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ......... 12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters .......... 12
4.1.2 Permits ..............................13
4.1.4 Mitigation ...........................14
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..................... 14
4.1.4.2 Minimization .................. 15
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ....... 15
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ..................16
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..... 16
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ............ 20
5.0 References .......................................23
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report
is submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. The project lies
in the township of Forest City, Rutherford County (Figure
1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the widening of SR
2241/SR 2179 (Oak Street) to a multilane section from US 74
Bypass (including mall area) to SR 2213 (South Church
Street). The project length is approximately 1.9 km (1.2
mi). The existing right-of-way (ROW) ranges from 9.0 m
(30.0 ft) to 46.0 m (150.0 ft). A ROW of 36.5 (120.0 ft)
plus easement is proposed. The existing facility has 2 and
4 lane cross-sections. A 5-lane curb and gutter on 36.5
(120.0 ft) ROW is proposed. On the west side of US 74 bypass
near the mall entrance, Oak St. may be widened to provide
turning lanes and through lanes. On the east side of US 74
bypass, the four-lane section will probably be widened to
one side. The two-lane section can be widened to any side
exept in the vicinity of the golf course, where it must be
widened to the opposite side because of Section 4(F)
involvement. Section 4(F) is concerned with projects
requiring use of publicly owned land of a public park,
recreation area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or land of a
historic site of National, State, or local significance (as
determined by the officials having jurisdiction over the
park, recreation area, refuge or site).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
i
r
Ji
•
. - .... - .- . TlNrmal Gty 61 l..?
Union is
S .? IAills
h hl.mnty Wk U T H IE RAF R D
t ?: a,y(Lu.e fr Glory 7 Wtat- Sunstunt
all lwt rl mmsltl -Oil" P.,
10atn
tWashown
Ruth t
Ru \ torato * foleg ostit I
• ands[ • 1
• • 1 • `¦ MoIisllands,
rolaartt 7
?.00. `• Nams ?llir:
¦ s
RUTHERFORD COUNTY:

