R-2597&R-2040d+e (6)

1t/!%1 11
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due
This project is being reviewed as indicated below
Regional Office
Sections
In House Review
✓Asheville
Z Air
_ Marine Fisheries _ Waste Mgmt
_ Fayetteville
✓ Water
_ Coastal Management _ Air Quality
Mooresville
✓Aquifer Protection
_ Water Resources Management
_ Raleigh
Land Quality Engineer
✓ Water Supply Section
Washington
✓Parks & Recreation
_ Wilmington
_ Water Quality
Winston Salem
Water Quality (DOT)
Wildlife
/Wildlife (DOT)
Date
In House Reviewer Agency
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed
Insufficient information to complete review
No comment
_ Other (specify or attach comments)
RETURN TO
Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
217 W Jones Street -1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27603 1601

US 221 IMPROVEMENTS
FROM NORTH OF SR 1366 (ROPER LOOP ROAD) IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TO US 221-NC 226 IN MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP Projects R-2591 and R-204 D&E
State Projects 6.899002T and 6.879005T
WBS Element No. 35608.1.1 and 34329.1.1
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTRON
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROM INA DEPARTMENT OF 'I RA SPORTATl RON
OF rAORTH Cq
h v
*
at 2
q y O
ti
rOF TRANSe04�P
Date Gregory J. Thor e, h.D., Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

US 221 IMPROVEMENTS
FROM NORTH OF SR 1366 (ROPER LOOP ROAD) IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TO US 221-NC 226 IN MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
State Projects 6.899002T and 6.879005T
WBS Element No. 35608.1.1 and 34329.1.1
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- 6
Date
b%30' II
Date
G--z0 — ( t
Date
tol ha
Date
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
`,0%"q%YB6K088//000000
%
0%% CAR/
p
9Z
rO
L09r��
^om
_
Aileen S. Mayhew, ft 1'
Project Manager
�.
Chadwick D. Huffines, PL
Roadway Design Engineer
For the:
101
y
N CAR O N%-,.
,,......
oFF.SS/oN,9��'9
21448 w
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
A
_�irrrrr�
CA
e,L,'
q ' 4Q
Joseph S. Qubain
Project Development Engineer
SEAL
p22109
a'
ames F. Bridges, PE
�'I",'.►���1�
Project Development Group Leader
1f
June 2011

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 221 IMPROVEMENTS
From North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
WBS Nos. 35608.1.1 and 34329.1.1
TIP PROJECTS R-2597 and R-204D&E
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
• A Section 404 Individual Permit is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the
corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Individual Permit.
• Fencing that is disturbed due to the proposed roadway improvements will be
replaced along SR 1321 (Thermal City Road) in the vicinity of the Albert Weaver
Farm historic property.
Hydraulics Unit
• Coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status
of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement,
or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Highway Division 13 Office
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year
floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and
vertically.
R-2597/R-204D&E State Environmental Assessment
June 2011 Sheet 1 of 1

SUMMARY
US 221 IMPROVEMENTS
From North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP PROJECTS R-2597 and R-204D&E
A. Type of Action
This State Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of
this project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) does
not anticipate that significant impacts to the human and/or natural environment will occur as a result
of this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation, likely
a State Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI) that will address comments received on the SEA
from the public, and local, state, and federal agencies.
B. Description of Action
NCDOT proposes to improve a 19-mile section of existing US 221, from north of SR 1366 (Roper
Loop Road) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County. The proposed
improvements are included as two projects in the 2009-2015 NCDOT State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), TIP Project R-2597 and TIP Project R-204D&E. Figure 1.1 in
Appendix A shows the location of the project, as well as the project study area.
NCDOT has decided to prepare a combined SEA for both projects, given the dependent relationship
of the two projects. For clarity in describing details within this document, the two projects will be
referred to as the "project." Should discussion on specific details of each TIP project be required,
they will be identified individually.
C. Summary of Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to improve the levels of traffic service by reducing
travel time along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor and increase safety.
The primary need of the proposed project is that the projected traffic cannot be handled safely with
the existing two lanes of US 221.
D. Alternatives Considered
A screening evaluation was conducted to identify the preliminary alternatives. Those considered
were: No -Build Alternative, Travel Demand Management, Mass Transit, Transportation Systems
Management, and Build Alternatives. The preliminary alternatives that could not fulfill the purpose
of and need for the project, had excessive undesirable impacts, or were considered impractical were

eliminated from further consideration. Based on this screening evaluation, only the Build
Alternatives were determined to meet the goals of the proposed project.
For the Build Alternatives, the project was divided into fifteen Segment Alternatives (A through H).
East side and west side widening alignments were considered and overlain onto the land suitability
maps. Symmetrical widening was not considered because of potential impacts on existing
residential and commercial development.
The Segment Alternatives were studied in order to identify those segments to be carried forward.
During the course of several regulatory resource agency meetings, alternatives were eliminated,
while additional alternatives were identified and added. Alternatives were eliminated from further
study because of resulting impacts to the human and/or natural environment. Based on the study and
in consideration of comments received through public involvement and agency coordination, the
following thirteen Segment Alternatives were selected to be studied in detail: Al, B 1, B2, B3, C, D,
D1, El, F1, F2, Gl, G2, and H (Figure 3.1 in Appendix A).
E. Summary of Environmental Effects
Although Rutherford and McDowell Counties are listed as trout counties, it has been determined that
the streams in the project area do not support trout and therefore will not be subject to a trout
moratorium during project construction (NCWRC, 2002).
Improvements will primarily take place on or adjacent to the existing US 221 right of way.
Relocations in communities are expected to be minimal, with no effects to their overall cohesion.
The locations of the displacements along the project are not situated in areas identified as having
minority or low-income populations. Therefore, there does not appear to be disproportionate
displacements or relocations to minority or low-income populations in the project area
The proposed improvements will create traffic noise impacts for up to 34 residences and 1 church by
approaching or exceeding the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria,
or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. However, due to the partial control of access,
noise mitigation measures cannot be considered for this project based on NCDOT's Noise
Abatement Policy.
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties have been determined to comply with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed project is located in attainment areas and
is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these attainment areas.
Table S.1 provides a summary of environmental impacts associated with the Segment Alternatives
that are currently being studied for this project.
ii

Table SA
Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Segment Alternatives
Segment Alternative
Al
B1
B2
B3
C
D
D1
El
F1
F2
G1
G2
H
Construction Cost (in millions)
$6.0
$12.1
$12.6
$12.9
$24.8
$80.3
$74.0
$17.5
$15.5
$15.3
$19.5
$19.3
$22.0
Residential Relocations
4
18
18
21
23
9
8
24
3
3
3
2
23
Businesses Relocations
1
6
5*
2
4
5
2
10
4
5
5
5
12
Parks Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Schools Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Churches Displaced
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
Cemeteries Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Recreational Facilities Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
2
2
---
---
---
---
---
---
MajorTransmission Towers Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
5
2
---
---
---
1
1
---
Known Archaeological Sites Affected
---
---
---
---
1**
---
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
Historic Architecture Adversely Effected
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Section 6(f) Properties (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Presence of Federally Listed T&E Species (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Presence of State Listed T&E Species (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Bridges over Streams
---
---
---
---
1
1
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
Stream Crossings
1
3
4
3
7
20
20
11
2
2
1
1
3
Length of Impacted Streams (linear feet)***
143
1,351
1,515
1,615
2,390
3,685
3,529
1,970
589
603
647
647
1,214
Streams Supporting Trout (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Wetland Impacts (acres)***
---
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.19
---
---
---
---
---
Primeand Important Farmland Impacts (acres)
11.1
20.1
19.8
23.9
28.5
26.4
23.1
28.5
17.7
16.1
2.4
3.2
20.1
Terrestrial Community Impacts (acres)
23.8
49.5
51.5
46.8
107.5
187.9
178.6
70.9
38.2
36.7
42.1
43.2
53.6
Gameland Impacted (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Permitted Mines Impacted (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Floodplain Area Impacted (acres)
---
---
---
---
1.64
3.69
3.35
2.31
0.03
0.03
---
---
0.65
Notes: Estimate of impacts based on construction limits (slope stakes), unless otherwise noted.
--- denotes resource does not occur within segment
* Includes the displacement of several buildings associated with Gilkey Lumber Company.
** This site has not been assessed for the NRHP due to denied access.
*** Stream and wetland impacts include an additional 25 feet to each side of the slope stake limit. Stream impacts do not include length of stream within an existing culvert.
111

F. Permits Required
A Section 404 Individual Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is anticipated, as
well as the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division of Water
Quality.
G. Public Involvement and Coordination
As part of the public involvement process, three Citizens Informational Workshops, two local
officials meetings, and meetings with Gilkey Lumber Company and Gilkey Baptist Church were
held. Also, two newsletters were mailed to property owners that might be affected by the project.
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted regarding this project:
• USACE, Wilmington District Office
• USACE, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
• USACE, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
• USEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency
• USFWS, US Fish and Wildlife Service
• FHWA, Federal Highway Administration
• NCWRC, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
o Division of Water Quality
o Division of Soil and Water Conservation
o Division of Forest Resources
o Division of Environmental Health
• NC State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
• NC Division of Archives and History/Department of Cultural Resources
• Isothermal Planning and Development Commission (Region C)
• NC Department of Public Instruction/School Planning
• Town of Rutherfordton
• City of Marion
• Rutherford County
• McDowell County
• Rutherford County School System
• McDowell County School System
H. Basis for State Environmental Assessment
To date, there is no indication that this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the
quality of the human and/or natural environment. Through the Merger Process, the project has been
reviewed by federal, state, and local agencies and no substantial objections have been raised. No
major objections to the project were voiced at the citizens informational workshops held. For these
reasons, it is concluded that a State Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.
iv

I. Contact Information
The following may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 1
A. General Description...........................................................................................................I
B. Historical Resume.............................................................................................................. 1
C. Logical Termini and Project Status.................................................................................... 2
D. Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................2
II�U"I]amW-110Il0DIDI1llC6].aWtical Ke I
A.
Purpose of Project..............................................................................................................
4
B.
Need for Project.................................................................................................................4
1. Description of Existing Conditions.............................................................................
5
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans..........................................................................
14
3. System Linkage........................................................................................................
17
4. Safety........................................................................................................................20
5. Demographic and Economic Characteristics............................................................
22
C.
Benefits of the Project......................................................................................................
31
III. ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................32
A.
Preliminary Alternatives..................................................................................................32
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM).......................................................................
32
2. Mass Transit.............................................................................................................
32
3. Transportation Systems Management(TSM)...........................................................33
4. No -Build Alternative................................................................................................
35
5. Build Alternatives.....................................................................................................35
B.
Detailed Study of Segment Alternatives..........................................................................
38
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS......................................................................42
A.
Roadway Cross-section and Alignment...........................................................................
42
B.
Right of Way and Access Control....................................................................................
42
C.
Speed Limit......................................................................................................................43
D.
Design Speed...................................................................................................................43
E.
Design Criteria.................................................................................................................
43
F.
Anticipated Design Exceptions........................................................................................
44
G.
Intersections/Interchanges................................................................................................
44
H.
Service Roads..................................................................................................................
44
I.
Railroad Crossings...........................................................................................................44
J.
Structures.........................................................................................................................44
K.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.....................................................................................
45
L.
Utilities............................................................................................................................
45
M.
Landscaping.....................................................................................................................45
N.
Noise Barriers..................................................................................................................
45
O.
Traffic Carrying Capacity................................................................................................
46
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .........................
47
A.
Natural Resources............................................................................................................47
1. Biotic Resources.......................................................................................................47
a. Terrestrial Communities....................................................................................
47
b. Aquatic Communities........................................................................................
49
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects.......................................................................
50
2. Waters of the United States......................................................................................
52
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments........................................................................
52
b. Wetlands............................................................................................................57
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects.......................................................................
59
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation.........................................................
62
e. Anticipated Perm it Requirements......................................................................64

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. Rare and Protected Species.......................................................................................
64
a. Federally -Protected Species...............................................................................
64
b. Federal Species of Concern / State -Protected Species .......................................
69
c. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ....................................................
70
4. Soils..........................................................................................................................71
5. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................
74
6. Important Natural Areas...........................................................................................
74
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers.............................................................................................
74
B. Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................74
1. Compliance Guidelines.............................................................................................
74
2. Historic Architectural Resources..............................................................................
75
3. Archaeological Resources.........................................................................................
76
C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources..............................................................................................
77
D. Prime and Important Farmland........................................................................................
77
E. Social Effects...................................................................................................................80
1. Neighborhoods/Communities...................................................................................80
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses.................................................................
80
3. Environmental Justice...............................................................................................
81
4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities.................................................................................
83
5. Recreational Facilities...............................................................................................
83
6. Public Facilities and Services...................................................................................
84
F. Economic Effects.............................................................................................................
86
G. Land Use..........................................................................................................................88
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................
88
2. Future Land Use.......................................................................................................
91
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans....................................................................
92
4. Housing Units...........................................................................................................92
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects......................................................................................
93
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation.................................................................................................
97
J. Traffic Noise Analysis.....................................................................................................
99
1. Noise Abatement Criteria.........................................................................................
99
2. Ambient Noise Levels.............................................................................................100
3. Analysis Results.......................................................................................................101
4. Noise Abatement Alternatives.................................................................................102
5. No -Build Alternative...............................................................................................103
6. Construction Noise..................................................................................................103
7. Conclusion for Traffic Noise Analysis....................................................................103
K. Air Quality Analysis.......................................................................................................104
1. Background CO Concentrations..............................................................................104
2. Air Quality Analysis Results...................................................................................104
3. Mobile Source Air Toxics........................................................................................105
4. Construction Air Quality Effects.............................................................................105
5. Conclusion for Air Quality Analysis.......................................................................105
L. Hazardous Material.........................................................................................................105
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION......................................................... 107
A. Citizens Informational Workshop...................................................................................107
B. Newsletters.....................................................................................................................107
C. Public Hearing................................................................................................................108
D. NEPA/404 Merger Process.............................................................................................108
E. Other Coordination.........................................................................................................109
VII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................... 111
VIII. REFERENCES..................................................................................................112

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Construction Cost Estimates
Table 2.1
Existing Major Drainage Structures
Table 2.2
Level of Service Classifications and Conditions
Table 2.3
US 221 Levels of Service - 2002 (No -Build) Existing Conditions
Table 2.4
US 221 Levels of Service - 2025/2030 No -Build Alternative
Table 2.5
Projects in the Vicinity of US 221 (2009-2015 STIP)
Table 2.6
Primary Crash Types along US 221
Table 2.7
Existing US 221 and Average Statewide Crash Rates
Table 2.8
2000 Population - Racial/Ethnic Composition
Table 2.9
2010 Population - Racial/Ethnic Composition
Table 2.10
Education
Table 2.11
Labor Force
Table 2.12
Employment by Sector - Rutherford County
Table 2.13
Employment by Sector - McDowell County
Table 2.14
Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level
Table 2.15
Age Distribution
Table 3.1
Preliminary Segment Alternatives
Table 3.2
Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Segment Alternatives
Table 4.1
Summary of Design Criteria
Table 4.2
Major Drainage Structures
Table 5.1
Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Table 5.2
Physical Characteristics of Streams
Table 5.3
Estimated Impacts to Streams
Table 5.4
Estimated Impacts to Wetlands
Table 5.5
Species under Federal Protection
Table 5.6
Federal Species of Concern
Table 5.7
Physical Properties of Soils in the Project Study Area
Table 5.8
Acreages of Soil Types in the Segment Alternatives
Table 5.9
Determinations of Effects to Historic Resources
Table 5.10
Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Project Study Area
Table 5.11
Estimated Relocations by Segment Alternative
Table 5.12
Environmental Justice Related Demographic Characteristics for Census
Tracts within the Project Study Area
Table 5.13
Churches and Cemeteries in the Vicinity of the Project Study Area
Table 5.14
Land Use Classifications in Rutherford County
Table 5.15
Housing Values (Specified Owner -Occupied)
Table 5.16
Housing Characteristics
Table 5.17
Floodplain Impacts
Table 5.18
Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map and Project Study Area
Figure 2.1
Existing Major Drainage Structures for Rutherford County (Sheet 1)
Figure 2.1
Existing Major Drainage Structures for McDowell County (Sheet 2)
Figure 2.2
Average Daily Traffic Volumes and LOS (No -Build) (Sheets 2 of 2)
Figure 2.3
TIP Projects in Vicinity
Figure 2.4
Existing Road Network
Figure 2.5
Census Tracts and ICE Study Area
Figure 3.1
Segment Alternatives (Sheets 5 of 5)
Figure 4.1
Typical Section (Sheets 5 of 5)
Figure 4.2
2025/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Build) (Sheets 2 of 2)
Figure 5.1 Biotic Communities and Water Resources Map (Sheets 4 of 4)
Figure 5.2 Soils in Project Study Area (Sheets 5 of 5)
Figure 5.3 Community Facilities in Project Area (Sheets 2 of 2)
Figure 5.4 Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Appendix B
Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
- TIP Project R-2597
- TIP Project R-204D&E
Appendix C
Intersection Capacity Analysis Level of Service Summary
Appendix D
Soil Associations in the Project Area
Appendix E
Cultural Resources Concurrence Letters
Appendix F
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms (Form AD-1006)
Appendix G
Relocation Assistance Program
Appendix H
Traffic Noise Analysis
Appendix I
Air Quality Analysis (MSATs)
Appendix J
Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Appendix K
Public Involvement
- Press Releases
- Citizens Informational Workshop Handouts
- Newsletters
Appendix L
Merger Team Concurrence Forms

L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
This project addresses the proposed improvements of a 19-mile section of existing US 221, from
north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell
County. The proposed improvements are included as two projects in the 2009-2015 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program (STEP). TIP
Project R-2597, approximately 15 miles in length, begins at the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass,
north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in Rutherford County, passes through the Gilkey, Thermal
City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood communities, and ends at SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) in
Glenwood, south of Marion, in McDowell County. TIP Project R-204D&E, approximately four
miles in length, begins at SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road), south of Marion, and ends at the existing
multi -lane section of US 221-NC 226 in Marion. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the project in
relation to the state, as well as the project study area.
B. Historical Resume
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E have been top priorities for both Rutherford and McDowell
Counties for several decades, dating back at least as far as 1976, when the Rutherford County
Thoroughfare Plan recognized that improvements to US 221 would improve traffic flow through the
area (NCDOT, 1976). In the 1995 McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan, widening of US 221 was
identified as the top priority for county projects (NCDOT, 1995).
In 1989, the NC General Assembly established the Intrastate System to provide safe, high-speed
travel throughout North Carolina. NCDOT designated US 221 as part of an Intrastate Corridor
between Boone and the South Carolina state line. In the same year, the NCDOT added
improvements to the two-lane segment of US 221 from SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) to the US 221-
NC 226 intersection to the STIP.
In "A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal Planning Region," Poole
and White (2005) state that widening US 221 to four lanes from I-85 through McDowell County is
the top action item needed to increase the area's connection to the world. In an assessment of
infrastructure needs for North Carolina's 10a' and 11t' Congressional Districts, the proposed
improvements were rated as a high priority road project (Toft, 2003). The advantages cited for the
project were that it would provide additional major commercial airport access to the region (easier
connection with Spartanburg, SC) and that the proposed improvements to US 221 would provide
improved routing to Atlanta, GA.
Kerry Giles of the Rutherford County Economic Development Commission stated that development
in the county was impeded by the lack of a north -south four -lane highway. He stated that
improvements to US 221 that improved access to I-85 and I-40 would make the area more attractive
to distributors that required truck transport (Giles, 2006).
1

C. Logical Termini and Project Status
Logical Termini
The project was initiated as TIP Project R-2597. TIP Project R-204D&E was added to the project in
May 2003 to prevent project segmentation in the vicinity of SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) where the
multi -lane improvements with TIP Project R-2597 would end. This will also ensure the independent
utility of the proposed improvements, as it would provide a continuous, four -lane facility that would
connect Rutherfordton and Marion and would allow improved access to I-40 from both cities.
The US 221 project would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements contained in the NCDOT's STIP or long-range projects identified in
the area's thoroughfare plans.
Project Status
Improvements to US 221 (R-2597 and R-204) are included in the NCDOT's 2009-2015 STIR TIP
Project R-2597 is included as three sections: TIP R-2597A, R-259713, and R-2597C. TIP Project
R-2597A extends from north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) to SR 1325 (Nanney Town Road). TIP
Project R-2597B extends from SR 1325 (Nanney Town Road) to SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road)
northern intersection. TIP Project R-2597C extends from SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) northern
intersection to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road). TIP Project R-204 is divided into five sections. The
sections north of those described in this document (A, B, and C) have been constructed. TIP Project
R-204D extends from the US 221-NC 226 intersection south of Marion to I-40. TIP Project R-204E
extends from I-40 to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road).
Right-of-way acquisition, construction, and mitigation for Sections A and B of TIP Project R-2597
are currently unfunded. Right-of-way acquisition for Section C is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2018, with construction to begin in fiscal year 2020. Mitigation is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2019 for Section C. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2014 for Section D
of TIP Project R-204, with construction to begin in fiscal year 2016 and mitigation in fiscal year
2015. Right-of-way acquisition for Section E is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2017, with
construction scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2020 and mitigation in fiscal year 2018.
D. Cost Estimates
Preliminary construction cost estimates for each of the Segment Alternatives is presented in
Table 1.1. Because of the number of segments with more than one construction alternative, the total
construction costs range from $191,000,000 for Segments Al/B1/C/D1/E1/F2/G2/H to
$198,500,000 for Segments Al/B3/C/D/E1/F1/Gl/H. The primary difference between alternative
construction costs is earthwork.
2

Table 1.1
Construction Cost Estimates
Segment
Alternative
Length
(miles)
Construction
Cost ($)
Al
0.93
$6,000,000
B1
1.98
$12,100,000
B2
1.97
$12,600,000
B3
2.0
$12,900,000
C
4.13
$24,800,000
D (New Loc)
5.64
$80,300,000
D1 (Existing)
5.64
$74,000,000
El
2.72
$17,500,000
F1
2.30
$15,500,000
F2
2.30
$15,300,000
Gl
2.40
$19,500,000
G2
2.40
$19,300,000
H
3.50
$22,000,000

II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The primary purposes of the proposed project include the following:
• Improve the levels of traffic service by reducing travel time along the US 221 Intrastate
Corridor, and
• Increase safety.
B. Need for Project
Projected traffic congestion and existing crash rates create a need for improved highway capacity
and safety enhancements to this two-lane segment of US 221. These needs are demonstrated by the
following conditions:
• Current and future (2025) traffic volumes on portions of US 221 between Rutherfordton and
Gilkey operate at or near the roadway's traffic carrying capacity (i.e., level of service E [LOS
E]). Projected future traffic volumes between Gilkey and Glenwood will operate at LOS D
in 2025. Between Glenwood and Marion, future volumes will operate at LOS E. LOS D
represents severely restricted traffic flow with low operating speeds and LOS E represents
conditions at or near the roadway's capacity. These are not acceptable levels of service for a
rural arterial roadway.
• This segment of US 221 is on the National Highway System and is part of the Intrastate
System, designated in 1989 by the North Carolina General Assembly to provide safe, high-
speed travel throughout the state. US 221 is part of a corridor that extends from
Spartanburg/Greenville, SC, to Boone, NC. This is an important arterial that links the
foothills and the northwest mountains. According to the NCDOT Intrastate System map, this
section of US 221 is in need of improvement.
• Five fatal crashes occurred within the project study area during the three year period from
1998-2000. The fatal crash rate for US 221 in the project study area (4.5 crashes per
100 million vehicle miles [mvm]) for that three-year period was higher than the statewide
average crash rate (2.6 crashes per 100 mvm). However, no fatal crashes occurred within the
project study area during a recent three year period. While the total crash rate for US 221
along TIP Project R-2597 between the Rutherford County line and SR 1153 (95.80 crashes
per 100 mvm) is lower than the statewide average crash rate (151.02 crashes per 100 mvm),
the total crash rate for US 221 between SR 1366 and the McDowell County line
(178.48 crashes per 100 mvm) and along TIP Project R-204D&E (159.82 crashes per 100
mvm) is higher than the statewide average rate. The most common crash patterns are
rear -end slow or stopped collisions, animal collisions, and fixed object collisions. These
patterns account for more than 60 percent of the total crashes and are typical of congested
conditions on roadways with little or no control of access. Rear -end crashes are common in
stop -and -go conditions and result from drivers following too closely.
4

1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
Through the project study area, US 221 is classified as a principal arterial in the NCDOT
functional classification system. It is also included by the state as Strategic Highway
Corridor 12 (connecting Spartanburg, SC, with Boone, NC, via US 221 and NC 105). The
primary purpose of the Strategic Highway Corridors initiative (which includes 55 listed
Corridors) is to provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout North
Carolina. The initiative also seeks to create a consensus towards the development of a
genuine vision for each corridor (NCDOT, 2011).
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
1) Roadway Cross -Section
US 221 within the project study area is generally two lanes with a pavement width of
approximately 24 feet, except north of I-40, where it narrows to 22 feet. Near the
northern project terminus, existing US 221 widens to approximately 63 feet to
accommodate the US 221 and NC 226 intersection. The majority of existing US 221 has
limited passing areas.
2) Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The project study area is mostly rolling and the existing alignment is sufficient with
moderate curves and grades, except for a five -mile portion near Vein Mountain where the
terrain is steep and mountainous. In this area, as well as the I-40 area, sharper curves
limit travel speed and sight distance. US 221 also has substandard curves that do not
meet the 60 mph design speed in the area of the Second Broad River bridge.
3) Right of Way and Access Control
The right-of-way width along existing US 221 is approximately 100 feet.
No control of access exists along US 221 in the project study area. Numerous driveways
and intersecting roads are located throughout the project study area, particularly near
Rutherfordton, Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, Glenwood, and Marion.
4) Speed Limit
The posted speed limit is 55 mph throughout most of the project length. Two short
sections, totaling approximately one mile, have 45 mph speed limits. These sections are
near SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) and in the Gilkey community.
5

5) Intersections/InterchanRes
All intersections are at -grade and stop sign controlled, except for a traffic signal at the
US 221-NC 226 intersection.
6) Railroads
Norfolk Southern Railway owns right of way along the east side of US 221 through much
of the project study area, but the tracks have been removed. CSX Transportation operates
a railroad line in the vicinity of the project, which generally follows US 221 along the
east side between Thermal City and Marion. However, neither the railroad line nor the
railroad right of way cross US 221 within the project study area
7) Structures
The major drainage structures located within the project limits include one bridge, nine
reinforced concrete box culverts, and two pipes (Table 2.1). Other crossings not listed in
this table will require culverts or pipes smaller than six feet. The locations of the bridge,
culverts, and pipes are shown on Figure 2.1.
Table 2.1
Existing Major Drainage Structures
Site
Number
Stream
Segment
Alternative
Drainage Structure
1
Cathey's Creek
C
6@ 9 ft x 11 ft RCBC
2
Stoney Creek
D,D 1
3@ 8 ft x 8 ft RCBC
3
Rockhouse Creek
D,D 1
3@ 6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
4
Tributary to Second Broad River
D,D 1
72-inch CMP
4a
Tributary to Second Broad River
D,D1
72-inch CMP
5
Scrub Grass Branch
D,D 1
3@ 6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
6
Second Broad River
D1
Bridge (117 ft)
7
Tributary to Second Broad River
D 1
8 ft x 9 ft and 10 ft x 6 ft
bottomless RCBC
7a
Tributary to Second Broad River
El
6 ft x 5 ft RCBC
8
Goose Creek
El
3@ 9 ft x 8 ft RCBC
9
North Muddy Creek
El
3 @ 11 ft x 12 ft RCBC
10
Tributary to Corpening Creek
H
6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
Note: * RCBC indicates Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert, CMP indicates Corrugated Metal Pipe
6