, a

2
the study area include: US Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Forest City), NCDOT aerial photographs of
the project area (1:2000), and Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soil maps of Rutherford county. Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR,1993) and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base map
of Rutherford County (NC Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was
obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the NC Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Logan Williams on 30 August
1995. 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). Organisms captured during these searches were
identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Investigator Credentials
Logan Williams, Environmental Biologist
Education: AA, BA, MS degrees, N.C. State University
Experience:14 years as Biologist\Life Scientist
Expertise: Insect Taxonomy, Field Botany,
Natural History, Section 7 investigations
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area
are discussed below. Soils types and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Rutherford County occurs in the piedmont physiographic
region located in the Felsic Crystalline Soil System. The
topography in this system is extremely variable. Broad
gentle sloping uplands are common, as are moderately to
steeply sloping areas. The average elevation throughout the
project area is 305.0 m (1000.0 ft) above mean sea level.
3
2.1 Soils
Soil types in the immediate project area have not been
mapped as of this date. A soil survey of the county is
currently in progress. There are four soil types likely to
occur in the project area (pers. comm. Scott Keenan,
NCDEHNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation). Table 1
provides an inventory of these soils.
Table 1. County Soils Likely to Occur in The Project Area
Mapping Unit Percent Slope Hydric Classification
Cecil 0-25 -
Wehadkee 0-2 A
Bethlehem 2-45 -
Pacelot 2-80 -
Notes: 1."A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric
soils as major components.
2. "-" denotes nonhydric soils
The Cecil series consists of very steep, well drained
moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the
piedmont uplands. They are deep to saprolite and very deep
to bedrock.
Very deep, poorly drained soils on flood plains along
streams that drain from the piedmont and mountains describe
the Wehadkee series. These soils are formed in loamy
sediments.
The Bethlehem series consists of well drained,
moderately deep soils on ridgetops and side slopes. These
soils generally occur in the upper part of the piedmont.
Finally, the Pacelot series consists of very steep,
well drained, moderately permeable soils. These soils are
formed in material weathered mostly from acid crystalline
rocks of the piedmont uplands.
2.2 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.
4
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Bracketts Creek (EHNR index no. 9-37-2) and five of its
tributaries are located in the project area. They are all
part of the Broad River Basin (Figure 2). Bracketts Creek
originates north of the proposed project and flows in a
southeasterly direction approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) to its
confluence with Floyds Creek. Floyds Creek continues in a
southeasterly direction for approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) to
its confluence with Broad River. Unnamed tributary 1 flows
in a southerly direction to its confluence with Bracketts
Creek. Unnamed tributary 1a flows approximately 24.0 m
(80.0 ft) in a southerly direction parallel to Oak Street to
its confluence with unnamed tributary 1. Unnamed tributary 2
originates north of the Forest City Golf Course and flows in
a southeasterly direction to its confluence with Bracketts
Creek. Unnamed tributaries 3 and 4 flow in southerly
directions to their confluence with unnamed tributary 2.
Finally, unnamed tributary 5 flows parallel to Oak Street on
its east side for approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft) and then in
an easterly direction towards its confluence with Bracketts
Creek. Specific information on the water resources in the
project area is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Water Resources Characteristics
Stream Width Depth Substrate Flow Clarity
Brackett s Crk 2.4(8.0) 1.5(5.0) si,sa,co mod poor
UT 1 1.2(4.0) 0.3(1.0) si, sa fast good
UT la 0.6(2.0) 0.15(0.5) si,sa slow fair
UT 2 0.9(3.0) 0.15(0.5) si,sa fast good
UT 3 0.9(3.0) 0.3(1.0) si,sa mod fair
UT 4 0.3(1.0) 0.15(0.5) si,sa mod fair
NOTES:
* UT denotes unname d tributary
* Values are given in meters (feet).
* The abbreviations si, sa and co denote silt, sand
and cobble.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Any
unnamed stream which is not named in the schedule of stream
?',tC`Z? 'i 1: 1 '?? \\ ?.1 1 \,• 1l ) ???? ?.? I.1 ?? r<. ?? . r r . r I ??5: /.^r? 1/ •
• r ? ?`• ?° r I ?*?1 t h;?.. .err // •^ • ?' ?/ '' :. :?•.1•J9 ;_ p J?
Nil
` . \ :? _ C? ° •c• ••?^ 1 ?- lam` J
,?. «.?."• ter. i?•: ` f ? Cam` -.?? ? / : h / ^.
boo
1?" \? \ ,?? 1 L,? \ `?•• v ?1?/ X11-14 ryr/1 X10 /f
$ '.1E'?, v I/ ,ll- \ • (J l?yJ7 ''i'.?/ yQ/ e• ?:L?•
\ WI / r7KfJW / (?r..? \• \\ '.1`4 tvr`?l •? : ?' ` r-'
St FIL
acketts C"- N ?'r •,? ??1?'
F-0
- _?? -? `S'am •'t+ / I'? .x ? ,?„ ?'9 y ? ?i •?;' . 11`
= r te, -?' '• 'IT 1 -` CIT l1`s ?: fj _,.?' f??=-;1 'I• i[_.
UT 2
j - ?\r2 la*1d UT Ia I Luse, UT`
- . I . r' Si i ,? ?' ?- ' ? .1 r r •Y 'r UT 4 ? '+ :' CltY11 .?e :L1:_".
1 Donn /1W T' ?ADE'1 `
VA PK
_. ?ir•'1 I ' r` 74 ?. an 2 _ et nd 3 ',c• _ /.• /?`,?lU rnli'...?{pL
h i I tJ ?/• • >?r ?• : 1/: y.! ! L it ??-?
•1 \\ ??J?? ?`.• `\ \ l ? \• ?? /??-_'?r•?., a °-1 - \\
l \.. r a \
'?'?'l Y -\. .=??. ?? '• ? .\. i J ? 11 `•,•
83
It'=?=\=f7?rr''s , °` \. ° \V -r.__?\??• ,1?? ??I? ? t??\•''4;.'4a•?Y '?•N ?, f?.?
- ° NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT O \,_?/ / •• \ . ?? 1
TRANSPORTATION _. !/?( ?-J;- \?????\ \• \ r, ti:' ,?c?s.:; •?
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS _ ?•? ( ti,
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ?? \ ?(r'•? i ? ? 4?
/^ •? BRANCH ;'! •? I?? ` r \? ° (?
1 _? ° \ \ n
\° \ rrn?°Ct U-^-j1
F V
g 1 ) j-l?;andeiil?s."
5
classifications carries the same classification as that
assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
The DEM classification of Bracketts Creek is "C" from its
source to its confluence with Floyds Creek. Class "C" uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Neither High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the 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. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. The BMAN classification for
Bracketts Creek is currently unavailable.
Point Source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Service (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. The only
registered discharger for Bracketts Creek is the Town of
Alexander Mills Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). This
facility is located approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) downstream
of the proposed project.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts
to water resources such as:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and\additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and toxic spills.
6
Recommendations:
• Sedimentation Control guidelines and Best Management
Practices are recommended and should be implemented prior
to construction and maintained throughout the life of the
project _
• Non-point sediment sources should be identified and
efforts made to control sediment runoff.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study areas as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems.
Composition and distribution between biotic communities
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. Fauna observed
during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk ('k). For
a complete listing of flora and fauna known to occur in the
study area the references in section 5.0 should be
consulted.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations of the
general vegetation in or near the project ROW. Three
distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the
project study area: maintained\disturbed, mixed
pine\hardwood forest, and riparian fringe. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire
range of terrestrial communities discussed and may not be
mentioned for each community located.
7
3.1.1 Maintained\Disturbed Community
Maintained\disturbed lands are intensively managed
where humans structures or activities preclude natural plant
succession. Fallow fields, powerline easements,
residential, and commercial developments comprise this
community.
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to
a rich assemblage of herbaceous plants. Lawn grass (Festuca
spp.), is prevalent with some encroachment of ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Queen Anne's lace (Dauca carota)
and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). These same herbaceous
plants are found in fallow fields and along powerline
easements. In addition, goldenrod (Solidago altissima),
thoroughwort (Eupatorium hyssopifolium) and frost aster
(Aster pilosus) are abundant. In more disturbed areas
around old home sites and vacant lots, Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and/or
blackberry (Rubus sp.) forms dense thickets.
Maintained\disturbed communities adjacent to forested
tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests
provide forage and cover. Common mammals associated with
ecotones are woodchuck (Marmota monax), least shrew
(Crypototis parva), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus) and
eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus
Fallow fields and other open areas adjacent to forested
communities support a myriad of bird life. *Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), "robin (Turdus migratorious),
*wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), *northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), *common grackle (Quiscula
quiscula), and *turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) were
observed in the project study area. In addition,
meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and eastern bluebird (Sialia
sialis) may utilize this community by perching on telephone
wires or fences overlooking the maintained community where
they forage for insects. The *red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis) is an important predator known to forage in
this community preying on rats, mice and other rodents.
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates),
inhabits open, sunny situations such as building sites, and
fence rows usually in close proximity to trees. American
toad (Bufo americanus), and box turtle (Terrapene caroline),
8
are very common reptiles and amphibians that may inhabit
disturbed areas.
3.1.2 Mixed Pine\Hardwood
Small tracts of Mixed-Pine hardwood forest are found in
the study area. Short leaf pine (Pinus echinata) and
loblolly pine (P.taeda) share the canopy with tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
and black oak (Quercus velutina). The understory consists
of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), dogwood (Cornus
florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and red maple (Acer
rubrum). The hebaceous layer supports pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are
adjacent to disturbed areas, thus the faunal composition is
similar to what occurs in the maintained\disturbed
community. Species more commonly associated with upland
forest include white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis).
3.1.3 Riparian Fringe
Narrow strips of riparian forest border the banks of
many of the small creeks in the study area. Dominant canopy
species found here include sycamore and water oak (Quercus
nigra). The mid-story and shrub layer is comprised mainly
of sapling species from the canopy. Honeysuckle,red maple
and tag alder (Alnus serrulata) are also commonly found.
The riparian edge provides habitat for an assortment of
birds and mammals. Birds often associated with streamside
communities include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis), song sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) and northern
cardinal. Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata),
hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) and common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas) may also be found in this community.
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), Carolina wren and mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura) may also frequent this area. A bird of prey
commonly found in bottomlands and alluvial forests is the
barred owl (Strix varia). The barred owl preys on rodents,
insects, small birds, frogs and sometimes fish.
9
Mammals which may frequent the riparian edge include
white-footed mouse and raccoon. In addition, white-tailed
deer and gray squirrel may also forage in or near this
community.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally
abundant in the riparian edge. Spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer) and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata)
breed in semipermanent pools during the spring. Rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ring-
necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) and queen snake (Regina
septemvittata) may be found here as well. Snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) and box turtle (Terrapene carolina)
may also occur along in this community. Copperheads
(Agkistrodon contortrix), which are important predators of
small mammals, may occur in the project vicinity.
3.2 Aquatic Community
The primary water body in the project area is Bracketts
Creek. Physical characteristics of the water bodies and
cdnditions of the water resource affect faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities.
A variety of biological organisms utilize typical
piedmont stream community. Although some fish were observed
during the site investigation, none were captured nor
identified. The rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides),swallowtail shiner (Notropis rocne) and
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) may likely be present.
These fish feed on detritus, algae and zooplankton and serve
as prey for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(L.gibbosus) and greensunfish (L.cyanellus).
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent
for completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some
species are totally aquatic. Some water dependent
salamanders likely to occur in the project, are two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), three-lined salamander (E.
guttolineata) and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus). Green frog (Rana clamitans)and pickerel frog (Rana
palustris) could also inhabit some of the grassy areas along
the streams or the pond in the project area.
Good habitat for snapping turtle can be found in the
project area. Queen snake and northern water snake (Nerodia
10
sipedon) are the snakes most likely to be encountered in the
aquatic community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
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
qualifies and quantifies 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 proposed right of way
of 36.5 m (120.0 ft). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Maintained\Disturbed 4.0 (9.0)
Mixed-Pine Hardwood 0.4 (0.9)
Riparian Fringe 0.08(.20)
TOTALS 4.5 (10.1)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Both permanent and temporary impacts to terrestrial
communities will occur in the form of habitat reduction in
the process of clearing, grading and surfacing during
construction. Portions of the maintained/disturbed roadside
community will be completely destroyed during construction,
but will eventially re-establish itself after construction.
The edges of the other communities will be taken, thus
reducing a small part of the total natural habitat of these
types in the project area.
There will be some loss of habitat for small animal
species, predators and scavengers that utilize open areas.
There will be a reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and early successional habitats.
11
Rabbits and many other small animals as well as some large
animals frequent roadsides. Some animals such as rabbits
and birds build their nests in roadside cover. Road
construction will destroy foraging and nesting habitat for
some species, while actually improving habitat for others,
especially grass eating rodents like voles (Microtus sp.)
and hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus). Ground dwellers
and slow moving organisms will temporarily decrease in
numbers in the wake of highway construction.
The data in Table 3 predicts only the direct taking of
land and community types during of highway construction.
There may be a number of indirect effects which could occur.
Indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat
value should not change significantly. The mortality rates
for all species is not anticipated to increase because the
total amount of roadway will not increase. The riparian
zone of Bracketts Creek is likely an important corridor for
animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts the
natural corridor movement, so widening of the road is not
expected to introduce a significantly new factor except
during the actual construction phases of the proposed
project.
Potential exists for construction to damage forested
land outside the ROW and construction limits. This damage
could potentially include:
- soil compaction and root exposure and injury
- placing fill dirt over tree root systems
- spillage of harmful substances
- skinning of trees by machinery.
Precautions need to be taken in order to avoid these
potential impacts.
Extension of culverts and other in-stream acivities are
potential sources of serious stream modifications. Extreme
care must be excercised during these activities. It is
anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic
communities will occur from increased sedimentation and loss
of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms
inhibiting their abilities to feed and obtain oxygen.
Filter feeders may be covered by the sedimentation, thus
preventing their ability to feed. Increased sediment loads
and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of
fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water
column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations in
water temperature. Increased light penetration from removal
12
of streamside vegetation may also increase water
temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen and results
in a reduction of aquatic life dependent on high oxygen
concentrations.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway
construction activity and runoff pollution after
construction are widely recognized as factors that can
seriou----y reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are
generally extremely sensitive to these inputs. Stringent
employment of Hest Management Practices is highly advocated
during the construction phase of this project to lessen
impacts to aquatic organisms.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues: Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 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 (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, 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 US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met;
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, including; saturated soils, stained leaf litter,
oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks
on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
13
Three potential wetlands may be impacted by the
proposed project and will need further investigation once
the wetland delineation is requested. Site 1 is located on
the southern end of the project on the edge of a small pond.
The soil color in this area is 2.5 YR 4/2 and it is
saturated to the surface. The dominant vegetation in this
location includes soft needle rush (Juncus effusus) FACW+,
alder (Alnus serrulata)FACW+ and black willow (Salix
nigra)OBL. The Cowardin classification of this wetland is
Palustrine(P), Emergent Persistent(EM1), Saturated(B),
PEM1B. Estimated impacts resulting from road construction
for this site are 0.06 ha (0.14 ac).
Site 2 is located at the intersection of US 74 and Oak
Street and is on both sides of Oak Street. The existing
roads and adjacent shopping center probably contributed to
the creation of this wetland. The soil color in this
location is 2.5 YR 4/2 and the soil is saturated to the
surface. The dominant vegetation at this site is black
willow, spotted impatiens (Impatiens capensis)FACW and tear
thumb (Polygonum sagittatum) OBL. The Cowardin
classification of this wetland is Palustrine(P), Emergent
Persistent(EM1), Saturated(B), PEM1B. Estimated impacts
resulting from road construction for this site are 0.09 ha
(0.2 ac).
Finally, site 3 is a small wetland band approximately
1.5 m (5 ft) wide bordering UT 2. The dominant vegetation
at this site is soft rush, black alder and black willow.
Soils along the creek are 10 YR 3\1 at 75 mm (0-3 in) and
10 YR 6\1 100-300 mm (4-12 in). The Cowardin classification
of this wetland is Palustrine(P), Forested (FO), Broad
Leaved Deciduous (1), Intermittently flooded (J), PF01J.
Estimated impacts resulting from road construction for this
site are 0.01 ha (0.02 ac).
4.1.2 Permits
This project is classified as an Environmental
Assessment (EA). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26) is
likely to be applicable for proposed construction. A
Nationwide 26 permit is applicable under the following
conditions:
1. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 ac
of Waters of the United States. For the purpose of this
Nationwide, the acreage of loss of waters of the U.S.
includes the fill area plus waters of the U.S. that are
14
adversely affected by flooding, excavation, or drainage as a
result of the project.
2. A 30 day notification to the district engineer is
required if the the discharge would cause the loss of Waters
of the U.S. greater than one acre. for discharges in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification
must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites
including wetlands.
3. The discharge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project.
In addition, the project is located in a designated
"trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of
approval from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Final
permit decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge
and for which a federal permit is required. State permits
are administered through the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy
which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include: Avoiding impacts (to welands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practical possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the COE, in determining "appropriate and practical" measures
to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
15
practical in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Some impacts to Waters of the United States will occur
as a result of the proposed project. A reasonable effort
should be made to avoid wetland areas, especially the
wetlands adjacent to Bracketts Creek. Since this wetland
occurs in a heavily developed area with a major highway and
a shopping center adjacent to it, this wetland likely serves
an important function in pollutant removal from the
surrounding landscape, thus buffering Bracketts Creek.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate
and practical steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters
of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit
conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters
and wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median width, ROW widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and
temporary ground cover during construction.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
BNP' s for the protection of surface waters and
wetlands.
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and
djacent to water bodies.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered
until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include
16
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the
United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA
between the EPA and the COE. Final decisions concerning
compensatory mitigation rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
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 March 28, 1995, the FWS lists 5
federally-protected species for Rutherford County. Table 3
lists the protected species and their status.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species Listed for Rutherford
County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon E
Myotis sodalis Indian bat E
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen E
Hexastylis naniflora dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
Sisyrinchium white irisette E
dichotomum
---------------------
--------------------------
-------------
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
17
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the forseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/20/84
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Brunswick, Burke, Carteret,
Dare, Hyde, Jackson, Madison, New Hanover,
Rutherford, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes, Yancey.
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back
and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most
easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.-
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the
United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for
foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff
ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the
eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in
urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals
and birds, including mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds
as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is
medium sized birds such as pigeons.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon does not exist
in the project area (see above description of habitat
requirements). In addition, a review of the Natural Heritage
Program Rare Species and Unusual habitats data base contains
no records of the peregrine falcon in the project vicinity.
This does not preclude the possibility that peregrine falcon
may forage in the project vicinity. Project construction is
not expected to impair foraging opportunities for the
peregrine falcon. Therefore, project construction will have
no impact on the peregrine falcon.
M Otis sodalis (Indiana bat) E
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Jackson, Mitchell,
Rutherford, Swain.
Adult Indiana bats are the smallest bats found in
western North Carolina. Several characteristics can be used
to distinguish them from other bats; the hair on the feet is
short and does not extend past the tips of the claws, the
tail membrane is attached to the base of the keel, and the
calcar (cartilaginous spur from the bats heel which helps
support tail or interfemoral membrane) is keeled. The
18
Indiana bats dorsal fur is brown in color and the ventral fur
is lighter with a cinnamon hue.
The range of the Indiana bat centers around cavernous
limestone regions in the eastern United States. The Indiana
bat has different summer and winter habitat requirements.
Winter habitat is in caves and abandoned mines that usually
have standing water on the floor. The bat migrate to the
winter habitat between September and November; they stay
there with occasional periods of activity until they emerge
in mid-March to early May. Hibernation only occurs in
regions where winter temperatures are stable and are around
four degrees Celcius. Little is known of the summer habitat
of the Indiana bat, it is thought that they disperse
throughout their range and spend the summer foraging alone
over streams or along forest margins. They have been found
under loose bark on dead and living trees along small to
medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian
vegetation overhanging the water by more than 3 m (9 ft).
Streams that have been stripped of their riparian vegetation
do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as
foraging areas and as migration routes are extremely
important to this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There are no caves or mine shafts in the project area
with standing water on the floor for Indiana bats to use as
winter roosting sites. The largest riparian system that will
be impacted by the project is Bracketts Creek. The portion
of Bracketts Creek in the project area is located in a
developed area bordered by a shopping center and US 74
highway. Portions of the creek have had the mature riparian
vegetation removed and does not provide optimum foraging or
nesting habitat for this species. A review of the Natural
Heritage Program data base of Rare Specie° and Unique
Habitats has no record of the Indiana bat for the project
area. Therefore, no impacts will occur to this species as a
result of project construction.
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) E
Plant Family:
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its
fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black
in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The
19
fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to
areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments
occur on high elevation (> 1220.0 m/ 4000.0 ft) mountaintops
and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower
elevation (< 762.0 m/ 2500.0 ft) deep gorges in the Southern
Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils
above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea
in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of
extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to
habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests.
These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation
habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the
rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no habitat for the rock gnome lichen in the
project vicinity. The proposed project is not located on a
high elevation >1220.0 m (4000.0 ft) fog covered mountaintop
or cliff. It is also not located in a deep gorge <762.0 m
(2500 ft). The elevation at the project site is
approximately 305.0 m (1000.0 ft). A review of the Natural
Heritage Program data base of Rare Species and Unique
Habitats has no record of the rock gnome lichenfor the
project area. Therefore, project construction will not
impact the rock gnome lichen.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid March - mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves,
supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface
rhizome. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen, and
leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the
petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
20
with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described
as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the
project vicinity along the streams and in the mix pine
hardwood communities. Surveys for this species were
conducted by Bruce Ellis and Logan Williams on 3-22-95.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf was not found during the field
survey. A review of the Natural Heritage Program data base of
Rare Species and Unique Habitats has no record of the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf for the project area. Therefore, project
construction will not impact the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) E
Plant Family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: October 28, 1991
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Polk, Rutherford.
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously
branching stems. The basal leaves are bluish green in color
and are 1/3 to 112 the overall height of the plant. White
flowers are borne at the ends of winged stems and the fruit
is a round, pale to medium brown capsule containing three to
six round or elliptical black seeds.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North
Carolina. This herb is limited to an area bounded by White
Oak Mountain, Sugar Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock. White
irisette is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of
upland woods where a thin canopy is present. These open
areas often are where runoff has removed the deep litter
layer that is usually present. This herb occurs on rich,
basic soils that are probably weathered from amphibolite.
White irisette depends on a form of disturbance to maintain
the open quality of its habitat.
Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved
Habitat for white irisette is found in the project area
in the upland woods. Surveys for this plant will need to be
conducted during the flowering season in June.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are five Federal Candidate species (C2) listed
for Rutherford County as of March 28, 1995. Federal
Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under
the endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
21
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species
are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exists 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 Natural Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species 1993 are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. A review of the
data base of the NC Natural Heritage Program Rare Species
and Unique Habitats reveals no records for the species in
the project area. Table 4 provides the C2 species listed
for Rutherford County and indicates if there is habitat for
each species in the project area.
Table 4. Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species
for Rutherford County
Scientific Name Conznon Name NC Status Habitat
Neotoma magister Alleghany SC Yes
woodrat
M otis subulatus leibii Eastern small SC Yes
footed bat
Dendroica cerulea cerulean SR No
warbler
Aneides aeneus* green E Yes
salamander
Senecio millefolium divided leaf T No
ragwort
Saxifraga caroliniana Gray's C No
saxifrage
Monotropsis odoratus* sweet pinesap C Yes
Notes:
* indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20
years.
SC " any species of wild animal native or once-native to
North Carolina which is determined by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be
taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of
Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987."
C"Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state,generally substantially
reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. These species
are either rare throughout their ranges, or disjunct in
22
North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the
country or world.
SR " any species which has not been listed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program to. need monitoring."
Surveys for the species listed in Table 4 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
reveals no records for the species listed above in the
project vicinity.
23
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
'Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Martof B.S., W.M.Palmer, J.R.Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991.
Carolina. N.C.
Delmar Company,
The Fresh Water
Wildlife Resources
Charlotte, N.C.
Fishes of North
Commission, The
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality.
1983-1990.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zimm. 1966. _A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990.
Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program.
Parks and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health
Third
Div. of
and Nat.
24
Resources. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 1984.
Webster W.D., J.F. Parnell, W.C.Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
;fir*r ?? ?.?Sa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
01 SEPTEMBER 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Robert P. Hanson, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Bruce 0. Ellis, Environmental Biologist/
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species Survey: Dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora), SR 2241,
State Project No. 8.2890401, TIP No.'U-2711,
Forest City, Rutherford County.
ATTENTION: Ted Devens, P.E., Project Manager
Planning Unit
On 22 March 1995, NCDOT biologists Bruce 0. Ellis and
Logan Williams conducted a plant by plant. survey for dwarf-
flowered heartleaf within the project study area.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described
as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is
federally listed as Threatened in Rutherford County.
Biological Conslusion
No Effect
No dwarf-flowered heartleaf was found within the project
study area. Therefore, project construction will have no
effect on this Threatened specie.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information (ext. 299).
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Tim Savidge, Protected Species Coordinator