8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
The NCDOT Bicycle Policy declares bicycle transportation "an integral part of the
comprehensive transportation system in North Carolina." (NCDOT, 1991) This portion
of US 221 is not included in the Department's 2009-2015 STIP for incidental bicycle
needs, nor is it part of the bicycling highway system. There are, however, several bicycle
routes in Rutherford and McDowell Counties.
In McDowell County, the Blue Ridge Parkway is a designated bike route, as are segments
of Old US 70, Lake James Road (NC 126), Lake Tohoma Road, and NC 181 (McDowell
County, 2011). There is one designated bike route in Rutherford County. The segment,
south of the project area, is part of the Southern Highlands Trail (Rutherford Tourism,
undated).
The Rutherford County Comprehensive Arts, Parks, and Recreation Plan lists several
local bicycle routes, including the Thermal Belt Rails to Trails route located east of
existing US 221 in the project study area from SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) to SR 1351
(Darlington Road/Oak Springs Road) (Rutherford County, 2005).
County residents use the Tanner Double Loop bike trail that crosses US 221 at SR 1351
(Oak Springs Road). One loop to the east of US 221 extends from SR 1351 (Darlington
Road/Oak Springs Road) to SR 1520 (Rock Road), SR 1532 (Gilboa Church Road), and
SR 1530 (Rucker Road). The other loop, to the west of US 221, starts at SR 1351
(Darlington Road/Oak Springs Road) and includes SR 1359 (Carpenter Road), SR 1331
(Piney Knob Road), and SR 1328 (Gilkey School Road). To complete the loop,
bicyclists would use US 221 from SR 1328 (Gilkey School Road) to SR 1351 (Oak
Springs Road), a distance of approximately 900 feet. Another local bicycle route extends
in a loop from SR 1351 (Darlington Road) at US 221 to SR 1328 (Gilkey School Road).
In addition to these trails, the Rutherford Outdoor Coalition lists seven additional bicycle
routes that are commonly used by area bicyclists but lack bicycle lanes or paved
shoulders (Rutherford Outdoor Coalition, undated).
No sidewalks or greenways exist within the project limits.
9) Utilities
Individual wells and septic tank systems are found throughout the rural areas of both
Rutherford and McDowell Counties. Utility poles that house power, television, and
telephone cables are located along US 221. A cellular phone tower and a telephone
switching station are located in Rutherford County near SR 1323 (Crutchfield Road).
The project study area contains a high-tension transmission line easement maintained by
Duke Power, consisting of multiple large-scale transmission towers. The easement enters
the project study area in Segment D, near Thermal City and Vein Mountain, and runs
along the west side of US 221, crossing US 221 at the SR 1150 (Beaver Creek
Road)/SR 1786 (Old US 221) intersection. From this point, the easement runs along the
7

east side of US 221 crossing the I-40 interchange, and continuing on the west side of
US 221 the length of the project. This easement crosses the alignments in Segment D
and Segment D1.
There are two substations located on the boundary of the project study area One
substation is located east of US 221, across from the Albert Weaver Farm, and the other
substation is located east of US 221, north of SR 1153 (Glenwood Baptist Church Road).
Both substations are accessible via US 221.
c. School Bus Usage
According to Rutherford County School System, 20 buses travel US 221 twice each day
within the project study area in Rutherford County (York, 2011). These buses serve
R-S Central High School, R-S Middle School, Pinnacle Elementary School, and
Rutherfordton Elementary School. A representative with McDowell County School System
indicated that eight buses travel US 221 twice each day within the project study area in
McDowell County (Thomas, 2011). These buses serve East McDowell Junior High School,
Glenwood Elementary School, and McDowell High School.
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity
The effectiveness of a roadway segment in serving traffic demand is measured in terms of
level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic conditions and driver
perception. It is based on such factors as speed, travel time, maneuverability, interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. The LOS is defined with letter designations from A
through F, which can be applied to both roadway segments and intersections. LOS A
represents the best operating conditions and LOS F represents the worst. A level of service
of C or better is desirable in rural and suburban areas where trip lengths are longer. Table 2.2
describes the traffic conditions generally associated with each LOS designation.
3

Table 2.2
Level of Service Classifications and Conditions
Level of
Service (LOS)
Traffic Flow Conditions
Free flow operations. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in
A
their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The general
level of physical and psychological comfort provided to the driver
is still high.
Reasonably free flow operations. The ability to maneuver within
B
the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and the general level of
physical and psychological comfort provided to the driver is still
high.
Flow with speeds at or near free flow speeds. Freedom to
C
maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted and lane
changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. The driver
notices an increase in tension because of the additional vigilance
required for safe operation.
Speeds decline with increasing traffic. Freedom to maneuver
D
within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited. The driver
experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels.
At lower boundary, the facility is at capacity. Operations are
E
volatile because there are virtually no gaps in the traffic stream.
There is little room to maneuver. The driver experiences poor
levels of physical and psychological comfort.
Breakdowns in traffic flow. The number of vehicles entering the
F
highway section exceeds the capacity or ability of the highway to
accommodate that number of vehicles. There is little or no room to
maneuver. The driver experiences poor levels of physical and
psychological comfort.
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000
1) Existing Traffic Volumes
A Traffic Capacity Analysis for TIP Project R-2597 (Buck, 2004) and a Preliminary
Review of TIP Project R-0204D&E (NCDOT, 2002) were prepared for the proposed
project and are appended by reference. Figure 2.2 presents the baseline average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes for the year 2002 for US 221 and major intersecting roads. The
2002 ADT volumes along the TIP Project R-2597 portion of US 221 range from 4,200
vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Thermal City to 8,600 vpd near SR 1366 (Roper
Loop Road). The ADT volumes along the TIP Project R-204D&E portion of US 221
range from 6,800 vpd north of SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to 9,000 vpd south of the I-40
interchange. Lower traffic volumes are encountered in the less developed areas between
Gilkey and Vein Mountain. Higher traffic volumes are encountered near Rutherfordton,
9

Gilkey, Glenwood, and Marion. During the afternoon peak hour, the northbound
direction carries the heaviest movement of the traffic through SR 1786 (Old US 221)
while the southbound direction carries the heaviest movement of the traffic from the
northern project terminus toward I-40.
Truck traffic makes up 7 to 13 percent of the total US 221 traffic volumes. Near Marion,
trucks account for seven percent of the volumes, of which four percent are medium sized
dual axle trucks and three percent are heavy tractor -trailer trucks. From Rutherfordton to
Gilkey, trucks account for nine percent of the volumes, of which four percent are medium
sized dual -axle trucks and five percent are heavy tractor -trailer trucks. From Gilkey to
Vein Mountain, trucks account for 13 percent of the volumes, of which five percent are
dual -axle trucks and eight percent are tractor -trailer trucks.
2) Existing Levels of Service
The levels of service along existing US 221 were estimated using Highway Capacity
Software 2000, which is based on the methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, 2000). A transportation facility is considered to be
operating at capacity when it is just able to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the
traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity (LOS E), excessive delays occur.
The present levels of service for the roads in the project study area were determined
based on the year 2002 roadway and lane configurations and the year 2002 traffic
volumes. The facility was divided into 11 sections to reflect changes in speed and
volumes (Figure 2.2). To determine and evaluate the capacity conditions of the existing
roadway network in the project study area, mainline capacity analyses were performed
and are shown in Table 2.3.
10

Table 2.3
US 221 Levels of Service
2002 (No -Build) Existing Conditions
Average
Average
Average
Level of
Section
Number
Description along US 221
Length
(mile)
Speed
(mph)
Trucks in
Peak
Access Points
Daily
Traffic
Service
Hour (%)
(mi e)
Volume*
(LOS)**
1
SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) to
1.8
55
5
4
8,600
D
SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd)
2
SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to
1.0
45
5
3
7,800
E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd)
3
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to
1.9
55
7
4
5,000
C
SR 1508 (Old US 221)
4
SR 1508 (Old US 221) to
1.3
55
7
5
4,800
C
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd)
5
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to
2.0
55
7
3
4,200
C
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd)
6
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to
3.6
55
7
1
4,600
C
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd)
7
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to
1.7
55
6
3
5,400
C
SR 178 5/113 5 (Mud Cut Rd)
8
SR 178 5/113 5 (Mud Cut Rd) to
1.9
55
5
2
6,800
D
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd)
9
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) to
1.5
55
4
4
8,000
D
SR 1786 (Old US 221)
10
SR 1786 (Old US 221) to SR
1.2
55
4
7
9,000
E
1165 (Chapel Hill Church Loop)
11
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church
1.1
55
4
5
8,200
D
Loop) to US 221-NC 226
Notes: 2002 Average Daily Traffic Volume from NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
* Highest volume on segment utilized which yields worst LOS
** Level of Service (LOS) based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
2000), Chapter 20 (Two-lane Highways)
According to these results, the traffic along US 221 from Gilkey to south of Glenwood
(Section Numbers 3-7) currently operates at LOS C. LOS C represents stable traffic flow
with speeds near the posted limit. According to the American Association of Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design guidelines, LOS B is desirable for most
rural arterials, except in mountainous areas where LOS C is acceptable (AASHTO,
2001). The 2.8-mile portion of US 221 between Rutherfordton and Gilkey (Section
Numbers 1 and 2) and the 5.7-mile portion of US 221 from south of Glenwood to Marion
(Section Numbers 8-11) operate at LOS D and LOS E. These are not acceptable levels of
11

service because LOS D conditions represent severely restricted traffic flow with low
operating speeds and LOS E represents conditions at or near the roadway's capacity.
The table in Appendix C summarizes the levels of service at thirty-four intersections,
including one signalized intersection, along existing US 221 based on traffic volumes for
2002 (Figure 2.2). While none of the unsignalized intersections are approaching the
intersection capacity (LOS E or F), one of the intersections (SR 1362 [Gilkey School
Road] — southern intersection) has one approach that is operating at LOS D, with little
capacity available to absorb additional traffic.
3) Future Traffic Volumes
Average daily traffic volumes were projected to estimate whether the roadway system
would have sufficient capacity to accommodate future travel demand. The future year
traffic projections provided for TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E were for the years
2025 and 2030, respectively. The future "no -build" highway network assumed that there
would be no roadway improvements to the existing transportation system beyond those
projects already planned and programmed as part of the NCDOT STIP, with the
exception of the improvements to US 221 (TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E). The
roadway sections and intersections analyzed for the 2025/2030 No -Build Alternative are
the same as those analyzed for the Existing Conditions because it was assumed that no
changes to the existing roadway infrastructure would occur. The 2025/2030 No -Build
analysis serves as a baseline condition from which the impacts of changes in traffic
patterns due to the proposed project can be measured.
The projected average daily traffic volumes in 2025/2030 for existing US 221 and major
intersecting roads are shown in Figure 2.2. Design year ADT volumes are expected to
range from 7,800 vpd just south of Thermal City to 16,000 vpd near SR 1366 (Roper
Loop Road). The ADT volumes along the TIP Project R-204D&E portion of US 221
range from 12,800 vpd north of SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to 15,600 vpd south of the
I-40 interchange.
4) Future Levels of Service (No -Build)
Table 2.4 lists the LOS for roadway sections along US 221 in the future year. According
to these results, the traffic along US 221 from Gilkey to south of I-40 (Section
Numbers 3-8) will operate at LOS D by the design year. The portion between
Rutherfordton and Gilkey (Section Numbers 1 and 2) and from south of I-40 to Marion
(Section Numbers 9-11) will operate at LOS E.
12

Table 2.4
US 221 Levels of Service
2025/2030 No -Build Alternative
Average
Average
Average
Level of
Section
Description along US 221
Length
Speed
Trucks in
Access
Daily
Service
Number
(mile)
(mph)
Peak
Points
Traffic
(LOS)**
Hour (%)
(/mile)
Volume*
1
SR 1532/1367 to SR 1355 (Mtn.
1.8
55
5
4
16,000
E
Creek Rd)
2
SR 1355 (Mtn. Creek Rd) to
1.0
45
5
3
14,400
E
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd)
3
SR 1362 S (Gilkey School Rd) to
1.9
55
7
4
9,200
D
SR 1508 (Old US 221)
4
SR 1508 (Old US 221) to
1.3
55
7
5
9,000
D
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd)
5
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to
2.0
55
7
3
7,800
D
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd)
6
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to
3.6
55
7
1
8,600
D
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd)
7
SR 1781 N (Polly Spout Rd) to
1.7
55
6
3
10,200
D
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd)
8
SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to
1.9
55
5
2
12,800
D
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd)
9
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd) to
1.5
55
4
4
15,200
E
SR 1786 (Old US 221)
10
SR 1786 (Old US 221) to
1.2
55
4
7
15,600
E
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church
Loop)
11
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church
1.1
55
4
5
15,200
E
Loop) to US 221-NC 226
Notes: 2025/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volume from NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
* Highest volume on segment utilized which yields worst LOS
** Level of Service (LOS) based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
2000), Chapter 20 (Two-lane Highways)
The capacity analysis conducted for the future No -Build Alternative indicates that
US 221 within the project study area would be congested and many segments would fail
to serve the future traffic demand. As discussed previously, LOS D and LOS E are not
acceptable levels of service for this two-lane facility. These are unstable conditions that
exhibit severely restricted traffic flow and low operating speeds. Since higher speeds and
improved travel times are needed along this principal arterial, design year level of service
improvements are warranted.
13

The table in Appendix C lists the LOS for major intersecting roads along US 221 for TIP
Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E in 2025 and 2030, respectively. The analysis of the
future year No -Build traffic flow conditions along the existing US 221 corridor indicates
that congestion at several intersections would worsen if there are no improvements made
to the existing system. At nine of the thirty-three unsignalized intersections analyzed
along the existing US 221 corridor, the intersection as a whole would function at LOS E
or F during both the morning and evening peak periods of the day. These are not
acceptable levels of service for a rural arterial.
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Table 2.5 lists the projects in the project area that are included in the NCDOT 2009-2015
STIP. Figure 2.3 shows the general locations of these projects.
Table 2.5
Projects in the Vicinity of US 221
(2009-2015 STIP)
Project
Number
Description
Proposed Improvement
Projected Schedule
North of SR 1366 (Roper
Widen to multi -lanes; 15 miles
R-2597
Loop Road) in Rutherford
County to SR 1153 in
McDowell County
R-2597 Section A —North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Unfunded
to SR 1325 (Nanney Town Road)
R-2597 Section B — SR 1325 (Nanny Town Road) to
Unfunded
SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) northern intersection
Right-of-way acquisition
R-2597 Section C — SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) northern
scheduled to begin in fiscal
intersection to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road)
year 2018; construction to
begin in fiscal year 2020
US 221-NC 226, SR 1434 to
Widen to multi -lanes with a bypass of Marion; 12. 4 miles
R-204
SR 1153, McDowell County
R-204 Section A— SR 1434 North of Marion to US 221-
Complete
NC 226 Business
R-204 Section B —US 221-NC 226 Business to South of
Complete
southern railway
R-204 Section C — South of southern railway to US 221-
Complete
NC 226 intersection south of Marion
14

Project
Description
Proposed Improvement
Projected Schedule
Number
Right-of-way acquisition
R-204 Section D — US 221-NC 226 intersection south of
scheduled to begin in fiscal
Marion to I-40
year 2014; construction to
begin in fiscal year 2016
Right-of-way acquisition
R-204 Section E—I-40 to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road)
scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2017; construction to
begin in fiscal year 2020
South Carolina State Line to
Widen to multi -lanes with bypass of Rutherfordton on new
R-2233
North of SR 1366 (Roper
location; 18.2 miles
Loop Road), Rutherford
County
R-2233 Section AA —South Carolina state line to south of
Under Construction
Flo d's Creek
Right-of-way in progress;
R-2233 Section AB — South of Floyd's Creek to north of
construction scheduled to
US 74 Bypass
begin in fiscal year 2011
Right-of-way acquisition
R-2233 Section BA — North of US 74 Bypass to north of
scheduled to begin in fiscal
US 74 Business
year 2014; construction to
begin in fiscal year 2019
Right-of-way acquisition
R-2233 Section BB — North of US 74 Business to north of
scheduled to begin in fiscal
SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
year 2018; construction is
currently unfunded
I-40, Buncombe County Line
Pavement rehabilitation;
Under construction
I-4908
to NC 226 (MP 86),
20 miles
McDowell County
US 221, Second Broad River,
Replace Bridge No. 17
Right-of-way acquisition
B-3673
McDowell County
scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2013; construction to
begin in fiscal year 2015
B-4191
NC 226, Creek, McDowell
Replace Bridge No. 82
Under construction
County
B-4261
SR 1520, Fork of Cathey's
Replace Bridge No. 39 and
Under construction
Creek and Cathey's Creek,
replace Bridge No. 37
Rutherford County
B-4262
SR 1520, Creek, Rutherford
Replace Bridge No. 217
Under construction
County
Source: NCDOT, 2011
15

b. Local Thoroughfare Plans
The Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan for Rutherford County, developed cooperatively with the
NCDOT, was adopted in 1997. Thoroughfare planning enables a transportation network to
be developed progressively, so that it can adequately meet the transportation needs of an area
as land develops and traffic volumes increase. The thoroughfare plan identifies existing and
future deficiencies in the county transportation system and determines the need for new
facilities. The Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan includes the southern end
of TIP Project R-2597 as a major thoroughfare.
The Thoroughfare Plan for McDowell County, also developed cooperatively with the
NCDOT, was adopted in 1995. The thoroughfare plan recommends multi -lane
improvements along US 221 within McDowell County to accommodate future traffic
volumes and preserve the integrity of this intrastate route. In the 1995 McDowell County
Thoroughfare Plan, growth along US 221 was expected to take place north of Marion
through the Woodlawns community and south of Marion through the Glenwood community.
These communities were expected to be more attractive for potential development since they
had relatively flat terrain and water and sewer service expansions were planned.
Topographic concerns limited development in other parts of the US 221 corridor (NCDOT,
1995). The NCDOT is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Transportation Plan
for McDowell County. This plan is currently in the data collection phase and a timeline for
completion is not available.
c. Land Use Plans
Rutherford County, in cooperation with Luke Planning: Community Vision, developed a
strategic plan titled, Realize Rutherford: A Strategic Plan Written by and for the Citizens of
Rutherford County, 2002-2022 (Rutherford County, 2002). The plan was finalized in
November 2002 and lists improvements of US 221 from Chesnee to Rutherfordton as its
highest priority. It continues to say that these improvements are critical so that there is no
delay in continuing improvements to US 221 through the I-40 interchange. The southern
boundary of the US 221 project study area lies just outside and adjacent to the Rutherfordton
town limits.
Rutherford County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can be found in
the Rutherford County Land Use Plan (2001), prepared by the Isothermal Planning and
Development Commission and the NC Division of Community Assistance. The purpose of
this comprehensive land use plan is to allow local government to develop policies that
address the needs of the Rutherford County community and those issues that are vital to its
growth and development and the protection of its natural and economic resources. The plan
also helps local government to make informed decisions that take into consideration the
county's resources and financial constraints, as well as public opinion. The county's plans
include maintaining the transportation and utilities systems so that they are safe, convenient,
and economical for use by citizens and for the delivery of goods.
16

McDowell County developed a land use plan in 1993. On June 14, 2010, the McDowell
County Board of Commissioners voted to reaffirm the 1993 plan without updating it. The
City of Marion is developing a draft Comprehensive Plan, but there is no timeline for when
this plan will be finalized. The northern boundary of the project study area lies outside the
Marion city limits; however, the City of Marion incorporated several satellite parcels of land
located along US 221 (south of the I-40 interchange) into the Marion city limits.
3. System Linkage
a. Existing Road Network
According to the most recent data, Rutherford County has a total of 1,071.2 miles of roads on
the state highway system. This includes 873.1 miles of secondary roads, 86.2 miles of
municipal roads, and 111.9 miles of primary roads (NCDOT, 2009). Rutherford County has
no interstate highways, six US routes, and four NC routes. The US routes include US 64,
US 74, US 74A, US 74B, US 221, and US 221A. The NC routes include NC 9, NC 108,
NC 120, and NC 226 (Figure 2.4).
According to the most recent data, McDowell County has a total of 593.4 miles of roads on
the state highway system. This includes 441.8 miles of secondary roads, 25.5 miles of
municipal roads, and 127.0 miles of primary roads (NCDOT, 2009). McDowell County has
one interstate highway, I-40. It has three US routes and four NC routes. The US routes
include US 64, US 70, and US 221. The NC routes include NC 80, NC 126, NC 226, and
NC 226A (Figure 2.4).
From a regional perspective, Rutherfordton and Marion are served by the Intrastate System.
The main north -south highways in the two counties are US 221 and NC 226. US 221 is a
two-lane roadway connecting Spartanburg, SC, with Boone, NC. NC 226 connects Shelby
with Spruce Pine. The main east -west routes in the counties are I-40, US 64, US 70, and
US 74. I-40 and US 70 connect Hickory with Asheville. US 64 connects Morganton with
Hendersonville and US 74 connects Shelby with Hendersonville.
Several North Carolina highways provide regional access for Rutherfordton, Marion, and
surrounding communities. In addition, an extensive network of secondary roads serves the
local traffic in the area.
b. Commuting Patterns
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties have substantial commuting populations. Based on
2000 Census data, a total of 21,812 or 79 percent of workers who resided in Rutherford
County also worked within Rutherford County. Another 2,893 workers commuted into
Rutherford County from other counties, while 5,842 workers in Rutherford County
commuted to other counties. In McDowell County, 14,355 or 75 percent of workers who
resided in McDowell County also worked within McDowell County. Another 3,575 workers
commuted into McDowell County from other counties and 4,865 workers commuted from
McDowell County to other counties to get to work.
17

Of commuting workers in Rutherford County in 2000, more than 22 percent worked in
McDowell County or in areas that were either north of Rutherford County or easily
accessible via I-40. It is likely that a substantial number of these workers traveled US 221.
Of workers commuting into Rutherford County in 2000, more than 25 percent came from
McDowell County or commuted into Rutherford County from areas that were either north of
Rutherford County or that were easily accessible via I-40. Of commuting workers in
McDowell County in 2000, almost 85 percent worked south of McDowell County or in areas
that were easily accessible via I-40. Of workers commuting into McDowell County, over 61
percent either came from Rutherford County or commuted to areas south of McDowell
County with convenient access via I-40.
The length of time spent commuting provides insight into the distances that residents travel
in order to find employment opportunities. In Rutherford County, the majority of commuters
(52 percent) travel between 10 and 24 minutes to their work destination and 24 percent travel
between 25 and 59 minutes. Only five percent of commuters travel more than 60 minutes to
their work. In McDowell County, the majority of commuters (48 percent) travel between 10
and 24 minutes to their work destination and 32 percent travel between 25 and 59 minutes.
Only 6 percent of commuters travel more than 60 minutes to their work. This is comparable
to the average for North Carolina, in that 49 percent of the state's workers travel between 10
and 24 minutes to their work destination and 30 percent travel between 25 and 59 minutes.
Only 5 percent of commuters travel more than 60 minutes to their work.
Approximately 97 percent of the commuters in Rutherford County use an automobile, truck,
or van to travel to work and the majority (82 percent) of these travelers travels alone.
Approximately three percent of the commuters in Rutherford County walk, use public
transportation, or arrive at work via other transportation modes for their work trips, while
approximately three percent work at home. In McDowell County, approximately 97 percent
of the commuters use an automobile, truck, or van to travel to work and the majority
(77 percent) travel alone. Approximately three percent of the commuters in McDowell
County walk, use public transportation, or arrive at work via other transportation modes for
their work trips, while approximately two percent work at home. This is comparable to the
average values for North Carolina, in that approximately 95 percent of the commuters in the
state use an automobile, truck, or van to travel to work and the majority (79 percent) travel
alone. Approximately five percent of North Carolina commuters walk, use public
transportation, or arrive at work via other transportation modes for their work trips, while
approximately three percent work at home.
In 2000, approximately 19 percent of homeowners in Rutherford County had one vehicle
available. Approximately 33 percent had two vehicles, 14 percent had three vehicles, and
5 percent had four or more vehicles available. Among residents that rent their homes,
49 percent had one vehicle available. In McDowell County, approximately 18 percent of
homeowners had one vehicle available. Approximately 31 percent had two vehicles,
13 percent had three vehicles and five percent had four or more vehicles available. Among
residents that rent their homes, 47 percent had one vehicle available. This is comparable to
the average values for North Carolina in that approximately 19 percent of homeowners in the
18

state had one vehicle available. Approximately 33 percent had two vehicles, 14 percent had
three vehicles and five percent had four or more vehicles available. Among residents that
rent their homes, 49 percent had one vehicle available.
c. Modal Interrelationships
Other modes of travel including railroad, air service, and transit are integral parts of the
region's transportation system.
1) Public Transportation
The Transit Administration of Rutherford County (TARC) offers regional buses between
Rutherfordton and Forest City; however, the route ends south of the project study area.
TARC also offers an Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program.
McDowell County provides transportation to Foothills Industries Community
Rehabilitation Program, McDowell County Department of Social Services and the
McDowell Senior Center, all of which are north of the project study area. The County
supplies transport to Medicaid recipients, Work First clients and veterans needing to get
to the VA hospital or their doctors (McDowell News, 2011). However, there are no
public bus or passenger rail services for either county, and there are no current plans for
such services.
2) Freight Rail Service
Norfolk Southern Railway owns right of way along the east side of US 221 through much
of the project study area, but the tracks have been removed. Carrier service is available
through CSX Transportation in Rutherford and McDowell Counties. CSX Transportation
begins in South Carolina and runs through Ellenboro and Bostic to Marion, in McDowell
County.
The CSX Transportation railroad line in the vicinity of the project generally follow
US 221 along the east side between Thermal City and Marion. In the first six months of
2011, CSX Transportation averaged 20 trains per day along this rail line with maximum
speeds of 50 miles per hour (mph). However, neither the railroad line nor the railroad
right of way cross US 221 within the project study area.
3) Air Service
The Rutherford County Airport — Marchman Field is located north of Rutherfordton and
approximately two miles east of US 221. The most direct access to the airport is from
US 64 using SR 1523 (Fowler Road) and Airport Road. This county -owned, industrial
airport has a single 5,000-foot long, 100-foot wide runway for twin -engine planes and
business jets and can accommodate flights of up to 30 passengers. The airport is
self-sufficient and offers private charter flights through Stratos Jet Charter Services. In
2009, the airport averaged approximately 40 flights per day (aimay.com, 2009).
19

Shiflet Field is located in McDowell County, north of Marion and approximately
4.5 miles northwest of the northern terminus of the R-204D&E project. The most direct
access is off Main Street (US 70) via Garden Creek Road and Holly Street/Airport Road.
This is a private field owned by the Marion Airport Commission which averaged
approximately 24 flights a day in 2009. The field has a single runway that is 3,340 feet
long and 180 feet wide (aimay.com, 2009).
The closest major commercial airport is the Asheville Regional Airport located
approximately 35 miles west.
4. Safety
Crashes are often the visible result of deficiencies in the capacity and safety characteristics of a
transportation facility. Moreover, they contribute to delays, congestion, and driver frustration,
inducing more crashes. Thus, an examination of crash data can reveal the need to provide a
more efficient and safer facility.
Table 2.6 lists the crashes by type reported within the project study area from February 1, 2008
through January 31, 2011. During this three-year period, 151 reported crashes occurred along
US 221 between SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) and the US 221-NC 226 intersection. No fatal
crashes and 55 injury crashes occurred. A total of 105 (69.5 percent) of the crashes occurred
during the day and 124 (82.1 percent) took place in dry conditions.
Table 2.6
Primary Crash Types along US 221
Crash Type
Number
Percent of Total
Angle
10
6.6%
Animal
30
19.9%
Backing Up
1
0.7%
Fixed Object
29
19.2%
Head On
1
0.7%
Left Turn, Different Roadways
10
6.6%
Left Turn, Same Roadway
7
4.6%
Movable Object
5
3.3%
Other Non -Collision
1
0.7%
Overturn/Rollover
3
1.9%
Parked Motor Vehicle
1
0.7%
Pedal Cyclist
2
1.3%
Ran Off Road - Left
1
0.7%
Ran Off Road - Right
1
0.7%
Rear End, Slow or Stop
37
24.5%
Rear End, Turn
1
0.7%
Right Turn, Different Roadways
3
1.9%
Sideswipe, Opposite Direction
6
4.0%
Sideswipe, Same Direction
2
1.3%
TOTAL:
151
100.0%
Note: Report Period February 1, 2008 to January 31, 2011.
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, 2011
20

The most common crashes included rear -end slow or stopped collisions (24.5 percent), animal
collisions (19.9 percent), and fixed object collisions (19.2 percent). Rear -end crashes related to
traffic stopping or slowing are typical of congested conditions and result from drivers following
too closely. Rear -end crashes are common in stop -and -go conditions and on roadways with little
or no control of access and extremely high traffic volumes.
The US 221/I-40 intersection had eight reported crashes, while the intersection with SR 1135
(Mud Cut Road) had six reported crashes within the project study area There were five reported
crashes at the intersections with SR 1351 (Darlington Road), SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road)
northern intersection, SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road), and NC 226.
The crash analysis for TIP Project R-2597 was divided into two sections: 1) SR 1366 to the
McDowell County line in Rutherford County and 2) Rutherford County line to SR 1153 in
McDowell County. Table 2.7 summarizes the number of crashes and rates for US 221 compared
with the statewide average crash rates for similar two-lane rural US routes.
Table 2.7
Existing US 221 and Average Statewide Crash Rates
Existing US 221
Statewide Average
Crash Type
Number of
Percent of
Crash Rate
Crash Rate per
Crashes
Total
per 100 MVM*
100 MVM* *
TIP PROJECT R-2597
(SR 1366 to the McDowell County Line)
Total
64
100.00%
178.48
151.02
Fatal
0
0%
0
1.78
Non -fatal Injury
20
31.25%
55.77
55.37
Night
19
29.69%
52.99
50.88
wet
11
17.19%
30.68
27.54
(Rutherford County Line to SR 1153)
Total
38
100.00%
95.80
151.02
Fatal
0
0%
0
1.78
Non -fatal Injury
17
44.74%
42.86
55.37
Night
13
34.21%
32.78
50.88
wet
6
15.79%
15.13
27.54
TIP PROJECT R-204D&E
(SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226)
Total
49
100.00%
159.82
151.02
Fatal
0
0%
0
1.78
Non -fatal Injury
18
36.73%
58.71
55.37
Night
14
28.57%
45.66
50.88
wet
10
20.41%
32.62
27.54
Notes: * Crash rates are expressed in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (1\4VNI) of travel.
** The Statewide Average is for rural US routes having 2 lanes undivided for the period 2007-2009.
Source: NCDOT.2011
21