File: U-2711
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James & Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AITXPIFA
44
C) EHNF-I
August 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric GalambAl
Subject: EA for SR 2241/2179 in Forest City
Rutherford County
State Project DOT No. 8.2890401, TIP # U-2711 A
E H N R # 97-0097
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The document
states that 0.36 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted. The following
comments are based on the document review:
A) Should stream relocations be necessary, DWQ requests that these relocations
be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
B) DWQ requests that a computerized traffic signal system (TSM option) be
considered as part of the widening section of the preferred alternative. This
should allow for a higher LOS and increase the length of life for this facility.
C) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DWQ would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
u-2711 a.ea
cc: Asheville COE FAXED
Tracy Turner, DOT AUG 2 9 1996
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500/6 recycle&10% post consumer paper
Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS(99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T.I.P. Project No. U-2711 A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C.. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
APPROVED:
6 - 2 K- 96"
Date
??- H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
' z8' 96
Date Nic as Graf, P. E.
IqV( Federal Highway Administration
Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS(99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T.I.P. Project No. U-2711A
Environmental Assessment
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Trac R. T r
Project Planning Engineer
? t Co 9'Ci
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?•.••??V CA ENO??••..
?ESSIpN
SEAL
s 17282
??'o$•:.NGf NEE oa
•P HPNS ?•.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... .......................... i
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... ......................... l
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... ......................... 1
A. General ....................................................................................... .........................1
B. Transportation Plan ..................................................................... ......................... I
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ..................................................... ......................... 2
D. Accident Record ......................................................................... ......................... 3
E. Existing Roadway Characteristics ................................................ ......................... 3
1. Typical Section ................................................................ .........................3
2. Right-of-Way .................................................................. ......................... 3
3. Speed Limit ..................................................................... ......................... 4
4. Access Control ................................................................ .........................4
5. Functional Classification .................................................. ......................... 4
6. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ......................... ......................... 4
7. School Buses ................................................................... .........................4
8. Structures ........................................................................ .........................4
9. Railroad Involvement ....................................................... .........................4
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ........................... ......................... 4
11. Utilities ............................................................................ .........................4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................ .........................4
A. Length of Project ........................................................................ ......................... 5
B. Project Termini ........................................................................... ......................... 5
C. Typical Section ........................................................................... ......................... 5
D. Right-of-Way .............................................................................. ......................... 5
E. Design Speed .............................................................................. ......................... 5
F. Speed Limit ................................................................................. ......................... 5
G. Access Control ............................................................................ ......................... 5
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................. ......................... 5
1. Structures ................................................................................... ......................... 6
J. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ...................................... ......................... 6
K. Cost Estimates ............................................................................ ......................... 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................... .........................6
A. Design Alternatives ..................................................................... ......................... 6
1. Alignment ........................................................................ .........................6
2. Typical Section ................................................................ .........................7
B. Public Transportation Alternative ................................................ ......................... 7
C. "No-Build" Alternative ................................................................ ......................... 7
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IM[PACTS ............ ......................... 8
A. Land Use Planning ....................................................................... ......................... 8
1. Status of Planning ............................................................ ......................... 8
2. Existing Land Use ........................................................... ......................... 8
3. Future Land Use .............................................................. ......................... 8
B. Social and Economic Environment ...................................................................... . 8
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................................................................. . 9
2. Economic Factors .................................................................................... . 9
3. Public Facilities ........................................................................................ . 9
4. Relocation Impacts .................................................................................. . 9
5. Social Impacts ........................................................................................ I I
C. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. I I
1. Archaeological Resources ....................................................................... I l '
2. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................................. 11
D. Natural Resources .............................................................................................. I I
I . Methodology .......................................................................................... 11
2. Physical Resources ................................................................................. 12
3. Water Resources .................................................................................... 13
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................... 13
b. Best Usage Classification ............................................................ 13
C. Water Quality 14
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................. 14
4. Biotic Resources ..................................................................................... 14
a. Terrestrial Communities .............................................................. 15
b. Aquatic Communities .................................................................. 16
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .................. 17
5. Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................................ 18
a. Wetlands ..................................................................................... 18
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects .................................................. 19
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................ 19
d. Wetland Mitigation ..................................................................... 20
6. Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................... 20
a. Federally Protected Species ......................................................... 20
b. Federal Candidate and State-Protected Species ........................... 23
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................................................... 24
F. Air Quality Analysis ........................................................................................... 28
G. Farmland ............................................................................................................ 31
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement ...................................................................... 31
1. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns .............................................. 31
J. Geodetic Markers .............................................................................................. . 32
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................... . 32
A. Local Officials ................................................................................................... .32
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ...................................................................... . 32
C. Agency Coordination ........................................................................................ . 32
FIGURES AND TABLES
APPENDIX A: CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B: NCDOT RELOCATION INFORMATION
FIGURES AND TABLES
1. Project Location Map
2. Aerial Mosaic
3. Thoroughfare Plan
4. Estimated 2000 Average Daily Traffic
5. Estimated 2020 Average Daily Traffic without U-2711 B
6. Estimated 2020 Average Daily Traffic with U-271113
7. Proposed Typical Section
8. Intersection Configuration for US 74 Bypass
9. Intersection Configuration for Hardin Road
10. Intersection Configuration for Church Street
11. Table N1, Hearing: Sounds Bombarding US Daily
12. Table N2, Noise Abatement Criteria
13. Table N3, Ambient Noise Levels
14. Table N4, Leq Traffic Noise Exposures
15. Table N5, FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
16. Table N6, Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
17. Tables Al - A4, CAL3QHC: Line Source Dispersion Model Output
SUMMARY
Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to a Multi-lane Facility
from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS(99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T. I. P. Project U-2711 A
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) to a multi-lane section from west of the intersection with US
74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street) in Forest City. This project is approximately 1.9
km (1.2 miles) in total length and has an estimated cost of $ 5,125,000 including $ 1,825,000 for
right-of-way acquisition and $ 3,300,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 1998 and construction
in federal fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $3,550,000. This
estimate includes $1,400,000 for right-of-way and $2,150,000 for construction.
A five lane curb and gutter roadway section within a 27 meter (90 foot) wide right-of-
way, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot)
center turn lane, is proposed for SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street).
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
It is anticipated that nineteen residences and two businesses will be relocated by the
proposed project. The relocation estimate includes nine minority residences. Wetlands losses are
anticipated to be less than one acre for the entire project. Any erosion and siltation caused by the
project will be short term in effect and minimized through sedimentation control measures.
Twenty-three residences will approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria; however,
only three of these will experience substantial increases (see section VI part E). Overall air
quality of the area will not be adversely affected. In the immediate project vicinity, there are no
properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Alternatives Considered
The recommended alignment was chosen to utilize existing roadway corridors to the
extent possible while avoiding the Forest City Municipal Golf Course and Bethel Baptist Church
as well as to minimize the number of residences and/or businesses requiring relocation. Other
alignments would either cause more relocations or would not meet design criteria for the
roadway. Public transportation and the "no build" alternatives were also considered and rejected,
due to the traffic and safety benefits provided by the proposed improvements.
5. Environmental and Project Commitments
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will be followed
during the construction of this project to prevent siltation of nearby streams. Non-point sediment
sources will be identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff.
Rutherford County is a designated "trout" county. A letter of concurrence from the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission will be obtained during the project permitting process.
No property from the Forest City Municipal Golf Course will be taken as part of the
proposed project.
The proposed project will impact two geodetic survey markers. The North Carolina
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
6. Permits Required
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will
be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 may be applicable for impacts of discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated jurisdictional wetlands.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Rutherford County is a designated "trout" county. A letter of concurrence from the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission will be obtained during the project permitting process, prior to
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
7. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted regarding this
project. An asterisk indicates agencies from which written comments were received. (Written
comments are included in the Appendix.)
11
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
* Rutherford County Commissioner
Mayor of Forest City
8. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and statement can be obtained by
contacting the following:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
iii
Forest City
SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street)
Widen to a Multi-lane Facility
from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
Rutherford County
F. A. Project STP OOOS(99)
State Project No. 8.2890401
T. I. P. Project U-2711A
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen SR 2241/2179 (Oak Street) to a multi-lane section from west of US 74 Bypass to SR 2213
(South Church Street) in Forest City. This project is approximately 1.9 km (1.2 miles) in total
length and has an estimated cost of $ 5,125,000 including $ 1,825,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and $ 3,300,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998 and construction in
fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $ 3,550,000. This estimate
includes $ 1,400,000 for right-of-way and $ 2,150,000 for construction.
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General
The purpose of this project is to provide improved access from eastern Forest City and the
Central Business District to the retail shopping district located in western Forest City. Widening
Oak Street will improve traffic capacity and reduce accident rates on Oak Street with the
construction of additional travel lanes and a center turn lane.
B. Transportation Plan
Oak Street in the project area is designated as an Urban Major Thoroughfare on the Forest
City Transportation Plan, approved on November 12, 1976 (See Figure 3). The transportation
plan includes the proposed widening of Oak Street for Part A from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213
(South Church Street). The plan also includes the extension of Oak Street from SR 2213 (South
Church Street) to US 221A (Broadway Street), TIP Project U-2711B. These two projects will
provide congestion relief to the Forest City Central Business District by providing an alternative
route between eastern Forest City and western Forest City. The subject project will provide
improved capacity and reduced accident rates for vehicles traveling from the Central Business
District to the retail shopping areas located in western Forest City. The subject project will fulfill
a need identified in the approved Forest City Transportation Plan and is therefore compatible with
the plan.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capaci y
Projected traffic volumes anticipated for Oak Street are as follows*:
2000 Average Daily Traffic
2020 Average Daily Traffic
2020 Average Daily Traffic
= 11,650 Vehicles per day (vpd)
= 15,500 vpd (without U-271 1B)
= 22,900 vpd (with U-271 1B) **
* See Figures 4, 5, and 6 for additional traffic information.
** The traffic projections and turning movements in the design year are highly dependent
upon when U-2711B, the extension of Oak Street to US 221A (Broadway Street), is
constructed. Project U-271 1B is not currently funded in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP).
A capacity analysis was performed to predict the level of service for the project. Level of
Service is an engineering term used to describe the operating conditions of vehicles in a traffic
stream. Operating conditions are based on such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined
and are 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 of service F represents the
worst operating conditions and occurs when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of a facility. At
level of service F, long queues of traffic tend to form and delay at signalized intersections tends to
exceed sixty seconds.
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the intersections of Oak Street with
US 74 Bypass, SR 2178 (Hardin Road), and SR 2213 (Church Street).
Intersection Analyses
The intersection of US 74 Bypass with Oak Street is a signalized intersection. This
intersection will operate at below LOS F in the construction year (2000) without the proposed
project, U-2711 A, and a LOS D with the proposed project. With U-2711 A, the intersection will
operate at a LOS D in the design year (2020) with and without U-2711B. See Figure 8 for the
intersection configuration.
The signalized intersection of Oak Street and SR 2178 (Hardin Road) was also evaluated.
With U-2711A, this intersection will operate at a LOS B in the construction year and in the design
year without U-271 1B. In the design year (2020) with U-271 1B, the intersection will have a LOS
C.
2
Finally, the signalized intersection of Oak Street and SR 2213 (Church Street) was
evaluated. This intersection will operate at a LOS B in the construction year and in the design
year without U-2711B. Southbound and Northbound left turn lanes will be needed when the
future Oak Street extension (U-2711B) is constructed. These additional turn lanes will not be
constructed as part of the current project.
D. Accident Record
A total of 110 accidents were reported on the studied portion of SR 2241/2179 (Oak
Street) during the period between June 1991 and June 1994. Of these, one accident was fatal.
The total accident rate for the existing facility is 959.02 accidents per one-hundred million
vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM). This greatly exceeds the average of 340.50 ACC/100MVM for
similar two lane facilities in North Carolina and the average of 368.40 ACC/100MVM for similar
four lane facilities for the period from 1992 to 1994.
The proposed project will improve the safety of this section of Oak Street. The
continuous left turn lane will reduce conflicts caused by stopped left-turning vehicles. Turn lanes
at the intersections will shelter turning vehicles from through vehicles while they wait for gaps in
oncoming traffic.
E. Existing Roadwgy Characteristics
Typical Section
Existing Oak Street is a four lane curb and gutter roadway with a pavement width of 15.9
meters (52 feet) from the US 74 Bypass to SR 2178 (Hardin Road). This facility narrows to two
lanes with a pavement width of 5.4 meters (18 feet) and grass shoulder width of 12 meters (4
feet) from SR 2178 to SR 2213 (Church Street).
2. Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way along Oak Street in the project vicinity varies as follows:
- West of US 74 Bypass, existing right-of-way is 9.1 meters (30 feet).
- Between US 74 Bypass and Westwood Drive, existing right-of-way is 45.7 meters
(150 feet).
- Between Westwood Drive and SR 2178 (Hardin Road), existing right-of-way north of
Oak Street is 15.2 meters (50 feet) from the centerline of the existing roadway. Existing
right-of-way south of Oak Street is 12.2 meters (40 feet) from the centerline of the
existing roadway.
- Between SR 2178 (Hardin Road) and SR 2213 (Church Street), existing right-of-way is
9.1 meters (30 feet).
3
3. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit on Oak Street is 60 km/h (35 MPH).
4. Access Control
No control of access exists along Oak Street.
5. Functional Classification
Oak Street is classified as an urban local road.
6. Existing, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No bicycle or pedestrian facilities exist along Oak Street.
7. School Buses
A total of 8 school buses from a special education school, an elementary school, a middle
school, and a high school use Oak Street in the morning and afternoon.
8. Structures
A double barrel 2.4 meter by 2.4 meter (8 foot by 8 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert
is located on Oak Street at the Bracketts Creek crossing located approximately 300 m (1000 feet)
east of the US 74 Bypass intersection.
9. Railroad Involvement
No railroads will be impacted by the proposed improvement.
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following roads intersect existing Oak Street within the project limits: US 74 Bypass,
SR 2179 (Butler Road), SR 2178 (Hardin Road), SR 2213 (South Church Street), Westwood
Street, Robe Street, Golf Course Street, Barbara Street, Harrill Street, and Forest Street. The
intersections of Oak Street with US 74 Bypass, SR 2178, and SR 2213 are the only signalized
intersections within the project limits. All other intersections are stop sign controlled.
11. Utilities
Utility conflicts in the project area will be high. The proposed project may require the
relocation of water, sewer, gas, telephone, and power lines.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Len h of Project
The subject project is 1.9 km (1.2 miles) in total length.
B. Project Termini
The project's western terminus is the intersection of Oak Street with US 74 Bypass. Turn
lanes will be provided at the intersection and at the entrance to the Tri-City Mall. The project's
eastern terminus is the intersection of Oak Street with SR 2213 (South Church Street). TIP
Project U-2711B will extend Oak Street from SR 2213 (South Church Street) to US 221A
(Broadway Street); however, this extension is not currently funded in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
C. Typical Section
The proposed cross-section for Oak Street is a five-lane curb and gutter section which is
19.2 meters (64 feet) from curb-face to curb-face, with 3-meter (10-foot) berms. The roadway
will consist of two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot)
center turn lane. (See Figure 7.)
D. Ri t-of-Way
The proposed right-of-way is 27 meters (90 feet). Additional temporary construction
easements of varying widths will also be required.
E. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 MPH) design speed is recommended.
F. Sneed Limit
The anticipated speed limit for the project is 60 km/h (35 MPH).
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project area.
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No special bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are recommended for the project.
Structures
The existing culvert at Bracketts Creek (see section II-E-8) will be retained and extended.
J. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All proposed intersections along the project will remain at-grade.
As discussed in Section II-B, capacity analyses were performed for all of the signalized
intersections in the project vicinity. The intersection of Oak Street and US 74 Bypass provides a
signalized level of service (LOS) D in 2000, a level of service (LOS) D in 2020. The proposed
intersection configuration is shown in Figure 8.
The intersection of Oak Street and SR 2178 (Hardin Road) will operate at a LOS B in the
construction year and will maintain a LOS C or better through the design year (2020). The
proposed intersection configuration is shown in Figure 9.
Finally, the signalized intersection of Oak Street and SR 2213 (Church Street) will operate
at a LOS B in the construction year and in the design year. When the future extension of Oak
Street to Broadway Street is constructed, additional turn lanes will be needed at this intersection.
Future addition of a southbound left turn lane will allow this intersection to operate at a LOS B in
the year 2020. The proposed intersection configuration is shown in Figure 10.
K. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the proposed project are as follows:
Right-of-Way $ 2,757,000
Construction $2,150,000
Total $ 4,907,000
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Design Alternatives
Alignment
Several widening alternatives were considered during project planning including widening
all to the north or all to the south of the existing centerline of the roadway. The recommended
alignment was chosen in order to meet NCDOT design standards while minimizing relocations. In
addition, impacts to two public facilities, the Forest City Municipal Golf Course and to New
Bethel Church, were avoided.
6
2. Typical Section
A three-lane and a five-lane cross section was studied for the portion of Oak Street
between the entrance to the Tri-City Mall and US 74 Bypass. The three lane section was selected
because it will improve safety for vehicles turning into the businesses along this portion of Oak
Street for a cost of $125,000. A five lane section would cost $400,000 for only a small
improvement in capacity at the intersection of US 74. In addition, the three lane section had the
least impacts to local businesses.
A five-lane curb and gutter section was the only cross-section investigated for portions of
the project along Oak Street between US 74 Bypass and SR 2213 (South Church Street). Other
cross sections were not considered due to the high traffic volumes using this portion of the
roadway. The center turn lane was considered and proposed in order to improve the safety of
vehicles making left turns into businesses and residences along Oak Street.
C. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
The TSM Alternative includes those types of limited construction activities designed to
maximize the utilization and energy efficiency of existing Oak Street. Possible TSM improvement
options within this alternative include adding additional warning signs throughout the study area,
adding turn lanes and making intersection improvements at public roads, and reducing speed
limits. However, the implementation of these TSM measure would not adequately address the
needs of the project, namely reducing congestion, improving the restrictive roadway geometrics
of existing Oak Street, and improving safety for turning vehicles along Oak Street. Although
TSM measures such as the addition of warning signs, the construction of shoulders, and speed
limit reduction could improve safety over the short term, the practical needs lie with an alternative
which would provide a permanent solution to the existing problems along Oak Street.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
No public transportation is available in Forest City. Furthermore, since highway
transportation is the dominant mode of transportation and residential densities are low in this area,
a public transportation alternative would not be a feasible alternative to improving the subject
roadway. In addition, the project involves safety improvements by straightening the alignment
and providing a center turn lane along Oak Street that would not be addressed with public
transportation.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative is the least expensive alternative from a construction cost
standpoint. This alternative also avoids the_limited effects of the proposed project on homes,
businesses, utilities, and undeveloped lands in the project area. However, the "no-build"
alternative would provide no positive effect on safety and capacity along Oak Street and would
cause travel time to worsen. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been rejected, but does
provide basis for comparison with the build alternative.
7
VL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning
Status of Planning
The proposed project is in Forest City's planning and zoning jurisdiction. Forest City
adopted the Forest City Land Use Plan in 1965, no updates have been made and none are
expected in the immediate future. The City adopted a zoning ordinance which is updated yearly.
The City also enforces subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is a mix of residential and commercial land uses. From the project
beginning west of the US 74 Bypass, the project corridor is composed of highway commercial
land uses. There is a car dealership, the Tri-City Mall and several fast food establishments. From
the US 74 Bypass to Hardin Street (SR 2178), the project corridor continues as primarily
commercial. There are restaurants, auto parts businesses, a car dealership, a radio station and
other miscellaneous shops. From Hardin Street to South Church Street, the project terminus, the
project corridor changes from commercial to residential land uses as well as wooded and
undeveloped areas.
Existing Zoning Districts
The existing zoning along the project corridor basically mirrors the areas land uses. The
area surrounding the intersection of US 74 Bypass and the project corridor is zoned for highway
commercial land uses including strip developments which require larger lot sizes and parking
facilities and which are designed to handle a large amount of vehicular traffic. The area from US
74 Bypass to Hardin Street is zoned for commercial uses while the remainder of the project is
zoned for residential uses.
4. Future Land Use
According to local officials, the project area is anticipated to experience commercial
growth along the entire corridor. The existing commercial areas are expected to extend into the
Hardin Street to South Church Street area replacing the existing residential land uses along this
portion of the project. The proposed widening will greatly improve access to these developing
areas.
8
B. Social and Economic Environment
Neighborhood Characteristics
The 1990 Population Census Count indicates that Forest City has a total population of
7,475. In terms of racial composition, there are 5,462 Whites, 1,980 Blacks, 13 Asian or Pacific
Islander, 7 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and 13 categorized as other.
The western half of the project from west of US 74 Bypass to SR 2178 (Hardin Road) is
characterized by office and commercial development. The Tri-City Mall is located southwest of
the intersection of Oak Street and US 74 Bypass. The eastern half of the project from SR 2178
(Hardin Road) to SR 2213 (South Church Street) is mainly characterized as residential with
scattered office and commercial land uses.
2. Economic Factors
Census data provided by the Isothermal Planning and Economic Development
Commission indicated that Rutherford County had a total labor force of 30,290 in 1995. Out of
this total, 28,560 persons are employed. This leaves an unemployment total of 1,730 or 5.7
percent.
The proposed widening will improve the efficiency of travel time for not only commercial
vehicles, but for employees and employers who must use Oak Street to travel to and from their
work stations.
3. Public Facilities
There are three public facilities located along the proposed project. The Forest City
Municipal Golf Course is located north of Oak Street just east of SR 2178 (Hardin Road). New
Bethel Church is located south of Oak Street just east of SR 2213 (South Church Street). The
Forest City Police Station is located north of Oak Street just east of SR 2213.
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in the relocation of nineteen residences and two
businesses. Design alternatives to avoid all relocations would not serve the purpose and need of
the proposed project. In addition, other alignments would either cause more relocations or would
not meet design criteria for the roadway. This relocation estimate is based on preliminary design;
expected relocations may change depending on the detail of the final design.
Of the nineteen relocations, sixteen are tenants. However, according to the NCDOT
relocations office, 75 percent of housing in Rutherford County is rental housing, so the displacees
should be able to be relocated. If necessary, NCDOT will consider Last Resort Housing as
discussed in the policy in Appendix B.
9
The relocation program for the proposed project 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 relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B of this document contains further
information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and copies of the relocation report prepared
for the project.
5. Minority and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed
by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or
the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on
minority and low-income populations.
Of the nineteen residential relocations, nine can be categorized as minority. Sixteen of the
relocations can be categorized as low-income. Alternatives which would avoid the minority/low-
income relocations would cause more relocations, would not meet the design criteria for the
roadway, or would not provide the benefits of the project as discussed in Section II-A.
The minority/low-income relocations are located along the proposed project from
SR 2178 (Hardin Road) to SR 2213 (South Church Street). The project proposes to widen the
existing two lane roadway along the existing alignment to a five lane roadway. The roadway has
been designed to minimize relocations of minority and low-income residents in this area while
improving the alignment in order provide a safer roadway. By incorporating design revisions,
three additional minority relocations were avoided. The proposed project will not segment any of
these existing minority/low-income communities or separate residential areas from nearby
services, such as schools, businesses, or parks.
NCDOT's relocation assistance program will be implemented to mitigate for the effects of
relocation. According to the NCDOT relocation policy, no person will be displaced by NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each relocatee within a reasonable period of time prior to
relocation. In addition, Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the relocatee'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. For more information concerning the NCDOT relocation
programs, see Appendix B.
This project will involve impacts to the community (including relocation of minority and
low-income residents); however, the project also offers significant benefits to the community.
The additional lanes proposed will improve the access to properties adjoining Oak Street. In
addition, the project will improve safety for residents traveling in the area by providing a center
turn lane to shield turning traffic, improving the roadway alignment, and reducing congestion.
10
An informational meeting was held for all residents and business owners along the
proposed project on June 20, 1995. Those in attendance were generally in favor of the proposed
project.
Based on project studies and coordination taken with regard to involved minority and low-
income communities, this project has been implemented in accordance with Executive Order
12898.
6. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion; and it will not interfere with
services and facilities.
C. Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has stated by letter dated June 23, 1995