The total crash rate for US 221 between SR 1366 and the McDowell County line (178.48 crashes
per 100 million vehicle miles [mvm]) is higher than the statewide average crash rate
(151.02 crashes per 100 mvm). Additionally, the night crash rate and the wet crash rate for
US 221 are also higher than the statewide average crash rates. The crash rates for all listed types
of crashes along TIP Project R-2597 between the Rutherford County line and SR 1153 are below
the statewide average crash rates. In the project study area along TIP Project R-204D&E, the
total crash rate for US 221 (159.82 crashes per 100 mvm) is higher than the statewide average
crash rate. Additionally, the non -fatal injury crash rate and the wet crash rate for US 221 are also
higher than the statewide average crash rates.
The McDowell County Emergency Services Director provided information on historic crashes
along US 221 in McDowell County (McDowell County, 2003). These crashes occurred at the
intersections of US 221 with SR 1786 (Old US 221), SR 1135 (Mud Cut Road), SR 1152 (New
Hope Way / Firehouse Way), SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road), and SR 1168 (Ashworth Road).
Emergency services have responded to several fatal crashes at the SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) and
SR 1135 (Mud Cut Road) intersections. The majority of the crashes at SR 1152 (New Hope
Way / Firehouse Way) have been rear -end crashes occurring while drivers attempted to make left
turns. Some crashes at SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) have been the result of blocked views
when opposing drivers approach the intersection to turn right or left. Several school buses also
cross at the SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) and SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) intersections.
5. Demographic and Economic Characteristics
The information included in the following sections is appended from the Final Community
Characteristics Report (Buck Engineering, 2004) prepared for the proposed project, unless
otherwise noted. Total population and ethnicity data have been updated to include 2010 Census
data; however, all other data is 2000 Census data.
a. Demographics
The Census Tracts in which the project study area is located and upon which population
characteristics are determined is called the demographic area. The demographic area for the
US 221 project was determined by examining the project's location in relation to the overlay
of US Census Tracts, population density maps, and the local road network.
In the 2000 Census, the demographic area included Census tracts 9601, 9602, and 9605 in
Rutherford County and 9702, 9705, and 9709 in McDowell County. For the 2010 Census,
the same tracts were used; however, tract 9709 in McDowell County was split, so both of the
resulting tracts (9709.1 and 9709.2) were included in the demographic area. Information
from these Census tracts, shown in Figure 2.5, was used to characterize project area
demographics.
Population
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties experienced steady growth between 1990 and 2000
and between 2000 and 2010. According to the US Census, the total population of Rutherford
County grew from 56,918 in 1990 to 62,899 in 2000, an increase of approximately
22

10.5 percent. Similarly, the population of McDowell County grew from 35,681 in 1990 to
42,151 in 2000, an increase of approximately 18 percent. The population in Rutherford
County increased by 7.8 percent from 2000 through 2010, while the population of McDowell
County increased by 6.7 percent. Based on data from the 2010 Census, the population of
Rutherford County was 67,810 persons and the population of McDowell County was
44,996 persons (US Census, 2010). The state population in 2010 was 9,535,483 people.
Of the 100 counties in North Carolina, Rutherford and McDowell Counties have the 40t' and
58t' highest total population, respectively. Projections for 2010 to 2020 show Rutherford
County's population increasing by 4.4 percent to reach a population of 66,923 and McDowell
County's population increasing by 5.8 percent to reach a population of 47,690. North
Carolina's population is expected to increase by 14.2 percent between 2010 and 2020 to
reach a population of 10,874,183 (North Carolina - Office of State Budget and Management,
2010).
In the demographic area, the total population increased from 32,173 in 1990 to 39,415 in
2000, representing growth of 22.5 percent, which is slightly higher than the 21.4 percent rate
experienced statewide. The population of these tracts increased to 42,655 in 2010,
representing growth of 8.2 percent, which is lower than the 18.4 percent rate experienced
statewide.
The demographic area is similar to Rutherford and McDowell Counties in its racial
characteristics; however, this part of the state has less diversity than the statewide average.
The distribution of the local population from the 2000 and 2010 Census for the demographic
area, Rutherford and McDowell Counties, and the state are summarized in Tables 2.8
and 2.9.
Table 2.8
2000 Population - Racial/Ethnic Composition
Demographic
Area
Rutherford
County
McDowell
County
North
Carolina
Number
I %
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Total Population - 2000
39,415
100
62,899
100
42,151
100
8,049,313
100
White
35,655
90.5
54,592
86.8
38,853
92.2
5,804,656
72.1
Black/African American
2,793
7.1
7,066
11.2
1,753
4.2
1,737,545
21.6
American Indian
110
0.3
125
0.2
122
0.3
99,551
1.2
Asian/Pacific Islander
291
0.7
226
0.4
393
0.9
117,672
1.5
Other/Two or More Races
566
1.4
890
1.4
1030
2.4
289,889
3.6
Total Hispanic or Latino*
1 599
1.5
1 1,136
1 1.8
1,214
1 2.9
1 378,963
4.7
Note: * Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin are not considered a separate racial group.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
23

Table 2.9
2010 Population - Racial/Ethnic Composition
Demographic
Area
Rutherford
County
McDowell
County
North
Carolina
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Total Population - 2010
42,655
100
67,810
100
44,996
100
9,535,483
100
White
38,413
90.1
58,221
85.9
40,754
90.6
6,528,950
68.5
Black/African American
2,506
5.9
6,854
10.1
1,708
3.8
2,048,628
21.5
American Indian
141
0.3
171
0.3
189
0.4
122,110
1.3
Asian/Pacific Islander
341
0.8
301
0.4
352
0.8
215,566
2.3
Other/Two or More Races
1,254
2.9
2,263
3.3
1,993
4.4
620,229
6.5
Total Hispanic or Latino*
1 1,431
3.4
1 2,397
1 3.5
1 2,392
1 5.3
1 800,120
8.4
Note: * Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin are not considered a separate racial group.
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010
Racial and Ethnic Distribution and Trends
While the demographic area is similar to nearby counties in population composition, there
are areas within the project study area where minority populations are larger. Near the
beginning of the project and in the area between Gilkey and SR 1501 (Coney Island Road),
minority populations exceed three times the county average. In McDowell County, minority
populations in areas near Glenwood and I-40 exceed three times the county average.
As shown in the tables above, the percentage of the population identifying themselves as
White in the demographic area is similar to that in Rutherford and McDowell Counties. This
percentage decreased slightly from 2000 to 2010 in the demographic area and in both
Rutherford and McDowell Counties. The average of the Black population in Rutherford and
McDowell Counties is 7.7 percent, slightly higher than the demographic area. From 2000 to
2010 there was a decrease in the Black population in the demographic area, as well as
Rutherford and McDowell Counties.
The demographic area shows growth in the Hispanic population similar to that observed in
Rutherford and McDowell Counties. The Hispanic population in the demographic area has
grown from 1.5 percent in 2000 to 3.4 percent in 2010. The percentage of the population
identifying themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander in the demographic area has increased
slightly from 0.7 percent in 2000 to 0.8 percent in 2010.
Education
The demographic area has a slightly higher percentage of persons with a high school diploma
(71 percent) than Rutherford and McDowell Counties (70 percent). The breakdown at
county levels can be found in Table 2.10. The percentage of the population overage 25 with
a Bachelor's degree or higher is slightly higher in Rutherford County compared to the
demographic area and McDowell County.
24

Table 2.10
Education
Educational Level
(persons age 25 years or older)
Demographic
Area
Rutherford
County
McDowell
County
Total population (25 years or older)
26,969
42,889
29,157
No High School Diploma
7,728
12,699
8,701
High School Graduate
9,453
14,263
10,505
Some College / No Degree
4,991
7,963
5,308
College Degree
4,797
7,964
4,643
High School Graduate or Higher
71%
70%
70%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
11%
12%
9%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
b. Economic and Infrastructure Data
Economic Characteristics
The term "labor force" refers to all persons who are of working age, including both employed
and unemployed persons. Table 2.11 provides information about the labor force in
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, as well as the demographic area. Within the
demographic area, the percentage of the population in the labor force (60.1 percent) is
slightly lower than that of Rutherford County (60.7) and McDowell County (61.2). The
percentage of institutionalized residents (people under formally authorized, supervised care
or custody in institutions) within the demographic area is 5.6 percent, higher than in
Rutherford County (2.9 percent) and McDowell County (3.8 percent).
Table 2.11
Labor Force
Labor Force Status
Demographic
Area
Rutherford
County
McDowell
Count
Population 16 years or over
31,240
49,499
33,547
In labor force
18,779
30,041
20,540
Percentage in labor force
60.1
60.7
61.2
Not in labor force
12,461
19,458
13,007
- Institutionalized
1,759
1,424
1,275
- Over 65 years
5,668
10,071
5,987
Percentage institutionalized
5.6
2.9
3.8
Percentage unemployed
N/A
11.1
7.3
Note: N/A denotes data not available
Sources: US Census Bureau, 2000, Employment Security Commission of NC (ESCNC), 2003
From January 2010 through January 2011, unemployment rates in Rutherford County have
ranged from 13.2 percent to 18.0 percent and those in McDowell County have ranged from
10.8 percent to 16.0 percent. In every month during that period, the unemployment rates in
Rutherford and McDowell Counties have exceeded the overall state average. Per capita
income in both Rutherford ($20,183) and McDowell ($19,522) Counties was below the
statewide average of $25,181 in 1998 (NC Department of Commerce, 2000).
25

There have been substantial changes in the employment patterns in Rutherford and
McDowell Counties in the last two decades. Traditionally, the textile and furniture industries
have provided many of the jobs in these counties. While both industries are still present in
the counties, they represent a smaller percentage of the total employment. Although
considered rural counties, the economies of both Rutherford and McDowell Counties rely
heavily on manufacturing. Rutherford County is home to a number of manufacturing firms.
The largest manufacturing sector is high -quality textiles, followed closely by injection
molding. There are also metal -working plants that manufacture specialty valves, plumbing
fixtures, and bearing assemblies. Other large employers in Rutherford County come from the
service, retail, and government sectors. To promote the growth and diversity in business and
industry, the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners has adopted the Rutherford County
Development Program, which provides new and expanding industry tax incentives
(Rutherford County Economic Development Commission, 2011). The McDowell County
economic base is composed of many industries. The largest employers are government and
manufacturing (including furniture).
According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, employment in the
manufacturing sector during 1999 accounted for 4 1. 1 percent of jobs in Rutherford County
and 51.5 percent of jobs in McDowell County. In 2005, the percentage of manufacturing
jobs had fallen to 19.3 percent of the jobs in Rutherford County and 38.8 percent of the jobs
in McDowell County. By 2010, that number had fallen to 12.9 percent and 30.6 percent,
respectively. In 2010, the other large employment sectors in Rutherford County were
government (15.8 percent), health care and social assistance (15.1 percent), and retail trade
(11.4 percent). In McDowell County, the other large employment sectors were government
(14.1 percent), retail trade (9.9 percent), and health care and social assistance (9.1 percent).
Agriculture accounted for less than one percent of employment in both counties. Tables 2.12
and 2.13 show the employment by job sector for Rutherford and McDowell Counties,
respectively, in the third quarters of 2005 and 2010.
Table 2.12
Employment by Sector - Rutherford County
Sector
Employment
Number
3 a Quarter 2005 -
3d Quarter 2010 Change
2005
2010
Number
Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting
56
58
2
3.6%
Mining
62
N/A
N/A
N/A
Utilities
202
162
-40
19.8%
Construction
1,274
711
-563
-44.2%
Manufacturing
4,817
2,662
-2,155
-44.7%
Wholesale Trade
571
312
-259
-45.4%
Retail Trade
2,656
1 2,341
-315
-11.9%
Transportation and Warehousing
1,417
471
-946
-66.8%
Infonnation
882
758
-124
-14.1%
Financing and Insurance
321
364
43
13.4%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
154
137
-17
-11.0%
Professional and Technical Services
256
214
-42
1 -16.4%
26

Sector
Employment
Number
3d Quarter 2005 -
3d Quarter 2010 Change
2005
2010
Number
Percent
Management of Companies and Enterprises
146
101
-45
-30.8%
Administrative and Waste Services
686
504
-182
-26.5%
Educational Services
2,024
1,574
-450
-30.8%
Health Care and Social Assistance
2,853
3,103
250
8.8%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
315
264
-51
-16.2%
Accommodation and Food Services
1,607
1,707
100
6.2%
Other Services, Ex. Public Administration
257
1 431
174
67.7%
Public Administration
1,172
1,452
280
23.9%
Unclassified
65
4
61
-93.8%
Government
3,229
3,241
1 12
0.4%
Note: N/A denotes data not available
Source: ESCNC, 2011
Table 2.13
Employment by Sector - McDowell County
Sector
Employment
Number
3d Quarter 2005 -
3d Quarter 2010 Change
2005
2010
Number
Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting
69
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nfining
39
66
27
69.2%
Utilities
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Construction
769
532
-237
-30.8%
Manufacturing
6,834
5,089
-1,745
-25.5%
Wholesale Trade
352
253
-99
-28.1%
Retail Trade
1,723
1 1,639
--84
-4.9%
Transportation and Warehousing
225
138
-87
-38.7%
Information
92
38
-54
-58.7%
Financing and Insurance
163
173
10
6.1%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
85
59
2-26
-30.6%
Professional and Technical Services
167
144
-23
-13.8%
Management of Companies and Enterprises
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Administrative and Waste Services
356
1 494
138
38.8%
Educational Services
N/A
1,100
N/A
N/A
Health Care and Social Assistance
1,281
1,607
326
25.4%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
89
94
5
5.6%
Accommodation and Food Services
1,095
1,316
221
20.2°/u
Other Services, Ex. Public Administration
335
431
96
28.7%
Public Administration
1,163
1,117
-46
-4.0%
Unclassified
38
N/A
N/A
N/A
Government
2,749
2,337
1 -412
-15.0%
Note: N/A denotes data not available
Source: ESCNC, 2011
27

As shown in the tables, there has been a net loss of manufacturing and retail trade jobs in
Rutherford and McDowell Counties since 2005. In a report prepared for the Isothermal
Planning and Development Commission, which includes Rutherford, McDowell, Polk, and
Cleveland Counties, Poole and White (2005) proposed that the area was currently in
transition. As traditional commodities manufacturers relocate to areas with lower labor costs,
the Isothermal region is faced with higher than average unemployment, the loss of workers to
areas with greater employment opportunities, and the need to reeducate an older work force.
Job growth is likely to be largely limited to service and support industries such as
distribution, financial services, and business services where the most valuable workers use
technical skills to provide "value-added" knowledge. This provides challenges to the current
regional workforce:
"Because workers in the Isothermal region were educated, trained, and acculturated
to a traditional commodity production mindset, it will take some time to adapt. In
the meantime, the result is a large number of idle manufacturing workers seeking to
find their place in a new work environment in which the jobs being created require
either more extensive technical skills (for relatively higher wages) or minimal
service -related skills (for markedly lower wages)" (Poole and White, 2005).
The McDowell County Chamber of Commerce reports that tourism is a potential economic
engine for the county (Birdsong, 2002). With their location in the foothills of the Blue Ridge
Mountains, Rutherford and McDowell Counties offer many recreational opportunities. In
Rutherford County, these attractions include Lake Lure and Chimney Rock Park. McDowell
County is home to Lake James State Park, Linville Caverns, and the Linville Gorge
Wilderness Area.
The US 221 corridor from Spartanburg/Greenville, SC, to Boone, NC, brings many tourists
from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to Rutherford and McDowell Counties as they
travel to the North Carolina mountains. Travel spending during 1999 totaled over
$86 million in Rutherford County and nearly $32 million in McDowell County (North
Carolina Department of Commerce, 2000). In 2007, Rutherford and McDowell Counties
ranked 25t' and 61", respectively, in tourism among North Carolina's 100 counties
(NC Department of Commerce, 2011).
In 2007, Rutherford County ranked 271' in local tax receipts (over $4 million), while
McDowell County ranked 60t' with almost $1.5 million. In 2009, Rutherford County ranked
31" in local tax receipts with over $3.8 million while McDowell County ranked 56ffi with
almost $1.5 million (NC Department of Commerce, 2011).
Household Income and Poverty Level
The median household income for the demographic area in 2000 is similar to the average of
that in Rutherford and McDowell Counties in that 12.2 percent of the population lived below
the poverty level at the time of the 2000 Census. Income data for the demographic area,
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, and the state are provided in Table 2.14. The median
household income for Rutherford County in 2000 was $31,122, and that of McDowell
County was $32,396. This is somewhat lower than the state median income, which was
28

$39,184 in 2000. In Rutherford County, 8,513 people (13.9 percent) lived below the poverty
level while in McDowell County 4,726 (11.6 percent) people lived below the poverty level.
These totals are roughly comparable to the rate for the state of North Carolina (12.3 percent)
(US Census Bureau, 2000).
Table 2.14
Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level
Demographic
Rutherford
McDowell
North
Area
Con ty
County
Carolina
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
MedianH.H.
$32,349
82.6
$31,122
79.4
$32,396
82.7
$39,184
100.0
Income
Per Capita
$15,850
78.1
$16,270
80.1
$16,109
79.3
$20,307
100.0
Income
Persons below
4,561
12.2
8,513
13.9
4,726
11.6
958,667
12.3
poverty level
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
Age Characteristics
Age distribution provides insight into the available work force, which is an indicator of
population trends and employee availability. In addition, the absence of individuals of prime
working ages can reflect the availability of jobs. Table 2.15 shows the population by age for
the demographic area, Rutherford and McDowell Counties, and the state. As indicated in the
table, the largest population age group for the demographic area, Rutherford and McDowell
Counties, as well as the state are the 25 to 44 years of age group. Rutherford County has a
slightly lower percentage (27.9 percent) of its population between the ages of 25 and 44 than
McDowell County, the demographic area, or the state.
Table 2.15
Age Distribution
Demographic
Area
Rutherford
County
McDowell
County
North
Carolina
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Total Population
39,415
100
62,899
100
42,151
100
8,049,313
100
Under 5 years
2,325
5.9
3,887
6.2
2,586
6.1
539,509
6.7
5 to 9 years
2,683
6.8
4,427
7.0
2,671
6.3
562,553
7.0
10 to 14 years
2,673
6.8
4,224
6.7
2,766
6.6
551,367
6.8
15 to 19years
2,402
6.1
3,848
6.1
2,536
6.0
539,931
6.7
20 to 24 years
2,282
5.8
3,589
5.7
2,505
5.9
577,508
7.2
25 to 44 years
11,579
29.4
17,572
27.9
12,589
29.9
2,500,535
31.1
45 to 64 years
9,728
24.7
15,285
24.3
10,489
24.9
1,808,862
22.5
65 years and over
5,740
14.6
10,067
16.1
6,009
14.3
969,048
12.0
Median Age (years)
38.4
N/A
38.3
N/A
38.0
N/A
35.3
N/A
Note: N/A denotes not applicable
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
29

The median age for the demographic area ranged from 36.6 years in Tract 9709 to 40.0 years
in Tract 9605. The average median age for the demographic area is 38.4 years, which is
comparable to that of Rutherford and McDowell Counties and higher than the state average
of 35.3 years. The demographic area has 5,740 residents (14.6 percent) over the age of 65,
compared to 16.1 percent in Rutherford County, 14.3 percent in McDowell County, and
12.0 percent statewide.
Infrastructure
Rutherford County is served by the Broad River Water Authority, which was formed in 1999.
The system relies on the Broad River for the raw water source utilizing rapid rate sand
filtration at its Broad River Water Treatment Plant, located on Duke Street in Spindale south
of the project study area. The plant, built in 1983, has an operational capacity of 12.0 million
gallons per day (MGD) and a permitted capacity of 8.5 MGD. As of 2010, the treatment
plant was operating at a maximum of 95 percent capacity during the summer (Huneycutt,
2011).
The Town of Rutherfordton is served by the Rutherfordton Wastewater System. The
Rutherfordton facility has been compliant with conventional National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit parameters (BOD, TSS, Ammonia -Nitrogen) since
2007. The plant has a permitted capacity of 3 MGD. The original design of the
Rutherfordton Wastewater Treatment Plant included 2 lagoons with low -speed aerators and a
design treatment flow of 1.0 MGD. In 1999, the treatment plant was upgraded to a design
treatment flow of 3.0 MGD. The construction upgrade and expansion design included a
mechanical bar screen and grit removal for preliminary treatment, conversion of one of the
existing aerated lagoons to a 6.5 MGD activated sludge treatment process with high speed
floating mechanical aerators, installation of two secondary clarifiers, a chlorine contact
chamber for chlorination and dechlorination, and a 0.48 MGD sludge digester. The above
mentioned upgrade and expansion, from a design capacity of 1.0 MGD to 3.0 MGD, was
provided in anticipation of an industrial user utilizing approximately 1.0 MGD of the
additional capacity. The industrial user never established the manufacturing facility in
Rutherfordton, which resulted in an oversized treatment facility. In 2003, the treatment plant
went through a construction phase to reduce the size of the aeration basin and improve the
flexibility of the treatment process. The 6.5 MGD aeration basin was sectioned off to create
two 1.0 MGD aeration basins. In addition, several chemical changes have been incorporated
in the process. In 2009, a caustic feed system was put on-line prior to the aeration basin to
replace the manual feeding of lime. In 2010, the chlorine gas was replaced with sodium
hypochlorite and the sulfur dioxide was replaced with sodium bisulfate (Rutherford County,
2011).
The City of Marion operates a municipal water system that extends south of I-40 near
SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) along existing US 221. The facility has an operating capacity of
4 MGD and currently produces 1.5 MGD. There are currently no plans to extend water
service along the US 221 corridor.
30

The City of Marion maintains the Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on
NC 226 south in Marion. The Corpening Creek Plant can treat up to 3 MGD. However, the
plant is currently operating at about one-third of its permitted capacity. The plant provides
wastewater treatment service within the City and in some areas outside the City and has
sufficient capacity to handle future industrial, commercial, and residential growth (City of
Marion, 2011). The sewer service extends along US 221 to Glenwood Elementary School.
In 2010, the City completed a $6.6 million Wastewater Improvements Project that involved
repairs to wastewater lines to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater and surface water
into wastewater lines, eliminated the City's Catawba River Wastewater Treatment Plant,
pumped wastewater flow from that facility to the Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which involved upgrades to the Corpening Creek Plant to make that facility a true
3 MGD wastewater plant capable of meeting all current and future State and Federal
regulations.
C. Benefits of the Project
Based on the vision for the NCDOT Intrastate System, the section of US 221 through the project
study area is in need of improvement. Providing a median divided facility with additional travel
lanes in each direction of travel would improve the levels of traffic service along this section of
US 221, thus reducing travel time and traffic congestion through this section of the Intrastate
Corridor. Reducing congestion may also reduce the incidence of certain types of crashes (rear -end
collisions, sideswipes, etc.) which are more likely to occur along congested roadways.
In addition, providing a multi -lane median divided facility along this section of US 221 would
improve access to the area. Access between Rutherfordton and areas south would have improved
access to I-40 and areas north of Marion. Providing a median facility that also incorporates the use
of "median left-overs" would decrease conflict points, with the number of full movement
intersections limited to major intersections. Median left-overs eliminate the left turn from a side
street onto the mainline and require a vehicle wanting to make a left -turn to instead, make a right -
turn and a U-turn. A vehicle wanting to travel across the mainline from a side street would be
required to make a right -turn, U-turn, and a right -turn.
31

III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Alternatives
Transportation management alternatives can be used to improve the overall operation of an existing
roadway network. The following provides a discussion of these alternatives and their applicability
for this project, as well as the Build and No -Build Alternatives.
1. Travel Demand Management (TDM)
TDM strategies include staggered work hours, ridesharing, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes. Staggered work hours, flex -time, or modified workweeks can be implemented by large
employers along the corridor who experience congestion at their entrances or exits. Although
the US 221 corridor contains a few large businesses, it is not expected that such adjustments to
work schedules would substantially reduce peak hour traffic volumes within the study area.
Based on data from the 2000 Census, an estimated 39,927 workers commuted to work each day
in Rutherford and McDowell Counties. Of those residents employed within the county limits,
81 percent used their vehicles to drive to work alone, while another 13 percent carpooled usually
with one or two other people. The remaining employed residents worked at home, walked, rode
a bicycle, or used some other form of transportation, including public transportation, to get to
work. A much higher carpooling participation rate would be required before ridesharing,
vanpooling, and other travel demand measures would have a noticeable impact on traffic
conditions along US 221.
High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, usually requiring two or more passengers per vehicle, are
most commonly used in heavily developed urbanized corridors, usually on controlled -access
facilities, to provide an incentive for ridesharing and to facilitate efficient traffic flow. Because
existing US 221 lacks access control along its rural corridor within the project study area, HOV
lanes would not be practicable along this roadway.
2. Mass Transit
Mass Transit would include expanding bus or rail passenger services in the Rutherfordton and
Marion areas. However, mass transit options are most useful in areas in need of a high -capacity,
energy -efficient movement in densely traveled corridors. It also serves high and medium density
areas by offering a low-cost option for automobile owners who do not wish to drive, as well as
service to those without access to an automobile.
There are no public bus or passenger rail services for either county and there are no current plans
for such services. Given the lack of a high -density population that could be adequately served by
mass transit, it appears that such an alternative alone would be insufficient to meet the purpose
and need of the project. In addition, the need to improve the project corridor as a connector
between Spartanburg, SC, and western North Carolina would not be addressed.
32

3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
TSM consists of adding low-cost transportation improvements to increase the capacity of an
existing facility. Strategies typically involve minor roadway improvements that improve the
operational characteristics of a facility while minimizing costs and inconvenience to motorists.
There are two main types of TSM roadway improvements: operational and physical. Examples
of these improvements are:
Operational Improvements
• Traffic law enforcement
• Turn prohibitions
• Access control
• Speed restrictions
• Signal coordination
• Signal phasing or timing changes
Physical Improvements
• Addition of turn lanes
• Intersection realignment
• Improved warning and information signs
• New signals or stop signs
• Intersection geometric improvements
The TSM operational and physical roadway improvements are typically effective in solving
site -specific capacity, safety, and problems in urban areas. These measures as they apply to
US 221 are described below.
Turn Prohibitions and Turn Lanes
US 221 is a two-lane undivided roadway, which travels through a rural environment between
Rutherfordton and Marion and includes the US 221/I-40 interchange. There are several
residential properties located along US 221. The proposed project will incorporate the use of
median left-overs along the length of the project. Providing median left-overs will prohibit left
turns onto existing US 221 requiring drivers to make a right -turn from a side street or driveway
and then make a U-turn at the nearest location to continue in the opposite direction toward their
destination. While this would decrease accessibility to some properties, reducing the number of
turning movements allowed on existing US 221 would reduce the potential for conflict.
However, prohibiting left -turns along the project corridor alone would not meet the project's
purpose and need. A median left -over design would necessitate that existing US 221 be widened
to accommodate the left -turn lanes and U-turn bulbs. The addition of a divided median would
also help reduce the number of conflict points along existing US 221.
Adding turn lanes along existing US 221 would provide some improvement; however, the level
of improvement would not be enough to substantially reduce congestion.
Traffic Signals
The US 221 and NC 226 intersection at the northern terminus of the project is signalized.
Signalizing other minor street intersections along US 221 is unlikely to substantially disperse the
side street traffic and reduce congestion.
33

Intersection Geometric Improvements
There are no locations along existing US 221 where the pavement can be restriped to provide
additional lanes of sufficient length to provide substantial benefits.
Speed Restrictions and Law Enforcement
Operational measures, such as speed restrictions and increased law enforcement, are often useful
in addressing some safety issues. The posted speed limit is 55 mph throughout most of the
project length. Two short sections, totaling approximately one mile, have 45 mph speed limits.
These sections are at the southern end of TIP Project R-2597 and in the Gilkey community.
With the absence of signalized intersections along the project, drivers may achieve running
speeds above the speed limit in some areas along existing US 221. However, speed is controlled
by the numerous side streets and driveways located along existing US 221; therefore, restrictions
on speed would not improve capacity.
Improved Signage
While the addition of improved signage may aid in the navigational abilities of the traveling
public, current accident patterns for US 221 are indicative of congested conditions rather than
motorists being unfamiliar with the roadway or prevailing conditions. Therefore, new and
improved warning or informational signs would not be effective in solving the traffic problems
and accident trends along existing US 221.
Intersection realignments, side street improvements, and additional turn lanes are the TSM
actions most likely to provide any measure of congestion relief for US 221. However, the
amount of relief these improvements can provide is limited. The existing (2002) levels of
service along the 2.8-mile portion of US 221 between Rutherfordton and Gilkey and the 5.7-mile
portion of US 221 from south of Glenwood to Marion operate at LOS D or LOS E. These are
not acceptable levels of service because LOS D conditions represent severely restricted traffic
flow with low operating speeds and LOS E represents conditions at or near the roadway's
capacity. Additionally, the US 221 and SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road) southern intersection has
one approach that would operate at LOS D.
By 2025, traffic flow on the cross streets at the unsignalized intersections analyzed would be at
or near the capacity limits of these intersections. Nearly half of the thirty-three unsignalized
intersections analyzed along the existing US 221 corridor would have at least one approach that
would operate at LOS D or worse by 2025/2030. While these types of improvements can
provide short-term relief, reducing travel times along the US 221 Intrastate Corridor are needed
to address long-term needs. In addition, intersection improvements alone would not satisfy the
level of service component of the purpose and need for the project. Capacity analyses indicate
that additional travel lanes are needed in order to achieve an acceptable level of service in the
design year. Therefore, the TSM improvement option will not adequately meet the project's
purpose and need.
34