(See Appendix A) that "there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which
may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) will be affected
by the project construction." Therefore, no archaeological investigation was conducted in
connection with this project.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The area of potential effect for historic architectural properties was delineated and the
maps and files of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were consulted. Within the area
of potential effect, this search revealed no properties listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (NHRP) or on the State Study List. In addition, in the area of potential effect, none of the
properties over fifty years old are eligible for the National Register. The SHPO has concurred
with these determinations (see Appendix A).
D. Natural Resources
MethodolM
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Forest City), NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:2000), and Natural Resource
Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps of Rutherford county. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base map of Rutherford County (NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis). Information concerning the occurrence of
11
federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species dated April 1, 1996 and the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologists
on 30 August 1995. 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). 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" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
2. Physical Resources
Rutherford County occurs in the piedmont physiographic region located in the Felsic
Crystalline Soil System. The topography in this system is extremely variable. Broad gentle
sloping uplands are common, as are moderately to steeply sloping areas. The average elevation
throughout the project area is 305.0 m (1000.0 ft) above mean sea level.
Soil types in the immediate project area have not been mapped as of this date. A soil
survey of the county is currently in progress. There are four soil types likely to occur in the
project area. Table 1 provides an inventory of these soils.
Table 1. Coun Soils Likely to Occur in The Project Area
Mapping Unit Percent Sloe H dric Classification
Cecil 0-25 -
Wehadkee 0-2 A
Bethlehem 245 -
Pacelot 2-80 -
Notes: 1."A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as major components.
2. ` -" denotes non-hydric soils
The Cecil series consists of very steep, well drained moderately permeable soils on ridges
and side slopes of the piedmont uplands. They are deep to saprolite and very deep to bedrock.
Very deep, poorly drained soils on flood plains along streams that drain from the piedmont
and mountains describe the Wehadkee series. These soils are formed in loamy sediments.
The Bethlehem series consists of well drained, moderately deep soils on ridgetops and side
slopes. These soils generally occur in the upper part of the piedmont.
Finally, the Pacelot series consists of very steep, well drained, moderately permeable soils.
These soils are formed in material weathered mostly from acid crystalline rocks of the piedmont
uplands.
12
3. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources relationship to major
water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Bracketts Creek (EHNR index no. 9-37-2) and five of its tributaries are located in the
project area. They are all part of the Broad River Basin. Bracketts Creek originates north of the
proposed project and flows in a southeasterly direction approximately 8.0 km (5.0 miles) to its
confluence with Floyds Creek. Floyds Creek continues in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 8.0 km (5.0 miles) to its confluence with Broad River. Unnamed tributary 1 flows
in a southerly direction to its confluence with Bracketts Creek. Unnamed tributary 1 a flows
approximately 24.0 m (80.0 ft) in a southerly direction parallel to Oak Street to its confluence
with unnamed tributary 1. Unnamed tributary 2 originates north of the Forest City Golf Course
and flows in a southeasterly direction to its confluence with Bracketts Creek. Unnamed tributaries
3 and 4 flow in southerly directions to their confluence with unnamed tributary 2. Finally,
unnamed tributary 5 flows parallel to Oak Street on its east side for approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft)
and then in an easterly direction towards its confluence with Bracketts Creek. Specific
information on the water resources in the project area is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Water Resources C haracteristics
Stream Width Depth Substrate Flow Clarity
Bracketts Creek 2.4(8.0) 1.5(5.0) si sa,co mod poor
UT 1 -
1.2(4.0) .
0.3(l.0) si sa fast Rood
UT la 0.6(2.0) 0.15 0.5 si sa slow fair
UT 2 0.9(3.0) 0.15 0.5 si sa fast good
UT 3 0.9(3.0) 0.3(l.0) si sa mod fair
UT 4 0.3(l.0) 0.15 0.5 si,sa mod fair
NOTES: * UT denotes unnamed tributary.
* Values are given in meters (feet).
* The abbreviations si, sa and co denote silt, sand and cobble.
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). Any unnamed stream which is not named in the schedule of stream
classifications carries the same classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is
tributary. The DEM classification of Bracketts Creek is "C" from its source to its confluence with
Floyds Creek. Class "C" uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
13
secondary recreation and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-
1 or WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 miles) of project
study area.
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the 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. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. The BMAN classification for Bracketts Creek is currently
unavailable.
Point Source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. The only registered discharger for Bracketts Creek is the Town of
Alexander Mills Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). This facility is located approximately
8.0 km (5.0 miles) downstream of the proposed project.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water resources such as:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic
spills.
In order to reduce these impacts, the following will be implemented:
• Sedimentation Control guidelines and Best Management Practices will be implemented prior
to construction and maintained throughout the life of the project.
• Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff.
4. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study areas as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution between biotic communities throughout
the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses
14
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. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an
asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations of the general vegetation in or near the
project ROW. Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and riparian fringe. Many faunal species are
highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed and may
not be mentioned for each community located.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
Maintained/disturbed lands are intensively managed where humans structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession. Fallow fields, powerline easements, residential, and commercial
developments comprise this community.
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to a rich assemblage of herbaceous
plants. Lawn grass is prevalent with some encroachment of ragweed, Queen Anne's lace and
dandelion. These same herbaceous plants are found in fallow fields and along powerline
easements. In addition, goldenrod, thoroughwort and frost aster are abundant. In more disturbed
areas around old home sites and vacant lots, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and/or blackberry
forms dense thickets.
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for
foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals associated with
ecotones are woodchuck, least shrew, southern short-tailed shrew, hispid cautionary and eastern
cottontail rabbits.
Fallow fields and other open areas adjacent to forested communities support a myriad of
bird life. Carolina wren, robin, basswood thrush, northern cardinal, common grackle, and turkey
vulture were observed in the project study area. In addition, meadowlark and eastern bluebird
may utilize this community by perching on telephone wires or fences overlooking the maintained
community where they forage for insects. The abhorred-tailed hawk is an important predator
known to forage in this community preying on rats, mice and other rodents.
The eastern fence lizard, inhabits open, sunny situations such as building sites, and fence
rows usually in close proximity to trees. American toad, and box turtle, are very common reptiles
and amphibians that may inhabit disturbed areas.
15
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Small tracts of Mixed-Pine hardwood forest are found in the study area. Short leaf pine
and loblolly pine share the canopy with tulip tree, sycamore and black oak. The understory
consists of Virginia pine, dogwood, black cherry and red maple. The herbaceous layer supports
pipsissewa, ebony spleenwort and poison ivy.
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are adjacent to disturbed areas, thus the
faunal composition is similar to what occurs in the maintained/disturbed community. Species
more commonly associated with upland forest include white-footed mouse, raccoon, white-tailed
deer and gray squirrel*.
Riparian Fringe
Narrow strips of riparian forest border the banks of many of the small creeks in the study
area. Dominant canopy species found here include sycamore and water oak. The mid-story and
shrub layer is comprised mainly of sapling species from the canopy. Honeysuckle, red maple and
tag alder are also commonly found.
The riparian edge provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals. Birds often
associated with streamside communities include red-winged blackbird, white-throated sparrow,
song sparrow and northern cardinal. Yellow-rumped warblers, hooded warbler and common
yellowthroat may also be found in this community. Yellow warbler, red-eyed vireo, Carolina
wren and mourning dove may also frequent this area. A bird of prey commonly found in
bottomlands and alluvial forests is the barred owl . The barred owl preys on rodents, insects,
small birds, frogs and sometimes fish.
Mammals which may frequent the riparian edge include white-footed mouse and raccoon.
In addition, white-tailed deer and gray squirrel may also forage in or near this community.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring
peeper and upland chorus frog breed in semi-permanent pools during the spring. Rat snake,
worm snake, ring-necked snake and queen snake may be found here as well. Snapping turtle and
box turtle may also occur along in this community. Copperheads, which are important predators
of small mammals, may occur in the project vicinity.
b. Aquatic Communities
The primary water body in the project area is Bracketts Creek. Physical characteristics of
the water bodies and conditions of the water resource affect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities.
16
A variety of biological organisms utilize typical piedmont stream community. Although
some fish were observed during the site investigation, none were captured nor identified. The
rosyside dace, swallowtail shiner and bluehead chub may likely be present. These fish feed on
detritus, algae and zooplankton and serve as prey for bluegill, pumpkinseed and green sunfish.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in
their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic. Some water dependent salamanders likely to
occur in the project, are two-lined salamander, three-lined salamander and northern dusky
salamander. Green frog and pickerel frog could also inhabit some of the grassy areas along the
streams or the pond in the project area.
Good habitat for snapping turtle can be found in the project area. Queen snake and
northern water snake are the snakes most likely to be encountered in the aquatic community.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
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 a study
corridor width of 36.5 m (120.0 ft). Project construction will not require the entire study corridor
width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Estimated Im acts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Maintained/Disturbed 4.0(9.0)
Mixed-Pine Hardwood 0.4 0.9
Riparian Fringe 0.08 .20
TOTALS 4.5 10.1
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
The data in Table 3 predicts only the direct taking of land and community types during of
highway construction. There may be a number of indirect effects which could occur. Indirect
effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change significantly. The
mortality rates for all species is not anticipated to increase because the total amount of roadway
will not increase. The riparian zone of Bracketts Creek is likely an important corridor for animal
movement. The existing roadway already disrupts the natural corridor movement, so widening of
the road is not expected to introduce a significantly new factor except during the actual
construction phases of the proposed project.
Extension of culverts and other in-stream activities are potential sources of serious stream
modifications. Extreme care must be exercised during these activities. It is anticipated that
permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur from increased
sedimentation and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities
17
to feed and obtain oxygen. Filter feeders may be covered by the sedimentation, thus preventing
their ability to feed. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the
smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from removal
of streamside vegetation may also increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less
oxygen and results in a reduction of aquatic life dependent on high oxygen concentrations.
In order to reduce the effect of construction on aquatic communities, sedimentation and
erosion control measures will be strictly enforced during construction of this project.
Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, 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 material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
a. Wetlands
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Three potential wetlands may be impacted by the
proposed project and will need further investigation once the wetland delineation is requested.
Site 1 is located on the southern end of the project on the edge of a small pond. The soil
color in this area is 2.5 YR 4/2 and it is saturated to the surface. The dominant vegetation in this
location includes soft needle rush, alder, and black willow. Estimated impacts resulting from road
construction for this site are 0.06 ha (0.14 ac).
. Site 2 is located at the intersection of US 74 and Oak Street and is on both sides of Oak
Street. The existing roads and adjacent shopping center probably contributed to the creation of
this wetland. The soil color in this location is 2.5 YR 4/2 and the soil is saturated to the surface.
The dominant vegetation at this site is black willow, spotted impatiens, and tear thumb.
Estimated impacts resulting from road construction for this site are 0.09 ha (0.2 ac).
Finally, site 3 is a small wetland band approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) wide bordering UT 2.
The dominant vegetation at this site is soft rush, black alder and black willow. Soils along the
creek are 10 YR 3\1 at 75 mm (0-3 in) and 10 YR 6\1 100-300 mm (4-12 in). Estimated impacts
resulting from road construction for this site are 0.01 ha (0.02 ac).
18
?36
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The construction of the proposed project will impact jurisdi ional wetlands and surface
waters. Table 4 summarizes impacts to jurisdictional wetlands to ated in the project area in
addition to Cowardin classification.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdic tonal Wetlands
Wetland Site Impacted Area Cowardin Classification
Site 1 0.06 ha 0.14 ac PEM1B
Site 2 0.09 ha 0.2 ac PEM1B
Site 3 0.01 ha 0.02 ac PF01J
Note: Cowardin values are as follows: P=Palustrine, EMI=Emergent persistent, B=Saturated,
FO=Forested, I =Broad-leaved deciduous, J=Intermittently flooded.
Actual impacts may be less than reported because the entire right-of-way is not likely to be
impacted by construction activities. The amount of wetland and surface water impacts may be
modified by any changes in the project design.
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C 1344), a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (26)) may be applicable
for impacts of discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated jurisdictional
wetlands.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
In addition, the project is located in a designated "trout" county where NCDOT is
required to obtain a letter of approval from the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Final
permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
19
d. Wetland Miti ag tion
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
The purpose and need of the proposed project cannot be met without impacting surface
waters. Due to the location of unnamed tributaries 1, 2, and 3 and the two small wetlands,
avoidance is not a practicable alternative.
Some impacts to Waters of the United States will occur as a result of the proposed
project. A reasonable effort will be made to avoid wetland areas during the design phase if it is
practicable.
In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands, the following measures will be implemented.
1. Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
2. Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control Best Management Practices for
the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
3. Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies and
wetlands.
4. Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation
according the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Corps of Engineers. Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rests with the
Corps of Engineers.
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of
the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act. As of April 1, 1996, the Fish and Wildlife Service lists five
federally-protected species for Rutherford County.
20
Peregrine Falcon (Endangered)
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high
cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but they
may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as
large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized
birds such as pigeons.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon does not exist in the project area (see above
description of habitat requirements). In addition, a review of the Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species and Unusual habitats data base contains no records of the peregrine falcon in the project
vicinity. This does not preclude the possibility that peregrine falcon may forage in the project
vicinity. Project construction is not expected to impair foraging opportunities for the peregrine
falcon. Therefore, project construction will have no impact on the peregrine falcon.
Indiana Bat (Endangered)
The range of the Indiana bat centers around cavernous limestone regions in the eastern
United States. The Indiana bat has different summer and winter habitat requirements. Winter
habitat is in caves and abandoned mines that usually have standing water on the floor. The bat
migrate to the winter habitat between September and November; they stay there with occasional
periods of activity until they emerge in mid-March to early May. Hibernation only occurs in
regions where winter temperatures are stable and are around four degrees Celsius. Little is
known of the summer habitat of the Indiana bat, it is thought that they disperse throughout their
range and spend the summer foraging alone over streams or along forest margins. They have
been found under loose bark on dead and living trees along small to medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian vegetation overhanging the water
by more than 3 m (9 ft). Streams that have been stripped of their riparian vegetation do not appear
to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as foraging areas and as migration routes are extremely
important to this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There are no caves or mine shafts in the project area with standing water on the floor for
Indiana bats to use as winter roosting sites. The largest riparian system that will be impacted by
the project is Bracketts Creek. The portion-of Bracketts Creek in the project area is located in a
developed area bordered by a shopping center and US 74 highway. Portions of the creek have
had the mature riparian vegetation removed and does not provide optimum foraging or nesting
21
habitat for this species. A review of the Natural Heritage Program data base of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats has no record of the Indiana bat for the project area. Therefore, no impacts will
occur to this species as a result of project construction.
Rock Gnome Lichen (Endangered)
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These
high humidity environments occur on high elevation (> 1220.0 m/ 4000.0 ft) mountaintops and
cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (< 762.0 m/ 2500.0 ft) deep
gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock
faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The
rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreae in these vertical
intermittent seeps. The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to
habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie
adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in
the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be
found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no habitat for the rock gnome lichen in the project vicinity. The proposed project
is not located on a high elevation >1220.0 m (4000.0 ft) fog covered mountaintop or cliff. It is
also not located in a deep gorge <762.0 m (2500 ft). The elevation at the project site is
approximately 305.0 m (1000.0 ft). A review of the Natural Heritage Program data base of Rare
Species and Unique Habitats has no record of the rock gnome lichen for the project area.
Therefore, project construction will not impact the rock gnome lichen.
Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf (Threatened)
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that
grow from a subsurface rhizome. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen, and leathery.
Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jug shaped, and dark brown in color. They are found near the
base of the petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in
boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described as
upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the project vicinity along the streams and in
the mix pine hardwood communities. Surveys for this species were conducted by NCDOT
biologists on March 22, 1995. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf was not found during the field survey. A
22
review of the Natural Heritage Program data base of Rare Species and Unique Habitats has no
record of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf for the project area. Therefore, project construction will
not impact the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
White Irisette (Endangered)
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously branching stems. The basal leaves
are bluish green in color and are 1/3 to 1/2 the overall height of the plant. White flowers are
borne at the ends of winged stems and the fruit is a round, pale to medium brown capsule
containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North Carolina. This herb is limited to
an area bounded by White Oak Mountain, Sugar Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock. White
irisette is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of upland woods where a thin canopy is
present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed the deep litter layer that is usually
present. This herb occurs on rich, basic soils that are probably weathered from amphibolite.
White irisette depends on a form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for white irisette is found in the project area in the upland woods. Surveys for this
plant were conducted during the flowering season in June. White irisette was not found during
the field survey; therefore, project construction will not impact the white irisette.
b. Federal Candidate and State-Protected Species
There are five federal candidate species listed for Rutherford County. Federal candidate
species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species status (if afforded state protection) and
the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the project study area. This list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
23
Table 5. Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species for Rutherford Count
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Ne t ma m 'ster Alle han woodrat SC Yes
Myotis subulatus leibii Eastern small footed
bat SC Yes
Dendr ica cerulea cerulean warbler SR** No
An ' e a neus* green salamander E Yes
Sen ci millef lium divided leaf ragwort T No
Saxifr1ig n Gray's saxifrage C No
M tr i r s* sweet inesa C Yes
Notes: * Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years.
* * SR: any species which has not been listed by the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which
exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program to need monitoring.
Surveys for the species listed in Table 5 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 reveals no records for the species listed above in the project
vicinity.
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
SR 2241/SR 2179 from US 74 Bypass (including mall area) to SR 2213 in Rutherford County on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes an inventory of existing
noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It
also includes 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.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those 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.
24
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 N1.
2. 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 N2.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and
time period, has the 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.
3. 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 levels measured in two locations 15 meters from the roadway
were 59.5 and 64.3 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels
are presented in Table N3.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise
prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 0.3 and 1.2 dBA of the
measured noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences in
dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
4. Analysis Results
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4.
Information included in this table consists of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the
project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
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
N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
25
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5. These are noted in terms of those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under 23 CFR Part 772, twenty-three
residential receptors are predicted to be impacted by the widening of SR 2241/SR 2179. Other
information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in
each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +2 to +10 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.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED NOISE IMPACTS
Number of Impacted Receptors 23
Countours
----------------------------- r-------------- T-------------
Protect Section 72 dBA 67 dBA
____
Mall Entrance to US 74 Bypass 14.7 meters T 17.6 meters
US 74 Bass to §i_!] 78 , 14.7 meters , 24.3 meters
SR 2178 to SR 2213 14.7 meters 17.6 meters
Number of Receptors
With a Substantial Impact 3
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
of the categories discussed in Section VI-E-4. Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic
noise impacts of the project were considered. Noise abatement alternatives investigated for the
project include: highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, and noise
barriers.
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation ofthe
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
26
sensitive areas. The location of the proposed alignment has been sited to minimize project cost
and environmental impacts. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise
abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity
and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
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.
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 meters from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the
area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
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. 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 two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
6. "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, 20 residences 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 0 to +4 dBA. As previously
noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise
levels is more readily noticed.
27
7. 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 the majority 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.
8. Future Land Use
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODS, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date,
local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along
the proposed facility.
9. mma
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not considered reasonable as
part of this project and is not recommended. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
reports are required for this project.
F. Air Quality Analysis
1. Introduction
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 (S02), 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.
28
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 along the project. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year
of 2000 and the design year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors"
and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
2. Background CO Concentration
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
3. 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. 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. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements
may be offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind
of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area
mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution
is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter
emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). 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.
29
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. 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.
4. Air Quality Analysis Results
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be along the proposed right-of-way
line at a distance of 18.3 meters (60') for the build alternative and along the existing right-of-way
line at a distance of 9.1 meters (30') for the no-build alternative. The one-hour CO concentrations
for these receptors for the years 2000 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Build No-Build
Nearest Sensitive Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
R/W 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.4
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum permitted (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-A4 for input
data and output.
5. Air Quality During Construction
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.
6. Summarv
The project is located in Rutherford County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
30
G. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the impact of land acquisition or construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Such soils are defined by the US Soil Conservation Service, based on high crop yield with a
minimum input of energy and economic resources. Projects which effect land that has been
previously converted to non-agricultural land uses are exempt from the requirements of the Act.
The project area is composed of urban developed land uses with further urban growth expected.
Therefore, further consideration of farmland impacts is not required.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Representatives of the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit - Environmental Section performed a
field reconnaissance along the project corridor. In addition to the field survey, a records search of
all appropriate environmental agencies was conducted in order to identify any additional problem
sites. Two potential sites for underground storage tanks (USTs) were identified. These sites are
operational facilities. Descriptions of each facility located on the project are given below.
i No. 1
Phillips 66 owned by Petroleum World is located on the south side of Oak Street,
approximately one-eighth of a mile east of the US 74 Bypass. Currently registered with the
Division of Environmental Management, there are three 10,000 gallon gasoline USTs, one 6000
gallon diesel UST, and one 6000 gallon kerosene UST located on-site. They are all constructed
of steel with cathodic protection and were installed on September 22, 1984. The pump island and
UST pit are both located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of Oak Street. The proposed
alignment will have no impacts to these UST's.
i No. 2
Drop In #3 owned by Robbins Oil Company is located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Oak Street and Hardin Street. Currently registered with the Division of
Environmental Management, there are one 8000 gallon, one 6000 gallon, and one 4000 gallon
gasoline USTs located on-site. They were all of steel construction and were installed on May 2,
1980. The pump island is located approximately 56 feet from the centerline of Oak Street. The
proposed alignment will have no impacts to these UST's.
The Geographic Information Service was consulted for the project corridor in Rutherford
County. The study revealed that there were no regulated or unregulated landfills or dump sites
within the project limits. There is one groundwater incident (#6632) located within the project
limits: however, the site has been deemed clean and will not affect the project.
31
Flood Hazard Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns
Both Rutherford County and Forest City are participants in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Bracketts Creek is in a designated flood hazard zone, but the crossing is not in
a detailed flood study. From field observation, no buildings were observed in the project vicinity
with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. The proposed roadway widening and culvert
extension will not have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain, nor on the
associated flood hazard.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable, and groundwater
resources should not be affected, as little, if any, excavation will be needed.
J. Geodetic Markers
The proposed project will impact two geodetic survey markers. The North Carolina
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Local Officials
The subject project has been coordinated with local government officials. Local
governments were contacted during the initial scoping phase of the project. Written comments
from local officials are included in Appendix A.
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens workshop on the project was held on June 15, 1995 in the Cool Spring Junior
High School Cafeteria. Representatives of Forest City attended this meeting. No opposition to
the project was expressed by local officials. Many of the questions from citizens concerned
impacts to individual properties and businesses. No other objections arose other than questions
about appraisals and relocations.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments have been requested from the agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes
agencies from which written comments have been received. Comments are included in Appendix
A.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
32
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Rutherford County Commissioner
Mayor of Forest City
TT/plr
33
? U
- ?. ti _ TnermN G Y / Frsi I
"
W
?Union
n:mney ocw U T H JE tR F R D
c -[IS
a Larr 6g GOMey 7 West- Sunshine
1
mmster
Mollls
gee lure 74 6 1iy. oosn poll, 401.
Wit
Ruth i
\ ulherford° Forest os Uc
O cI I
?\t y
Dmdae r '
e
I. is der 74
_ - _ ' it 221 C roleen t C
411*1 ` ,? enro
N
1 /Hems "ffsid .r
1? 5
VIC 221
A111" --I ALT