4. No -Build Alternative
The No -Build Alternative would make no improvements to existing US 221 through the year
2025, with the exception of regular maintenance such as patching, resurfacing, regrading
shoulders, and maintaining ditches. This alternative would not involve right of way or
construction costs. There would be no short-term disruptions along the existing roadway during
construction. There would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural
resources, nor would there be any residential or business relocations.
However, the No -Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project. By not
improving existing US 221, there would be economic and quality of life impacts related to future
roadway deficiencies. The projected traffic in 2025/2030 for all segments of the proposed
project would operate at LOS D or E, creating unstable conditions that exhibit severely restricted
traffic flow and low operating speeds. Based on this analysis, enhanced safety and greater traffic
carrying capacity are needed along this facility. The No -Build Alternative would likely result in
a number of adverse traffic impacts on the existing roadways in and around the study area. In
addition to degraded levels of service, the length of time that congestion occurs during the
morning and evening peak periods would increase on these road segments. Finally, the No -Build
Alternative does not fulfill the purpose of and need for the project.
In accordance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (01 NCAC 25), the No -Build
Alternative is given full consideration and it provides a baseline condition for comparison with
the improvements and consequences associated with the Build Alternatives.
5. Build Alternatives
Segment Alternatives were developed for the project area through an iterative process. Land
suitability maps were created highlighting man-made and natural features that make one
particular area unsuitable or less desirable than another for roadway construction. These features
included community facilities (churches, cemeteries, schools, emergency facilities, community
meeting places, residential communities, and parks), known historic architectural and
archaeological sites, streams, and wetlands (based on the National Wetland Inventory developed
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]).
The project was divided into fifteen Segment Alternatives (A through H) for evaluation
purposes. Potential east side and west side widening alignments were overlain onto the land
suitability maps. The proposed widening alignments did not include widening symmetrically
along existing US 221 because of existing residential and commercial development. The
locations of the alternatives were coordinated with state environmental and regulatory resource
agencies. The primary objective of the identification of the Segment Alternatives and the
environmental screening process was to compare and evaluate alternatives sharing common end
points within each segment and eliminate those that had substantially more impacts when
compared to other alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated based on its consistency with the
purpose and need of the project, as well as its potential impact to the human, cultural, and natural
environments. In addition, public meetings were held in an effort to seek the public's input and
incorporate it into the project planning process.
35

Description of Preliminary Segment Alternatives
The Build Alternatives include east side and west side widening alignments within several of the
study area segments. Some realignment is also being considered to straighten the curves on
existing US 221 between Thermal City and Glenwood and near I-40. A description of each of
the preliminary Segment Alternatives is summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Preliminary Segment Alternatives
Segment
Location
Description
Typical Section
Alternative
Description
Al
West Side
4-lane divided section
SR 1366 (Roper Loop Rd.) to
Widening
(median width transitions
south of SR 1376 (Lane Rd.)
East Side
from 46 If to 23 ft)
Widening
BI
West Side
South of SR 1376 (Lane Rd.) to
Widening
B2
north of SR 1362 (Gilkey School
East Side
4-lane divided section
Rd.)
Widenin
(23 ft median width)
West Side
B3
Realignment
Cl
North of SR 1362 (Gilkey School
Rd. ( y to north of SR 1501 Cone
West Side
Widening
4-lane divided section
median width transitions
East Side
C2
Island Rd.)
Widening
from 23 If to 46 ft)
D
North of SR 1501 (Coney Island
Best -Fit
4-lane divided section
(New Location)
Rd.) to north of SR 1786 (Old
Widening/
(46 ft median width)
US 221)
Realignment
El
West Side
4-lane divided section
North of SR 1786 (Old US 221) to
Widening
(median width transitions
E2
south of SR 1168 (Ashworth Rd.)
Ease Side
from 46 If to 23 ft)
Widening
F1
West Side
South of SR 1168 (Ashworth Rd.)
to south of I-40
Widening
4-lane divided section
(23 ft median width)
East Side
F2
Widening
G1
West Side
South of I-40 to north of I-40
Widening
4-lane divided section
(23 ft median width)
East Side
G2
Widening
H
North of I-40 to US 221-NC 226
Best -Fit
4-lane divided section
Widening
1 (23 If median width)
36

Segment Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Through the iterative analysis process, alignments were eliminated within several segments
based on various impacts related to each alternative. The Segment Alternatives eliminated from
further study at the Merger Team meeting held on August 17, 2004 include Segments A2, Cl,
C2, and E2.
Segment A2 - While Segment A2 has fewer stream impacts compared to Segment Al, it has
substantially more relocations than Segment Al.
Segment Cl - Segment C1 crosses five streams and impacts 3,134 linear feet of stream. It is
estimated to relocate 16 residences and three businesses and to have a number of utility conflicts
in the vicinity of SR 1323 (Crutchfield Road).
Segment C2 - Segment C2 crosses five streams and impacts 2,386 linear feet of stream. It is
estimated to relocate 18 residences and three businesses and to have a number of utility conflicts
in the vicinity of SR 1323 (Crutchfield Road).
Both Segments C1 and C2 were eliminated and later Segment C was added.
Segment E2 - Segment E2 impacts more businesses and a church on the east side of US 221 and
includes more stream impacts compared to Segment El.
Segment Alternatives Added for Further Study
Segment C — Segment C was developed as a "best fit" alternative from Segments Cl and C2 to
minimize stream impacts. It begins north of SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road) and ends north of
SR 1501 (Coney Island Road) (Figure 3.1). This four -lane divided segment transitions to west
side widening from its beginning point to Cathey's Creek and the median width increases from
23 feet to 46 feet. Segment C continues widening on the west side to south of the SR 1501
(Coney Island Road) northern intersection. From south of the SR 1501 (Coney Island Road)
northern intersection to north of this intersection, this segment transitions to east side widening.
This segment was included at the Merger Team meeting on August 17, 2004.
Segment D1 (Existing Alignment) - Segment D1 begins and ends similar to Segment D, north of
SR 1501 (Coney Island Road) and ends north of SR 1786 (Old US 221) (Figure 3.1). It widens
on the east side from north of SR 1501 (Coney Island Road) to north of SR 1321 (Thermal City
Road). From north of SR 1321 (Thermal City Road) to north of SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road),
this segment transitions to west side widening. Segment D1 continues to widen on the west side
from north of SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) to north of SR 1786 (Old US 221). There is some
realignment in the vicinity of Vein Mountain and the Second Broad River bridge crossing.
Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over the Second Broad River would occur on existing alignment.
The segment is a four -lane divided section with a varying median width. For most of the
segment length, the median width is 46 feet; however, the median narrows to a 22-foot concrete
barrier in the vicinity of the Second Broad River bridge and then widens to 30 feet to north of
SR 1786 (Old US 221). The median width in the vicinity of Thermal City also narrows to
30 feet. This segment was included at the Merger Team meeting on June 9, 2011.
37

B. Detailed Stud. of f Segment Alternatives
Based on the results of the screening evaluation and consideration of comments received through
public involvement and agency coordination, the following thirteen Segment Alternatives were
selected to be studied in detail. These Segment Alternatives are shown in Figure 3.1. Preliminary
engineering designs were developed, taking into consideration engineering design constraints
(topography, design criteria, maintenance of traffic issues, etc.) and the locations of environmentally
sensitive features such as residences, businesses, neighborhoods, community facilities, streams,
wetlands, and historic resources. These designs include the proposed widening of US 221 within
each segment, as well as modifications to major intersecting cross streets, and are the basis for the
impact analyses contained in this document. Following is a comparative description of the Segment
Alternatives.
Segment Al - Segment Al crosses one unnamed tributary to Mountain Creek and impacts
143 linear feet of stream channel (Figure 3.1). This segment is approximately 0.93 miles in
length and is estimated to cost $6.0 million for construction. No known archaeological or historic
architectural resources are located along this segment.
Segment B1 - Segment B1 crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
1,351 linear feet of stream channel (Figure 3.1). This segment is approximately 1.98 miles in
length and is estimated to cost $12.1 million for construction. No known archaeological
resources are located along this segment. The widening of Segment B1 on the west side would
impact the William Monteith House historic property located on the west side of US 221, north of
SR 1351 (Darlington Road). Segment B1 was developed in an effortto avoid substantial impacts
to the Gilkey Lumber Company, located on the east side of US 221, north of SR 1351 (Darlington
Road). The Gilkey Lumber Company has indicated that if US 221 was widened on the east side,
they would lose two air-dry sheds, 60 percent of their log yard, and the re -circulating pond that
supports the log yard. The company indicated that these losses would put them out of business,
impacting 60 employees, their families, and approximately 48 loggers who employ two- to eight -
men crews, which supply the lumber company with its inventory (Appendix B). The narrower
median is proposed in this area to minimize impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey
community. The proposed design speed is reduced in this area.
Segment B2 - Segment B2 crosses four unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
1,515 linear feet of stream channel (Figure 3.1). This segment is approximately 1.97 miles in
length and is estimated to cost $12.6 million for construction. No known archaeological
resources are located along this segment. Segment B2 widens on the east side to avoid potential
impacts to the William Monteith House historic property located on the west side of US 221,
north of SR 1351 (Darlington Road). However, widening on the east side would have substantial
impacts to the Gilkey Lumber Company, previously described under Segment B1. The narrower
median is proposed in this area to minimize impacts to adjacent properties within the Gilkey
community. The proposed design speed is reduced in this area.
Segment B3 - Segment B3 crosses three unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek and impacts
1,615 linear feet of stream channel (Figure 3.1). This segment is approximately 2.0 miles in
length and is estimated to cost $12.9 million for construction. No known archaeological
resources are located along this segment. Segment B3 follows a new alignment west of existing
US 221 to avoid potential impacts to the William Monteith House historic property located on the
38

west side of the roadway, north of SR 1351 (Darlington Road), as well as the Gilkey Lumber
Company. The narrower median is proposed in this area to minimize impacts to adjacent
properties within the Gilkey community. The proposed design speed is reduced in this area.
Segment C — Segment C crosses Cathey's Creek and six unnamed tributaries, including three to
Cathey's Creek and three to the Second Broad River and impacts 2,390 linear feet of stream
channel (Figure 3.1). This segment is approximately 4.13 miles in length and is estimated to cost
$24.8 million for construction. There is an archaeological resource located along this segment
that requires additional survey work after right of way is acquired to determine its eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No historic architectural resources are located
along this segment.
Segment D (New Location) - Segment D crosses 20 streams, including Stoney Creek, Second
Broad River, fifteen unnamed tributaries to Second Broad River, Rockhouse Creek, Scrub Grass
Branch, and one unnamed tributary to Scrub Grass Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts 3,685 linear
feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $80.3 million for construction. This segment is
approximately 5.64 miles in length. There are two archaeological resources located along this
segment; however, the project will have no effect on the NRHP-eligibility of one site and the
other site lies outside the segment boundary. Segment D includes east side widening through
Thermal City to avoid potential impacts to the Albert Weaver Farm historic property located on
the west side of US 221 at SR 1321 (Thermal City Road). In the vicinity of Vein Mountain and
the Second Broad River, this segment transitions between east and west side widening to realign
several curves while minimizing impacts to the adjacent communities. Replacement of Bridge
No. 17 over the Second Broad River would occur on new location, west of its existing location.
A number of utility conflicts are anticipated in the vicinity of Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and
Glenwood due to potential impacts to high tension transmission lines located along US 221. In
addition, there is a substation adjacent to US 221 across from the Albert Weaver Farm.
Segment D1 (Existing Alignment) - Segment D1 crosses 20 streams, including Stoney Creek,
Second Broad River, fifteen unnamed tributaries to Second Broad River, Rockhouse Creek, Scrub
Grass Branch, and one unnamed tributary to Scrub Grass Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts
3,529 linear feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $74.0 million for construction. This
segment is approximately 5.64 miles in length. There are two archaeological resources located
along this segment; however, the project will have no effect on the NRHP-eligibility of one site
and the other site lies outside the segment boundary. Segment D1 includes east side widening
through Thermal City to avoid potential impacts to the Albert Weaver Farm historic property
located on the west side of US 221 at SR 1321 (Thermal City Road). In the vicinity of Vein
Mountain and the Second Broad River, this segment transitions between east and west side
widening to realign several curves while minimizing impacts to the adjacent communities.
Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over the Second Broad River would occur on existing alignment
and would include a narrower median to minimize impacts to streams and the railroad. A number
of utility conflicts are anticipated in the vicinity of Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood
due to potential impacts to high tension transmission lines located along US 221. In addition,
there is a substation adjacent to US 221 across from the Albert Weaver Farm.
Segment E1 - Segment E1 crosses eleven streams, including three unnamed tributaries to Second
Broad River, four unnamed tributaries to Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Goose Creek, one unnamed tributary to North Muddy Creek, and North Muddy Creek
39