LPL
:ij"t!!e r
"
sus
n,
A

nu
!! .
Ztss
•

uu .
au

..
° U ,per
.:::..
st
.;.,
uu
711 l9 fnii!?i!:. :::::iii*!^•!.,
"c?y!ys.??i?i;t^
llli

srr,

loop FOREST QTY
Ar
;!!! POP. 7,688
,?
V^Tr^?
..:: • ? m*
UA1 1? G .rJ
w oft 46.p 'Mai,
St. 71
.01 ]Lt •L: J ?? A

?ij!jii'•kijy;Y! tj''•
BEGIN
PROJECT r ?I°' j! .:. ltu 1271 q
°

tiu 4
oe
I E
» ?
` ? r
?\
i
?
*
PR
OJECT

lama "Ill!
It.

lug
l7fl 'y
' ,
}

o
? ?? ii
?
r!jt!-: .?7 1d•
iLl yre?
..

u 77]1 ?::-!:t:. !A• n \
.:... .... e:«!,e,l ,.
??

In 'rt :.? ?:.,v:WV ..

1173
¦ I 11gr
11y4
?I?igrrg>• lflf ?i;
,T 111 ALEXANO
° 'Ni j" MILLS
r.r 1rn - €jiii
POP. 643
" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
'BRANCH
WIDENING OF SR 2241/SR 2179
(OAK STREET) FROM US 74 BYPASS
TO SR 2213 ( SOUTH CHURCH STREET)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-2711AS
FIGURE 1

rr
VP V?lu
t:
`?? _ r

¦
-jO
ti'r

a -

r?

1 J
?
all
III! I i I I EI X 1 1 s? ., ?? _ Q? aa 1
?) I I ! 1 It, ?. Ole Wo
,!!!q 1? I 11 . i 1? i? €Y?o? a W =z ?
I 1,1,. II t,ll i I ! ! I ?, t ,,I It Iti i1 I I I I •o• ?_ 4 ?
I?Iilililllllitlti 1 ! ! 111 I I luf6ifl?llltlllllf 11111???
111jl1j1 p j I p 8 z 0m? '• r ^ '? (? R S ?W
YQ IC I
iJ
t0oA1IIIfT?m''IllkrUl l ?i'<11?IT•,•TO •••r?r•?0 s o_n? WV0
P- w
? ? ?tio=Q??oQ J ?00 - WQ 2
LL
7- 1
• ? 1 I 1 .. •, A A 1 `•
1'• A A K
www. 1 A 1 9
? -- --• __ it .E " ?w
1 - 1 A w?• a 1
/0000,? h-,

jl r
I
1
A I. .
1 1
. A
1
1
:1 ? 1 lLL{ ?1 ••
g/ 11 • ?
-o
1
1 ¦
1 ? ql ?? tl ¦
?/ • ? 1
b A
A
f
i
? i
Al
i.
LEGEND
XXX VPD Vehicles/Day
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)=K30
K30 30th highest hourly volumes as % of ADT
D Directional Flow(%)
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TT8T (%)
Note: DHV PM DD
(0,0)
Indicates the direction D.
Reverse How direction for AM Peak.
FIGURE 4
ESTIMATED 2000
ADT VOLUMES
U-2711 A
Oak Street
N
A
5241
o?
7674 1041
PM D Mall Entrance
(2,0) :s1 6411
10611 0 ;
a
1274 4719
19762 27600
9 PM-0
(2.1) 51

1356
11648

3467 1144 j
?
a-M
S3 (0,0) 10
381
7585
9 53
(21)
PPM
5674
oc
0
3874 6463
574 52 11 PM 9
(o,o)
N
J
J
o is
m
16J 2878
6381 7137
PM_ PM
50 (t 1) 9 S1 ( 1-9
785 152
3941

US 74 Bypass
Hardin Road
Church Street
LEGEND
)= VPD Vehicles/Day
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)-K30
K30 30th highest hourly volumes as % of ADT
D Directional Flow(%)
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TT8T (%)
Note: DHV PMDD
(0,0)
Indicates the direction D.
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak.
Oak Street
cm
Ch
850
o
lc
2300
11600

Mall Entrance
PM D
51
7 77
(Z,0) 9300

15500 0 ;
a

36800 3200 6200
45600

PM D

51
a (2,1)

800
15500
6800 2700 Q
o-P-"-
53 (0,0) 10
900
I
8400
a PM X53
7600 (z,1)
?c
P
5800 9500
-.1 PM a
500 52 (o,o)
N
N 9
?c
e
2300 2800
8900 ' D 8100
50 ?- -
('')x1600 51 ? ? '? e
300
5200
FIGURE 5
ESTIMATED 2020
PART A ONLY
ADT VOLUMES
U-2711 A
N?
US 74 Bypass
Hardin Road
Church Street
LEGEND
XXX VPD Vehicles/Day
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)-K30
K30 30th highest hourly volumes as % of ADT
D Directional Flow(%)
PM PM Peak
(0,0) Duals, TTST (%)
Note: DHV PM DD
(0,0)
Indicates the direction D.
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak.
15300
' PM D
s,
(2,0)
Oak Street
N
a
910
o
?
2300

Mall Entrance
3000 a
19800 0
a
3000 7900
46100
1
29200
0 PM D
(2'1) 51
1000
22900
i
t
2700
6600 Qi
53
9
(0,0) 1500
21000
1000
9500
4 PM
50 (11) 8.5
1600
20000
11
3!!
Q
34500 "
53 < (1 r1) 9
-
a PM D53
13000 (2,1)
N 9
e)
6000 13700
a-PM-
5300 52 (0,0)
a
a
d N
n
FIGURE 6
ESTIMATED 2020
WITH FUTURE
EXTENSION TO
US 221
ADT VOLUMES
U-2711 A
N
US 74 Bypass
Hardin Road
4600
14500 Church Street
s, PM
s
3000 (11) Future Extension
_I= (Not Currently Funded)
8500
31700 US 221 A
51 (,'1) 9
4 "" -

Von
ti
cm
Z
O
I-
C.)
W
Cl)
J
Q
V
a
0
W
N
O
CL
O
IL
Z
O
-
W
W
I-
i--
Z
Q
m
w
Z
1
LO
f4t I
N CD
N
T
E ap
N v
r
U _
E is
E iv
Ln
r
U
E
E N
N
T
c? v
E --
0 it
?v
N
T -
m
N
0 N
W
cc
Z)
0
UL
U-2711 A
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM
US 74 AND OAK STREET
O
m
m
m
-i
US 74 BYPASS
---------------
------.....
O
m
m
o '
m .
US 74 BYPASS
,yl L US 74 BYPASS
R-
?--
-?
r
US 74 BYPASS
--------------
--- - - - - - - - - - - -
------------- -
_.--.------ -
m
EXISTING
CONFIGURATION
N?
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED
CONFIGURATION
FIGURE 8
U-2711 A
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM
HARDIN ROAD AND OAK STREET
O
D
3D
m
m
HARDIN ROAD
HARDIN ROAD

O
D
X
N
m
m
m
.a

EXISTING
CONFIGURATION
HARDIN ROAD
N
NOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED
CONFIGURATION
HARDIN ROAD

o:
mm ,
FIGURE 9
U-2711 A
INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM
CHURCH STREET AND OAK STREET
CHURCH STREET
O
EXISTING
q CONFIGURATION
CHURCH STREET
N -Abbbb-
NOT TO SCALE
p
N ,
I PROPOSED
CONFIGURATION
CHURCH STREET

CHURCH STREET
FIGURE 10

FIGURE I I
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m 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 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 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 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: world Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

FIGURE 12
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
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 Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
FIGURE 13
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS `
(Leq)
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 74 Bypass
(including mall area) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. N 8.2890401, TIP M U-2711 A ?
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. SR 2241 / SR 2179, 340 meters east Grassy 59.5
of SR 2175 (Hardin Road).
2. SR 2241 / SR 2179, 395 meters west Grassy 64.3 '
of SR 2175 (Hardin Road).
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters
from the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
FIGURE 14
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 74 Bypass
(including mall area) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. N 8.2890401, TIP N U-2711 A
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL STA DISTANCE (m)
Beginning of Project (mall area) to US 74 Bypass
1 Business C SR 2241 35.0 L 54 SR 2241 35.0 L
2 Business C " 55.0 R 50 " 57.0 R
3 Business C " 30.0 R 55 " 30.0 R
4 Business C " 75.0 R 47 " 75.0 R
5 Business C " 32.0 L 55 " 32.0 L
6 Business C " 12.0 L 60 " 23.0 L
7 Business C " 29.0 R 55 " 30.0 R
US 74 Bypass to SR 2178 (Hardin Road)
8 Business C SR 2241 62.0 L 55 " 62.0 L
9 Business C It 42.0 L 58 " 42.0 L
10 Business C " 32.0 R 60 " 32.0 R
11 Business C " 53.0 L 56 " 53.0 L
12 Business C " 35.0 R 60 " 35.0 R
13 Business C " 35.0 R 60 " 32.0 R
14 Business C " 105.0 L 49 " 107.0 L
15 Business C to 36.0 R 60 to 36.0 R
16 Business C It 65.0 R 54 to 65.0 R
17 Business C " 26.0 R 62 " 26.0 R
18 Business C " 31.0 L 61 to 30.0 L
19 Business C " 35.0 R 60 " 35.0 R
20 Business C " 33.0 L 60 to 23.0 L
21 Business C " 20.0 L 64 " 20.0 L
22 Business C " 22.0 L 63 " 23.0 L
23 Business C " 22.0 L 63 " 22.0 L
24 Business C to 25.0 L 62 " 27.0 L
25 Business C to 37.0 L 59 " 37.0 L
26 Business C to 54.0 R 56 " 51.0 R
1/3

NOISE
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

- - 62 + 8
- - 57 + 7
- - 63 + 8
- - 54 + 7
- - 62 + 7
- - 65 + 5
- - 63 + B
- - 56 + 3
- - 62 + 4
- - 64 + 4
- - 60 + 4
- - 64 + 4
- - 64 + 4
- - 52 + 3
- - 63 + 3
- - 58 + 4
- - 66 + 4
- - 65 + 4
- - 64 + 4
- - 67 + 7
- - 68 + 4
- - 67 + 4
- - 67 + 4
- - 66 + 4
- - 63 + 4
- - 60 + 4

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 14
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 74 Bypass
(including mall area) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. N 8.2890401, TIP N U-2711 A
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL STA DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
SR 2178 (Hardin Road) to SR 2213 (South Church Street)
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
27 Residence B SR 2241 67.0 L 48 SR 2241 67.0 L - - 56 + 8
28 Business C " 30.0 R 55 " 27.0 R - - 64 + 9
29 Residence B " 8.0 R 62 " 4.0 R - - * 68 + 6
30 Residence B " 14.0 L 60 " 10.0 L - - * 68 + 8
31 Residence B " 12.0 L 60 " 11.0 L - - * 68 + B
32 Residence B " 10.0 R 61 " 5.0 R - - * 68 + 7
33 Residence B •' 10.0 L 61 " 16.0 L - - * 67 + 6
34 Residence B " 9.0 R 62 " 2.0 R - - * 68 + 6
35 Business C " 15.0 L 59 " 22.0 L - - 65 + 6
36 Residence B " 7.0 R 62 " 2.0 R - - * 68 + 6
37 Residence B " 15.0 R 59 " 10.0 R - - * 68 + 9
38 Residence B " 15.0 L 59 " 19.0 L - - * 66 + 7
39 Residence B " 15.0 L 59 " 22.0 L - - 65 + 6
40 Residence B '• 20.0 R 58 " 15.0 R - - * 68 * + 10
41 Residence B " 20.0 R 56 " 12.0 R - - * 68 * + 10
42 Residence B " 12.0 L 60 " 9.0 L - - * 68 + 8
43 Residence B 45.0 L 52 51.0 L - - 58 + 6
44 Residence B " 46.0 L 52 " 52.0 L - - 58 + 6
45 Business C " 34.0 L 54 " 46.0 L - - 59 + 5
46 Residence B " 55.0 L 50 " 70.0 L - - 55 + 5
47 Residence B " 53.0 L 50 " 67.0 L - - 56 + 6
48 Residence B " 70.0 L 48 " 83.0 L - - 53 + 5
49 Residence B " 7.0 L 62 " 0.0 L - - * 68 + 6
50 Residence B " 7.0 L 62 15.0 L - - * 68 + 6
51 Residence B 13.0 R 60 22.0 R - - 65 + 5
52 Residence B " 15.0 L 59 " 10.0 L - - * 68 + 9
53 Residence B " 40.0 L 53 " 35.0 L - - 62 + 9
54 Residence B •' 9.0 R 62 20.0 R - - * 66 + 4
55 Residence B " 12.0 R 60 " 25.0 R - - 64 + 4
56 Residence B •' 16.0 L 59 " 23.0 L - - 65 + 6
57 Residence B " 17.0 L 59 " 9.0 L - - * 68 + 9
2/3
11

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). 0 -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 14
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 74 Bypass
(including mall area) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. N 8.2890401, TIP M U-2711 A
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL STA DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
SR 2178 (Hardin Road) to SR 2213 (South Church Street) Cont'd
58 Residence B of 25.0 L 56
59 Business C " 10.0 R 61 "
60 Residence B " 18.0 L 59 "
61 Residence B " 13.0 L 60 "
62 Business C " 20.0 R 58
63 Residence B " 15.0 L 59 "
64 Residence B 10.0 L 61 "
65 Business C " 45.0 L 52
66 Business C " 13.0 R 60
67 Residence B " 35.0 R 54
68 Residence B " 35.0 R 54
3/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
19.0 L - - " 66 * + 10
30.0 R - - 63 + 2
9.0 L - - " 68 + 9
4.0 L - - * 68 + 8
30.0 R - - 63 + 5
4.0 L - - " 68 + 9
4.0 L - - " 68 + 7
40.0 L - - 60 + 8
20.0 R - - 66 + 6
46.0 R - - 59 + 5
35.0 R - - 62 + 8

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 15
TABLE N5
\
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 74 Bypass
(including mall area) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. M 8.2890401, TIP N U-2711 A

Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. Beginning of Project (mall area) to 66 62 57 <14.7m 17.6m 0 0 0 0 0
US 74 Bypass
2. US 74 Bypass to SR 2178 68 64 59 <14.7m 24.3m 0 0 0 0 0
(Hardin Road)
3. SR 2178 (Hardin Road) to 66 62 57 <14.7m 17.6m 0 23 0 0 0
SR 2213 (S. Church Street)
Total 0 23 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
FIGURE 16
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Forest City, SR 2241 / SR 2179, From US 7 4 Bypass
(including mall ar ea) to SR 2213 (S. Church Street),
Rutherford County, Proj. N 8.2890401, TIP N U-2711 A
RECEPTOR EXTERI OR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Dui
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2
1. SR 2241 / SR 2179 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
From Beginning of Project
(mall area) to
US 74 Bypass
2. SR 2241 / SR 2179 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
From US 74 Bypass to
SR 2178 (Hardin Rd.)
3. SR 2241 / SR 2179 0 3 36 3 0 0 0 3 3
From SR 2178 (Hardin Rd.)
to SR 2213
(S. Church Street)
TOTALS 0 21 44 3 0 0 0 3 3
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
FIGURE 17
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2711A: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co. RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2000, Build, 45-MPH
DATE: 06/04/96 TIME: 10:12
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PACE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Yl X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------"----------------------------------------"-- --------------------------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link " 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 " 1609. 360. AG 932. 14.0 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -604.7 * 1609. 180. AG 932. 14.0 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
------------------°-----"------------ -------------------------------------
1. R/W, 60' to CL " -12.6 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2711: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGES 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. " 5
RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2000, Build, 45-MPH
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
FIGURE 17
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 2
JOB: U-2711A: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co. RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2020, Build, 45-MPH
DATE: 06/04/96 TIME: 10:12
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
--------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S --------
VD - 0.0 CM/S EO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRO TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
• Xl Yl X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------------------- --- "---------------------------------------- "--------------------- -------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 1200. 10.6 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 • 1609. 180. AG 1200. 10.6 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
• COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR " X Y 2 "
-------------------------"-------------------------------------"
1. R/W, 601 to CL " -12.8 0.0 1.8 •
JOB: U-2711: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co. RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2020, Build, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.6
DEGR. * 6
THE HIONEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
FIGURE 17
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: U-271LA: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co. RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2000, No-Bd, 45-MPH
-DATE: 06/04/96 TIME: 10:11
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
---
----------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) "
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ •------------- --------------------------- '----------------------------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lane Link " 3.7 -604.7 3.7 804.7 • 1609. 360. AG 932. 14.0 0.0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 932. 14.0 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
-------------------------•-------------------------------------•
1. R/W, 30' to CL * -7.3 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-2711: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co.
RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2000, No-Bd, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.0
DEGR. " 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
FIGURE 17
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-271LA: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co. RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2020, No-Bd, 35-MPH
DATE: 06/04/96 TIME: 10:12
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 4
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ -------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.7 -604.7
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
--------------"---------------------------------------------------------
3.7 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 1200. 14.8 0.0 9.8
0.0 -804.7 • 1609. 180. AG 1200. 14.8 0.0 9.8
" COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z •
------------------------- "-------------------------------------"
1. R/W, 30' to CL " -7.3 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2711: SR 2241/SR 2179, Rutherford Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM)
(DEGR)• REC1
°----R------
MAX • 3.4
DEGR. ' 8
RUN: SR2241/2179, YR 2020, No-Bd, 35-MPH
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.40 PPM AT 8 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
•
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE
r?/t
)6-29-95
TAILED TO
NORTH CAROLINA STATE'CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMEN G E I
FROM O
I.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
=RANK VICK
'LANN• E ENV. BRANCH
"RANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFF
'ROJECT DESCRIPTION
MRS- HRYS A G'T
DIRE R JI?L 5 1 95 _
N C S TE CLEARINGHOUS
D
Z r: i6iG"I OF ?c
HIGHWAYS
?NV?ROW
COPING - IMPROVEMENTS TO OAK STREET (SR 2241/SR 2179) IN FOREST
;ITY FROM US 74 BYPASS TO S. CHURCH ST. (SR 2213) TIP RU-2711
-AI NO 95E42200832 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
rHE 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 QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS CFFICE (919) 733-723Z-
r

C-C- REGION C
WaTe OT NOrrn uaroiina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry Lancaster, Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee ?i?
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0832 - Scoping, Proposed Improvements to Oak
Street, Rutherford County
DATE: June 27, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the
encouraged to notify
assistance is needed.
attachments
? a
opportunity to respond. The applicant is
our commenting divisions if additional
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 199.5
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?EHNR
Ro. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equcl opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50`%, recycled/ 1 o% pcs`-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 27, 1995
F== F=1
* TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart gater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0832; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Oak Street, Forest City
TIP No. U-2711
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.
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. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. 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.
.t
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equol Opportunrty Atfirmotive Acticn Employer 50% recycled/ 10`b post-consumer pcper
Melba McGee
June 27, 1995
Page 2
H. 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.
I. Did NCDOT.or-utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. 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 bankinc.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10960.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Res
Division of Land Resources
mes G. Martin, Govemcr PROJECT RSVIBW COHMENTS
Ulam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
.Project Number: 3Z County: ?
1 r
bi V
L? u NIA (171-95
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name:
Geodetic Survev
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].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control P
No comment
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
cf 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 rare information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
- L??l 11?1a-f--? . t5-1 /
Reviewer Date
. I
P.O. Box 27687 • R.ilefgh• N.C. 27611-7627 • Te!ephane [phone]
P.n Equal Opportunity AtFrmadve Ac:ian Employer
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
ys o F3a
County,
jest Name Type of Project
-? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all wale: system
-J improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to.the award
of a contract 6c-the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C :0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply 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].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisanitation progra
m, the applicant should contac the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
-? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding-proble:n.
-J For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the ,applicant should:
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
-, The applicant should be advised that prior to the -removal or demolition of dilapidated
-J structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary an order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information. concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management.Section at (919)
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. sea.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
-J facilities required for this project.
If existing ware: lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water tine
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street. Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
1,21
ection/Branch
R eV i ew e r Dace
319% (Ike ,,:e3 8/91)
t1,v,Uon of L•n-v,nmusical Hcslt!,
'WN
County Commissioners
Tony Helton, Chairman
Robert Luckadoo, Vice Chairman
Danny D. Daniels
Franklin Goode
Aden Lynch
I
March 16, 1995

Hazel S. Haynes, Clerk to the Board
Walter Dalton, County Attorney
Rutherford County
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
P CE1\
O
?aaA 2 0 1995
i
2C DIVISiC'V OF
C? HIrte;WAYS <
c?iy??ROnrti1E??

Rutherford County has no jurisdiction for any of the Oak Street Project (SR 2241/SR 2179)
from U.S. 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (S. Church Street), U-2711, in Forest City as the entire
project will be within Forest City's city limits. Please contact City Manager Chuck Summey at
the Forest City Town Hall, Powell Street, Forest City, NC 28043, for any information you
might need regarding potential environmental impacts or permits or approvals that will be
needed.
If Rutherford County can be of any further assistance, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Ant ny H. Helton,
Chairman
AHH/hh
601 N. Main Street, Rutherfordton, NC 28139 ? 704-287-6045 ? 704-287-6262 (FAX)
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program c?tLCG??c?-
DATE: January 20, 1995
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping Meeting for widening Oak Street from US
74 Bypass to South Broadway Street in Forest City,
Rutherford County, TIP No. U-2711.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission have reviewed the scoping sheets for the subject
project and have not identified any special concerns regarding
this project. A formal scoping response outlining our
informational needs for preparation of the environmental document
will be provided upon request through the State Clearinghouse.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
® North Carolina Wildlife 'Resources Commission
512 N. Slisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 13, 1995
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0832, Improvements to SR 2441/SR 2179
(Oak Street) from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 in Forest City, Rutherford County,
TIP #U-2711.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our scoping comments regarding
the subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen Oak
Street to a five-lane curb and gutter facility.
At this time we have not identified any special concerns regarding this project. The
following information should be included in the Environmental Assessment:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern animal and plant
species. Contact is the Mr. Steven Hall of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(919/733-7701).
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. 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. Wetland acreage 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 Lund at 704/271-
4857.
• 95-0832
Page 2 June 13, 1995
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.
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on 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
?_ENT Oa Ty
,/, F`?Z
o a
N o
? a
- 9
?4gCH I ?Ba
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
April 13, 1995
I
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
¦
TAKES
PRIDE IN
AMERICA ??

I V 4D
QpR ? ? 1995:
2i D1vG?W ApS Pv?.
y
? ENVtFO??
Subject: Scoping for proposed improvements to Oak Street (SR 2241/SR
2179) from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (S. Church Street) in Forest
City, Rutherford County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2711
In your letter of February 21, 1995 (received on March 8, 1995),.you
requested information regarding potential environmental impacts that
could result from the subject project for your use in the preparation of
an environmental assessment. 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).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed actions may have on federally
listed and candidate species and on stream and wetland ecosystems within
the project impact area. Preference 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 Rutherford 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 to 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 road
improvements.
(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 Identifving and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office, to determine the need for a Section 404
Clean Water Act permit (704/271-4856).
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) A discussion on the extent to which the project will
result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat, from direct construction impacts and from
secondary development impacts.
(9) 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 4-2-95-062.
Sin ere1y/ )
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor

CC:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-95-062
APRIL 13, 1995
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
MAMMALS
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) - Endangered
Alleghany woodrat (Neotoma maxis r) - Candidate
Eastern small-footed bat (Mv tis subul us leibii) - Candidate
BIRDS
Peregrine falcon (Falco pereQrinus) - Endangered
Cerulean warbler (D n r i a cerulea) - Candidate
AMPHIBIANS
Green salamander (Aneid s aeneus) - Candidate*
PLANTS
Rock gnome lichen (Gvmnoderma lin re) - Endangered
White irisette (Sisvrinchium dichotomum) - Endangered
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Threatened
Divided-leaf ragwort (Senecio millefolium) - Candidate
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraaa caroliniana) - Candidate
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis or a) - Candidate*
* Indicates no specimen from Rutherford County in at least 20 years.

y ?°r
.V ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 23, 1995
I MEMORANDUM -0
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook f'
Deputy State istonc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 2241 /SR 2179 from
US 74 Bypass to SR 2213, Rutherford
County, U-271 1, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-OOOS(99), State Project 8.2890401,
95-E-4220-0832
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Members of our staff met with representatives of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on May 25, 1995, to review photographs of structures over fifty
years old within the area of potential effect. None of the properties appeared to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and we signed a concurrence
form to that effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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: N. Graf
B Church
ate Clearinghouse
T. Padgett

109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
TIPS L4 2711 Federal Aid „ Srp cooL( County
CONCURREti'CE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
Wiye,4 qv- 4.241 /•,F 2 it (OAK --,TR6Er-? FRAM uS 741iyPAS1 -ro 4(t 2.:.{3 ?SouTN GbWR H
On M Xy u , 1°1011 , representatives of the .
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, proper-tit
identified as 4*;A-,,g * I - * 2l are
considered not eligible or the rational Register and no further evaluation them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
'V' h•?1-- S 2S ? S
Repre tati , NCDOT ate
i?
F wA f r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
S 2S
Repre'Seti?ative, O ace
A Late Historic Preservation Officer Date'
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION INFORMATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
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 arrange-
ment (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 NCOOT 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 NCOOT pur-
chases 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 individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of 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 dis-
placee 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, includ-
ing 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 finan-
cial 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.
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
_PROJECT: 8.2890401 COUNTY Rutherford _ I Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2711A F.A. PROJECT STP-00115(99)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of SR 2241!2179 (Oak Street) From US 74 Bypass to Young Street in
Forest City

'
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
.
. :::
'type
Dis l of
acees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
I5-25M
0
25-35M
0
35-50M
0
50 UP 0
Indivi duals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Famil ies 3 16 19 9.
-- 16 3
---

Busin
Farm

esses
s

1
0

1
0 2

0 0

-
0 VALUE OF D'-VELLZ4G

Owners Tenants
s o tso
WELLING AVAII.ABI.L

ale For Rent
1 s o-tso 1
2
F
Non- Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20nt 2 ISO-250 4
1 6 150-250 2
Y No ANSWER ALL [lEST10NS
ll "12;S" answers 20 40tt
40-70D7 ]
0 250-400 p 8 250-400 1
es Exp .
lain a 7o toots 4oo-soo 1
be necessary?
i
i oo- toont 0 too soo p
X 1.
ces
on serv
al relocat
Will speci

o
-
p

600 i P

0

too UP
J

P
600

1
be affected b
h
h UP
lo E
X 2. y
es
urc
Will schools or c
t?
di
l
ro rat.
3
acemen
sp (Respond b Numb er
X 3. Will business services still be available after
project? REMARES
attached sheet.
S
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size. type, estimated number of
employees. minorities, etc. ee
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage'?
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs he needed? ??
8. Should Last Resort Etousittg be considered?
?tu
i ` ^
' '
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly. etc.
families? r
•
' "
- " "
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? _ =
X 11. Is public housvtg available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing wilhnt
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable busutess sites available (list
source).
15. Number of months estimated to complete
relocation? 16 Months

4tzWAg /Date roved b

:
l & 1 Co Date
state Relocation Agent
Frnn I S a Rrvirod SIoO py
Origina
2 Copy Area Relocation orrice
LJ-2711A
3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
4. (a) One-Story Frame Business - Groom and Stuff, dog care, 1,000 SF, One (,1) employee.
(b) One-Story Masonry Business - Stinson's Used Car Lot, 1,000 SF, Two (.2) employees.
5. Rental housing only.
6. Frances Christen with Rentals Unlimited - Matheny Real Estate, Forest City, N. C. 28043 and Homes fit, Land, February, 19961
8. As necessary in accordance with State law.
9. Two (2) elderly relocatees.
10. Yes, with the help of the isothermal Planning and Development Commission. PHA, Section 8, Forest City Housing Authority
Rutherford Manor Housing, low incorne rental housing.
11. Same as Number 10.
12. Yes, after talking with Frances Christen with Rentals Unlimited, she stated tint 75%'0 of housing in Rutherford County was Ten
housing and with enough lead time 12 to 16 months and the Deparhnent of Transportation's Relocation Assistance, she was s
that these displaeees could be relocated. She was familiar with the pr(?ject area and has rentals in the area.
14. Padgett Real Estate, Matheny Real Estate - Comrncrcial property posted for sale in project area.
. 1
N. C. DEPARrAIENT OF TRANSPORTA'CION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP /-g/- q r
TO: REF.
OR R
om. BLDG.
/^1• ?^-
c"'. /
/^
FROM: HEF.
, OR ROOM, BLDG.
A /)OW ? )
-
I
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:
I
NEEMORAiINDUM TO FILE: RECEIVED
FROM: Ted Devens, P.E., Project Engineer FFR n 91995
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting for TIP Project U-2711 EM/IRON R a?A?N CIENCES
DATE: January 25, 1995
At 9:30 am on January 25, 1995, a scoping meeting was held for the subject project
in the Planning and Environmental Branch conference room. In attendance were:
Ted Devens Planning and Environmental
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
John Maddox Roadway Design
Bill Bunting Roadway Design
Darin Wilder Program Development
Phil Williamson Photogrammetry
Don Wilson Location and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Cindy Satterwhite Statewide Planning
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Gabrielle Chanese Geotechnical
Wendi Oglesby Traffic Control
Doumit Ishak Signals & Geometrics
Prior to the meeting, comments were received from DEM and NCWRC:
X-1r. Eric Galamb of Department of Environmental Management called-in comments.
The project crosses three streams: Brackett's Creek and two unnamed tributaries to
Brackett's Creek. Mr. Galamb classified these streams as Class C, and requested normal
erosion and sediment control measures.
A January 20, 1995 letter was received from vls. Stephanie E. Goudreau of the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The NCZVRC did not identify any special
concerns regarding the project.
These minutes are augmented by the informational handout provided during the scoping
meeting. Copies of these minutes will be distributed to all attendees, IvIr. Galamb, GIs.
Goudreau, and Mr. Vince Barone of the Federal Highway Administration.
Summarv of Meeting:
The Federal E A,/FONSI MR studv the widening of Oak Street from the US 74
ByFass to Church Street, a distance of 1.2 miles. The Oak Street extension will NOT be
studied: As part or the project, it will be determined if an auxiliary lane is needed on the
west side of US 74 Bypass, at entrances from Oak Street to the Tri-City mall.
The proposed cross-section is a five-lane curb and utter section wiiich is 64 =eet
from curb-face to curb-face, with 8-foot berms. Design speed is 50 mph. Proposed right-
of-way is uncertain, buC will probably be from 90 - 100 feet with no access control. The
project is to be planned using metric units.
4
Proceedings of Scoping Meeting:
The project was introduced as the widening of SR 2241/SR 2179 (Oak Street) to a
multilane section from US 74 Bypass to US 221-A (South Broadway Street). Rutherford
County. Federal Project STP OOOS(99). State Project 3.2390401. TIP Project U-2711.
The project purpose and need was discussed, as well as a 1991 Feasibility Study.
For the entire project length, the Feasibility Study recommended a 5-lane curb and gutter
which is 64 feet from curb-face to curb-face, with 8-foot berms, on 90 feet of right-of-way.
No new control of access was recommended. Estimated relocations were thirty-one
residences and four businesses. The TIP cost estimate was based upon the feasibility study
recommendations.
A short video was presented to show existing ;Oak Street. Existing characteristics of
Oak Street were discussed, as well as accident locations and traffic patterns.
The project length discussed was 1.6 miles. Oak Street is to be widened from US 74
Bypass to Young Street, a distance of 1.2 miles. From Young Street to South Broadway
Street, a 0.4 mile extension of Oak Street is proposed on new location. A later decision,
however, deleted the extension from the scope of this project.
The NCDOT Bicycle Program has determined that there is no need for any special
accommodations for bicycles.
IVIs. Debbie Bevin of SHPO indicated the need for a Historic Architecture survey. A
potentially historic home is located on Church Street, and a mill is located on Depot Street
across the railroad tracks from the project. No archaeological survey is required.
No environmental agencies were present, however Mr. Galamb's and Ms.
Goudreau's comments were relayed.
The proposed project has three stream crossings. Mr. Jerry Snead reported the two
unnamed tributaries were carried under Oak Street in minor pipes. Brackett's Creek is
transmitted by a double 8'x3' reinforced concrete boa culvert (Structure C619) which can
be extended.
IvIr. Ted Devens reported that, based on his observations during a July site visit, little
area appeared to be potentially "wet." A natural systems survey will delineate wetland areas.
The Forest City Municipal Golf Course is located on the north side of Oak Street.
Since this is a public use facility, this "park" qualifies for special consideration under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Land may be taken from the golf
course only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land, and the project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the golf course. Fortunately, there is very
little development on tha-south side of Oak Street at this location, so an asymmetrical
widening is proposed to miss the golf course. No other parks were identified.
Avis. Gabrielle Chanese of the Geotechnical Unit warned that the Exxon station at the
Hardin Street intersection has underground storage tanks which are located only 5 feet from
existing pavement. It may be prudent to avoid them. At this time it is unknown if leakage
has occurred. There are also several other gasoline stations adjacent to Oak Street. A
geotechnical survey will be forwarded to Ted Devens in about a week's time.
Traffic counts were provided by Infs. Cindy Satterwhite of Statewide Planning. A
discussion ensued about traffic movements using the proposed extension, in particular at the
proposed intersection with South Broadway Street. It appears that due to heavy turning
movements at the proposed intersection, the scope of the extension may also have to include
improvements to US 221-A (South Broadway Street). It may be necessary to replace the
railroad bridge north of the intersection and widen S. Broadway Street, to accommodate a
double-left turn from the extension onto northbound S. Broadway Street. This scoping
change could significantly increase project cost. Mr. Ray Moore reported a bridge vertical
clearance of 21.4 feet, which is less that the 23-foot standard. Therefore, the replacement
bridge would have to increase clearance. This could exacerbate the already poor sight-
distance of cars crossing the bridge. It is feared that inadequate sight distance to the
proposed intersection may result in a safety hazard.
Mr. John Maddox requested more detailed traffic counts on Oak Street on the west
side of US 74, in order to determine how many vehicles turn into the mall area.
Based upon design year counts, widening to multilanes is justified.
Mr. Doumit Ishak did not have any comments about intersections, etc.
Noise impacts are anticipated to be minor. The type of development and lack of
access control will probably not justify a noise wall.
For the three year period from June 1991 to June 1994, a total of 110 accidents were
reported on Oak Street from US 74 Bypass to Church Street. This resulted in an accident
rate of 959 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. This rate is over three times the
statewide average of 304.9 ACC/10011vIVIM for similar Urban State Routes.
Most accidents occurred at the US 74 Bypass intersection, at entrances to the
commercial strips next to US 74, and in the section between Barbara Street and Church
Street. A five-lane section will reduce accidents significantly, especially in the commercial
area. Better alignment will reduce accidents between Barbara Street and Church Street.
vfr. Don Nilson of Location and Surveys reported moderate to heavy utility
involvement. The project may require relocation of water, sewer, gas, telephone, and power
lines.
A "Section'3" federally-owned or subsidized development is located adjacent to the
proposed Oak Street extension from Young Street to South Broadway Street. Any
alternative which impacts this development may be subject to Prc;sident Clinton's Executive
Order on Environmental Justice for minorities and low-income families. Clarification is
needed.
The project is currently scheduled as a Federal EA:
The Production Schedule is:
EA JUN 96
FONSI DEC 96
Right-of-Way SEP 97
Let Date AUG 99
The project is federally funded.
TIP Estimate Current Estimate
R/W 2,100,000 2,100,000
Construction 2,200,000 2,300,000
Total 4,300,000 4,400,000
The TIP currently shows the project broken-down into two phases:
Right-of-Way Construction Total
A: Widen Oak St. from US 74 Bypass to Young St, 1.2 miles 1,400,000 1,400,000 2,800,000
B: New location from Young St. to S. Broadway St, 0.4 mile 700,000 800,000 1,500,000
Phase A is scheduled for right-of-way and construction as shown in the Schedule section
above. Phase B is currently not scheduled until post-year.
Much discussion was held on whether the project should include Phase B, the 0.4
mile extension from Young Street to S. Broadway Street. Mr. Darin Wilder of Program
Development reported that the project had been broken-down into two phases to enable
acceleration of Phase A. Phase B, however is unfunded and shown in the TIP as post-year.
This means that not even right-of-way is funded before 2001, therefore construction is at
least another year and a half later. With construction of Phase B so far behind Phase A, a
decision was made to eliminate the extension from the project study.
Therefore, the new project limits are from US 74 Bypass to SR 2213 (South Church
Street), with additional auxiliary lanes possible at mall entrances. The project scope is
therefore a widening project only. The extension will NOT be studied.
Design year traffic projections will still include the extension, because it is probable
the extension will be built by the design year.
Mr. Don Wilson indicated that location surveys were performed along Oak Street
years ago. This survey data may be usedto base functional design, however the survey notes
may be lost because they are so old.
Interim Schedules were established:
Geoteclnnical Report: _ February 7, 1995
Amended traffic projection: February 23, 1995
Preliminary Roadway Design: April 1, 1995
The preliminary design will include right-of-way lines and easement slopestakes.
A public informational workshop is anticipated for Llay, 1995.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, 'Av
Health and Natural Resources AW4?.
Division of Environmental Management .?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor CC
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) C H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 27, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihartv;''Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0832; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Oak Street, Forest City
TIP No. U-2711
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.
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. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. 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
Melba McGee
June 27, 1995
Page 2
H. 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.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. 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.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality. Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10960.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'T'ION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE (?
I -??- t7
TO; _jz NO. .1
FROM: REF. oR ROOM, BLDG.
P? I?eur,,.r. {T . ?- t
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEOUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r .
e,.. STA7r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 22, 1994
RECOWD
:JAN u 4 1M
E1171WM AENTAL 9>rW1i FS
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
i ? P
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
?? ?
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Forest City, Oak Street,
From US 74 Bypass to South Broadway Street, Rutherford
County, State Project 8.2890401, Federal-Aid Project
STP-OOOS(99), TIP Project #U-2711
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 January 25, 1995 at 9:30 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 Ted Devens, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
TD/pl r 03'b?bZ
Attachment --I?ratke6 C 1--37-2-

SY?

F ,
t
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: Dec. 15. 1994
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning x
Design
TIP = L-3711
Project T S.2390401
F.A. Project = STP - OOOS(99)
Division 13
Rutherford County
Route SR 3341 and SR 3179. Oak Street
Functional Classification: Rural Local
LenVth 1.6 miles
Purpose of Project: The purpose of this project is to provide improved
access between the Central Business District of Forest Cit.%. and US 74
Bypass and shopping centers locatad in western Forest City. This
project will also improve current and projected capacity and accident
problems on Oak Street.
Description of project (including specific 'limits) and major dements
of work: Widen Oak Street (SR 3341 and SR 21-9) to a multi-lane:
facility:. Total project length is 1.6 miles witih 0.4 miles biting on
ne?v locat ion.
Type of environmental document to be prepare(!: Federal EA/FOtiSI
Environ:;,ental Study Schedule. EA January 1995 - June 1996
FO\SI September 1996 - December 1996
Type of funding: Federal:
Will there be special funding participation J`. municipality.
developers. or other? Yes No
If ve s . by whom an(! amount: ( S ) or ( `" )
How and ;then wi l l this..bt! paid?

U-2711
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
E,,isting Facility: 3-Lane
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None 1
Proposed facility: Widen to 55-Lanes
Number of: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 3
Typical Section of Roadway: Curb and gutter or shoulder
Traffic Projections:
Construction Year (1999) 10,000 cpd Design Year (3019) 30.100 vpd
TTST DUAL DH?r
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminarv Pavement Design:

Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . . S 2,300-000
?includin, enaineerin, and contingencies)
Right of Way' Cost . . . . . . . . . . S 3.030.000
(including rel.. util.. and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Pre'_iminar? Engineering . . . . . . . . . . S 300.000
-ot a l cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 1.;30.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Cor.s._uct?on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S I-100.000
IN . _L00 . 000
TC d _ _05 S ( 000
t
U-27 11
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features. such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
1 Pavement:
Z Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 608 .'?0
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Y Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 262.360
Subsurfac° Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Y Sub_rade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 121.170
X Draina°e (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . S 210.800
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . S
Structures: width x Length
Brid^_e Rehabilitation S
New Bridae S
Widen Bride x S
Remove Bridxe S
New Culvert: Size Length S
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . S
Retaining-- Walls: Type Ave. Ht. f. S
Skew
Noise walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Any- Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . S
1 Concrete Curb S Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S l? "1'
Concrete Side%val:, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . . S
'i Erosion control . . . S 30.000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Li^htin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
% Traffic Cont.ol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -18.000
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Gpor_t .iin ` S
X Traffic Si.ana s:
Y yew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S 0.000
_sed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 50 000

\:ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rey. _sed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
hour ?rI s S
1f 3
Dfa:l 1a _;?? Safvt?' Enh ncem=nt S
RC a, 5 0.e SafEnhancement S
Realignment for Safety ?_pgrade . . . . . . . S
f
U-?711
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Z Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
N Thermo and Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,200
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Y Other:
Y Clearing and grubbing. S 4-5.600
1 Mobilization and miscellaneous . . . . . . . S 399.908
Contract Cost: S 1.997.000
Contingencies &- Enzineerin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 303.000
Preliminarv Engineerin- Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: S 2.300.000
Right of ;Vay:
Etiistin, R.4:-ht of Way Width: unknown
Will Exist Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes No
New Right of Way Needed: Width . . . . . . . S
Easements: T)pe width . . . . . . . S
Utilities: S
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: S
Total Estimated Project Cost: 3
7 -
L-? , 1 1
The above scopinV information has been reviewed and approved by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. En-'r.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oiler.
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 S. NR
Others
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping. note your
proposed revisions in below and initial and date after comments.

Prepared Bv: Cate:
..x . •? . . .?....... / ?? Thermal ftY 1
5 ? Mills
lmney PocMJU T H E RnF R D
?."L?AdLure b1 Grlh y'. ?2 West-
axe lure` 1 n minster
_, -? .1 Ib IIp I 5 oian
eWashhurn
Ruth
Forest
IC8 ??i? -• •???%`? Alexander • e1
1 _ • ??????• -1 ills21 Caroleef?
? 1V ??? Huns , hifsli
iUTHERFORD COUNTY ?
•??
CNT
••
Fes' i
t
Hollis ?.vnu

•
•
•
•
•
L .-
\
2101
C
xtls
s?
n e: cs*
11x1 11x1
ev9 = 2ne i
EN ON - $
SI 76 \ t1 ?`?? to f ?
OvNO ? 1 ?.
1qY ? I
Q n y
c=
S1, n I S
7170
7179
22
BEGIN L
PROJECT 6 }a 71701
,e lrxe \
m
ve ?. v ^770 .Q
nq
? M1 x113
7777 Fd
7170 \ el.f?6n11 S6
i
6
16 1z15 :.. _in /
a1w
1?e - .ICI A
i127_ 5
u o
221.k _2?4
0
u
o0 `?A / i p' a
0 1310 30 t
` / s? k
y ?.
F 1176
rA FOREST CITY x01
q POP. 7,688
T r
??`? I
o?
0
III 'Wn„. Sr. 71
ref A
I 34- A./, 1901
Sr,
L, $:\ END 001
PROJECT
7171
7726 9
21sd .11-
771. -'??/"- __i
71)2
_.... ? _?i
----r- 21 sv
J 7:51

F
a i
r\
207]
2 2I
\ ? I
" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHW?,YS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 2241 AND SR 2179 (OAK ST.)
FROM US 74 BYPASS TO
US 221 A (S. BROADWAY ST.)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
U - 2711
FIG.' 1
r Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Quality Section .

A//2 Vt:Q
AU
19?
6
MEMORANDUM Ervvr ?NrA
Ron,
-

TO: Env. Sciences Branch .?4
? S
Technical Support Branch
* Wetlands ? Colleen Sullins, P&E
? John Dorney ? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
18?Eric Galamb (DoT) ? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Greg Price (airports) ? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Steve Kroeger ? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? ? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species ?
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/xQw) Operations Branch
? ? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
* Toxicology ? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Larry Ausley ? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed

Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch ? Asheville ?Mooresville ? Washington
? ? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: e-:f? ( "C22-=; I
l? S 7 \ N () i

Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written commentsy,if
any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
nils:\cir=cmo.doc
1
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
77-007-7 CiG -&JJ ??'
/? - Fo f es ?- C ?` S(Z 2Z? /Z! ,u% 'y -- GlS 7
-C? 5i2-Z/ 3 S `L??? Sr•?
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville []All RIO Areas []Soil and Water []Marine Fisheries
,Air - Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Fayetteville % Water L_' Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ' Groundwater ;Y'wiIdIile []Solid waste Management
? Raleigh ?Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources [] Radiation Protection

n
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources El David Foster
ng
as
o ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
[] Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Project located in 7th floor library
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authorily(ies) cited)
[]Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
[]Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS -104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
u Bdvd u3WnSN00-1SOd %01/0310A03a -,;OS - !l3AO1d W3 N0110V 3AI1VWUIzIzIv / AllNnll10dd0 -Ivn03 NV
IZfS-EEL•616 XVd GOZS-66L-616 3NOHd sn•ou•91eis•jua•OZ4 :elisgam
6191-669LZ ON 'H0131Va 'il31N30 301A93S 11VW 6191
WVUVOad NOIlVUOlS3U SaNV113M
L ;'d (i alg
30DSf1 `pun,janajS
liufl IOti/spuuIPM `Xau.IOQ ullof :oo
qAO/3321
U-IW5o.Td UOTIu.TOIsa-d SPUMPM
.T32mew uruz2o.Td
`iia.ua3 •3 piuuo2i
`XI3.T3ouiS
'8OZ5-££L (616) lu Iiamsu.zg IulstiD
inwoo osuold `uop uojui luuoiIippu paau so suoilsanb Xuu oAuq noX jI
•uisuq zanr2l puo.zg OgIJO SOIOSO£0
Itun Oui5olquo ui joafoid joafgns z)ql TIlTm polmoossu sjouduu.IOj (uoijuloisa.T
uW31Is JO I30J .TUauti 8LL of dn)1iuuod t0V uoijoaS io/puu uoiluogpiaD ,ijilunb
.TawuA1 IOb oigi ui pogloods su UOIJUS111U.T aplAozd IITm d2 MDpq aTlZ •loofozd joafgns
oql ioj pa14iTugns uaaq sutl IauuuTlo Tuuazls Jo 103J JuautI 68£ joudmi of uoTjuzuoTllnu
BuTlsonbaz uoTluoilddu uu 1000Z 11 aunt palup zaual u uT noX Xq poilddns
uoTIuuuOJUT uo pasug •8661 `b •TaquuanoN paIT:p s.IaauISu3 Jo SCUOD Xuuv S•fl ZqI
puu sao.mosag luinjuN puu IUZ=O.ITAUg JO juz uj.TUd3Q uuiloxeD TIjioN oqj uaampq
OuTpuu1snpun jo TunpuuioLu;)W oigj ipm 3ouupaooou ui ioaford ioafgns oils-illim
p 1moossu siouduii Tuua.Tls ioj juouTXud jdzoou Illm (d2IMDN) UmBozd uotlu.miso d
spuuIpAk uuilono TllioN a p juT.ll noX Xpou of si n1jal sngj jo asodmd zqj,
paoj.Tatlln-d
VI iLZ-fl
pa.TlS SunoApooijS `Iu0
:# I!Uuod WD
:XjunoD
:# dI.L
:ouruN loofoicl :Io3fgnS
aolo3ula
SN3A31S °1aa3N
:a.TOLUpD -JIN .rea(j
0002 z z t-Tir

8tgI=669LZ uuilo.TU:) TI ION `gfI3IMd xaV13a73S
JOJUOD a0in.T3S I!vW 8t,51 NVW10H 11113
Tlouu.zg SISXIuUV IuIuauzMNAUg
?` . puu juowdolana(j J33fO.T(j
uoTjul.Todsuril jo luouTlzudaQ DN aoNa3noa
3d `a.TOTUT I!D TzTUTT II.A1 'ar 1NnH •9 S3wvr
.I
OOOZ `61 aunf
)-Iri`dnt) u3.LV/N JO NOISIAIa
S3:)unOS32:f -ivun1VN ?NV LN3WNOUTAN3
JO LN3W.LUVd3C3 VNI-IOUVO HIMON
as/II/S ss? 9?Q Q Q

?: M a n
M o
'•ar_{ D
[.; J 7J

Ca

m n
7] m

I [-1
[

C] D
L7? r? r
m
CJ

::a l!1
c

;.;art 2
mrrn=
rt"1
D ?>
m
I -{
C 7 C"l
r
U:

0
C
Z

--
------
-------------------------- --I

?? ? I

it O
Of t C)
n
? i L• 1? O
- O
f

?? Z

mo
r`
l --------------------------
c
4 -z C
a ;
F

D
O

ul u,

--
-------
------------- - --------- z
c] CJ
G J C:1
D
D
Z
--I
Z
O
/-l
V
Ul
O
Ul
C-1
"J
r•
o 77
m
nZ
D
?O
M D3
z
i 77
om
T
-t
D 3]
0V-I
-n0C
6>4Z
mzz
0
[.n
C'I
rn
r,
Cit
m
r.J
I
[rt
r' 1
i l