(Figure 3.1). It impacts 1,970 linear feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $17.5 million
for construction. This segment is approximately 2.72 miles in length. There is one
archaeological site located along this segment that may require additional survey work after right
of way is acquired to determine its eligibility for the NRHP. No historic architectural resources
are located along this segment.
Segment F1 - Segment F1 crosses two streams, including one unnamed tributary to North Muddy
Creek and one unnamed tributary to Hicks Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts 589 linear feet of
stream channel and is estimated to cost $15.5 million for construction. This segment is
approximately 2.30 miles in length. No known archaeological resources are located along this
segment. Segment F1 includes west side widening with a narrower median to minimize impacts
to adjacent properties in the vicinity of the I-40 interchange, including the B.G. Hensley House
historic property located on the east side of US 221 near SR 1786 (Old US 221). The proposed
design speed is reduced in this area.
Segment F2 - Segment F2 crosses two streams, including one unnamed tributary to North Muddy
Creek and one unnamed tributary to Hicks Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts 603 linear feet of
stream channel and is estimated to cost $15.3 million for construction. This segment is
approximately 2.30 miles in length. No known archaeological resources are located along this
segment. Segment F2 includes a narrower median to minimize impacts to adjacent properties in
the vicinity of the I-40 interchange, including the B.G. Hensley House historic property located
on the east side of US 221 near SR 1786 (Old US 221). The proposed design speed is reduced in
this area.
Segment G1 - Segment G1 crosses one stream, Hicks Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts 647 linear
feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $19.5 million for construction. This segment is
approximately 2.40 miles in length. No known archaeological or historic architectural resources
are located along this segment. Segment G1 includes a narrower median to minimize impacts in
the vicinity of the I-40 interchange. In addition, control of access is typically provided
approximately 1,000 feet on either side of the interchange. The proposed design speed is reduced
in this area.
Segment G2 - Segment G2 crosses one stream, Hicks Branch (Figure 3.1). It impacts 647 linear
feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $19.3 million for construction. This segment is
approximately 2.40 miles in length. No known archaeological or historic architectural resources
are located along this segment. Segment G1 includes a narrower median to minimize impacts in
the vicinity of the I-40 interchange. In addition, control of access is typically provided
approximately 1,000 feet on either side of the interchange. The proposed design speed is reduced
in this area.
Segment H - Segment H crosses three unnamed tributaries to Corpening Creek (Figure 3.1). It
impacts 1,214 linear feet of stream channel and is estimated to cost $22.0 million for construction.
This segment is approximately 3.50 miles in length. No known archaeological or historic
architectural resources are located along this segment. Segment H includes a narrower median to
minimize impacts to adjacent properties. The proposed design speed is reduced in this area
Estimated environmental impacts and costs associated with the preliminary engineering designs
within each Segment Alternative are summarized in Table 3.2.
40

Table 3.2
Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Segment Alternatives
Segment Alternative
Al
B1
B2
B3
C
D
D1
El
F1
F2
G1
G2
H
Construction Cost (in millions)
$6.0
$12.1
$12.6
$12.9
$24.8
$80.3
$74.0
$17.5
$15.5
$15.3
$19.5
$19.3
$22.0
Residential Relocations
4
18
18
21
23
9
8
24
3
3
3
2
23
Businesses Relocations
1
6
5*
2
4
5
2
10
4
5
5
5
12
Parks Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Schools Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Churches Displaced
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
Cemeteries Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Recreational Facilities Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
2
2
---
---
---
---
---
---
MajorTransmission Towers Impacted
---
---
---
---
---
5
2
---
---
---
1
1
---
Known Archaeological Sites Affected
---
---
---
---
1**
---
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
Historic Architecture Adversely Effected
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Section 6(f) Properties (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Presence of Federally Listed T&E Species (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Presence of State Listed T&E Species (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Bridges over Streams
---
---
---
---
1
1
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
Stream Crossings
1
3
4
3
7
20
20
11
2
2
1
1
3
Length of Impacted Streams (linear feet)***
143
1,351
1,515
1,615
2,390
3,685
3,529
1,970
589
603
647
647
1,214
Streams Supporting Trout (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Wetland Impacts (acres)***
---
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.19
---
---
---
---
---
Primeand Important Farmland Impacts (acres)
11.1
20.1
19.8
23.9
28.5
26.4
23.1
28.5
17.7
16.1
2.4
3.2
20.1
Terrestrial Community Impacts (acres)
23.8
49.5
51.5
46.8
107.5
187.9
178.6
70.9
38.2
36.7
42.1
43.2
53.6
Gameland Impacted (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Permitted Mines Impacted (Y/N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Floodplain Area Impacted (acres)
---
---
---
---
1.64
3.69
3.35
2.31
0.03
0.03
---
---
0.65
Notes: Estimate of impacts based on construction limits (slope stakes), unless otherwise noted.
--- denotes resource does not occur within segment
* Includes the displacement of several buildings associated with Gilkey Lumber Company.
** This site has not been assessed for the NRHP due to denied access.
*** Stream and wetland impacts include an additional 25 feet to each side of the slope stake limit. Stream impacts do not include length of stream within an existing culvert.
41

IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
The proposed improvements for this project consist of widening US 221 from a two-lane roadway to
a four -lane divided roadway, utilizing shoulder, curb and gutter, or expressway gutter. Figure 4.1
presents the typical mainline cross sections for the four -lane divided and four -lane divided with
raised median sections. Figure 4.1 also includes typical sections for the proposed bridge over I-40
and proposed ramps.
The roadway typical section proposed near the southern terminus of the project (Segment A)
includes a 46-foot wide grass median, transitioning to a 23-foot wide raised median before
Segment B to minimize property impacts. Segment B includes a 23-foot wide raised median. The
median width transitions back to a 46-foot wide grass median along Segment C and continues to
south of the Second Broad River in Segment D. The median transitions to a 22-foot concrete barrier
from south of the Second Broad River to north of the Second Broad River in Segment D1 to
minimize impacts to the Second Broad River. The median width transitions to a 46-foot wide raised
median north of the Second Broad River and continues through Segment E. The median width
transitions back to a 23-foot raised median near SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to minimize property
impacts (Segments F1 and F2). The 23-foot wide raised median continues through Segments F, G,
and H to the end of the project. All of the proposed typical sections contain 12-foottravel lanes.
The proposed project includes some realignment to straighten curves along US 221 between
Thermal City and Glenwood, as well as a new location alternative in Segment D.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed right-of-way width varies along US 221 between approximately 250 feet and 400 feet
along most of the project. However, in Segment D the right-of-way width increases to more than
400 feet in some areas due to the mountainous terrain. In addition to acquiring right of way, some
temporary easements would be required for this project.
Partial control of access was studied along US 221 the entire length of the project, except at the
US 221/I-40 interchange where full control of access is proposed. Partial control of access allows
one access point per parcel and access at existing secondary roads (SRs).
Private driveway connections are normally defined as a maximum of one connection per parcel,
where a connection is defined as one ingress and one egress point. The use of shared or consolidated
connections is highly encouraged. Connections may be restricted or prohibited if alternate access is
available through adjacent public facilities. A control of access fence will be placed along the entire
length of the facility, except at intersections and driveways, and at a minimum of 1,000 feet beyond
the ramp terminals at interchanges, if possible.
42

C. Speed Limit
It is anticipated the speed limit along US 221 will be 55 mph along most of the project, with 45 mph
in the Gilkey, Marion, and I-40 areas (as currently posted).
D. Design Speed
A design speed of 60 mph is proposed for most of the project, with the exception of the Gilkey,
Marion, and I-40 areas. In these areas, the design speed has been reduced to 50 mph. These design
speeds are consistent with the type of facility.
E. Design Criteria
Design criteria are established standards and procedures that guide the establishment of roadway
layouts, alignments, geometry, and dimensions. Detailed design criteria for the Build Alternatives
are listed in Table 4.1. They were developed in accordance with the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) A Policy of Geometric Design ofHighways and
Streets (AASHTO, 2001) and the NCDOT Roadway Design Standards Manual. The design criteria
are influenced by the type of roadway required to fulfill the purpose and need of the project.
Table 4.1
Summary of Design Criteria
Criteria
US 221
Mainline
US 221
Gilkey &
Marion areas
US 221
Thermal
City area
US 221
I-40 area
Ramps
Classification
rural arterial
rural arterial
rural arterial
rural arterial
rural arterial
Terrain Type
mountainous
mountainous
mountainous
mountainous
mountainous
Design Speed (mph)
60
50
60
50
50
Proposed ROW Width (ft)
200 - 250
200 - 250
200 — 250
200 - 250
75 outside
Control of Access
Partial*
Partial
Partial
Partial
Full
Typical Section Type
4-lane
k*
divided
4-lane divided
4-lane
dividedk*
4-lane
divided
1-lane**
Lane Width (ft)
12
12
12
12
16
Median Width (ft)
46
23 raised
46
23 raised
N/A
Shoulder Width (total)
berm
berm
Median (ft)
6
N/A
6
N/A
12 inside
Outside w/o Guardrail (ft)
10
10
10
10
14
Outside w/ Guardrail (ft)
13
14
13
14
17
Paved Shoulder
Outside TotaFFDPS (ft)***
4
N/A
4
N/A
4
Median Total/FDPS (ft)***
2
N/A
2
N/A
4 inside
Notes: * Full control of access proposed at the US 2214-40 interchange
** Areas will be considered for expressway gutter
*** FDPS represents full depth paved shoulder
N/A denotes not applicable
43

F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated that design exceptions associated with the -Y- lines, or intersecting roads, along TIP
Project R-204D&E will be required for the subject project.
G. Intersections/Interchanges
The proposed project will incorporate the use of median left-overs along the length of the project.
Median left-overs replace left turns on a mainline with a combination of a U-turn and a right turn, or
replace through movements across a mainline with a combination of a right turn, U-turn, and right
turn. Therefore, with the exception of the beginning and ending termini at SR 1366 (Roper Loop
Road) and the US 221-NC 226 intersection, respectively, there will not be any full movement
intersections along the length of the project. Providing a median facility that also incorporates the
use of "median left-overs" would decrease conflict points, with the number of full movement
intersections limited to major intersections.
The US 221-NC 226 intersection is currently signalized. Turn lanes will be added to the intersection
under the proposed project. In the design year with the proposed improvements, the US 221-NC 226
intersection will operate at LOS C.
The diamond configuration at the US 221 and I-40 interchange will remain the same. The proposed
project will require the existing bridge over I-40 to be replaced with a wider bridge. The ramp
terminals will remain unsignalized and the median left -over design will be carried through the
interchange.
H. Service Roads
Service roads will be provided south of I-40 on both the west and east sides of existing US 221.
These service roads would provide access from the improved US 221 to properties located along and
off of existing US 221 immediately south of the I-40 interchange.
L Railroad Crossings
The improvements to US 221 will not cross any railroads.
J. Structures
The majority of the Segment Alternatives cross a number of streams for which bridges, box culverts,
or pipe culverts would be required. Table 4.2 lists the major drainage structures associated with each
Segment Alternative. The location of each of these sites is shown on Figure 2.1.
No channel relocations are anticipated based on the preliminary engineering designs for any of the
segments; however, if channel relocations are required in the final design, they would be designed
according to the most recent guidelines for open channels and would match the existing channel as
closely as possible. It should be noted that the recommended structure sizes are preliminary and
could be subject to change during final design when more detailed information is available.
44

Table 4.2
Major Drainage Structures
Site
Number
Stream
Segment
Alternative
Recommended
Structure*
1
Cathey's Creek
C
Bridge (172 ft)
2
Stoney Creek
D,D1
3 @ 8 ftx 8 ft RCBC
3
Rockhouse Creek
D,D 1
3@ 6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
4
Tributary to Second Broad River
D,D1
72-inch CMP
4a
Tributary to Second Broad River
D,D1
72-inch CMP
5
Scrub Grass Branch
D,D 1
3@ 6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
6
Second Broad River
D
Bridge (450 ft)
6
Second Broad River
D1
Bridge (232 ft)
7
Tributary to Second Broad River
D
10 ft x 6 ft RCBC or
extend bridge from Site 6
7
Tributary to Second Broad River
D 1
8 ft x 9 ft RCBC
7a
Tributary to Second Broad River
El
6 ft x 5 ft RCBC
8
Goose Creek
El
3@ 9 ft x 8 ft RCBC
9
North Muddy Creek
El
3@ 11 ft x 12 ft RCBC
10
Tributary to Corpening Creek
H
6 ft x 6 ft RCBC
Note: * RCBC indicates Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert, CMP indicates Corrugated Metal Pipe
K. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are no bicycle or pedestrian accommodations proposed as a part of this project.
L. Utilities
Telephone, power, water, natural gas, and sewer lines will all be affected by the project. While the
project attempted to minimize impacts to the transmission towers; several towers are located within
the proposed right of way and would need to be relocated as a part of this project.
M. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed for the subject project. Shoulders and median areas will be
seeded with grass.
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed for the subject project.
45

O. Traffic Ca.Ming irr ng Capacity
A Traffic Capacity Analysis (Buck Engineering, 2004) and a Preliminary Review of TIP Project
R-204D&E (NCDOT, 2002) was prepared for the proposed project and is appended by reference.
The sections below summarize the findings contained in the reports.
1) Future Traffic Analyses
A capacity analysis is performed to estimate the traffic -carrying ability of roadways over a range
of conditions. This type of analysis was performed on US 221 to compare the Build and
No -Build Alternatives. The traffic capacity analysis prepared for this project was performed
using all movement crossovers (i.e., without median left-overs). The NCDOT Traffic
Engineering Branch (TEB) indicated that the use of median left-overs along the project would
result in either the same or slightly better levels of service along the US 221 mainline than what
was included in the Traffic Capacity Analysis (NCDOT, 2006).
The widening scenarios within each segment generally follow existing US 221, and therefore,
have the same basic corridor and the same proposed access control despite the slight variations in
their alignments to the east or west. These small variations would have no effect on the traffic
assignments or operational characteristics for each of the segments. For this reason, only one
"Build" analysis was conducted to estimate traffic impacts.
Projected design year (2025 and 2030) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the project are
shown in Figure 4.2. As shown in this figure, the Build Alternatives would carry traffic volumes
ranging from 7,800 vpd just south of Thermal City to 16,000 vpd near SR 1366 (Roper Loop
Rd.). The ADT volumes along the TIP Project R-204D&E portion of US 221 range from
12,800 vpd north of SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to 18,400 vpd near SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church
Loop) and 25,200 vpd north of the US 221-NC 226 intersection.
2) Future Levels of Service
The roadway sections analyzed under the No -Build Alternative were evaluated for the Build
Alternative using the design year traffic volumes. According to these results, the traffic along
most of the corridor would operate at LOS A by the design year with the proposed improvements
to US 221. The mainline volumes along this corridor indicate that two through lanes in each
direction would be required to adequately service traffic. Typically, divided facilities are
preferred over undivided facilities because of their increased volume carrying abilities, control of
indiscriminate left -turns, and improved safety (NCDOT, 2002).
The intersection capacity analyses show that the levels of service for the traffic movements
addressed would slightly improve or remain the same due to the proposed widening
(Appendix C). In particular, the US 221/SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road) and the
US 221/SR 1152 (Firehouse Way/New Hope Way) intersections would improve from LOS F to
LOS C or better in the design year with the proposed US 221 improvements. Similarly, the
US 221/SR 1351/SR 1527 (Darlington Road/Oak Spring Road) intersection would improve from
LOS F to LOS D or better in the design year. The US 221-NC 226 signalized intersection would
improve from a LOS E/D for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively to a LOS C.
46

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
This section provides a summary of the potential impacts to the natural environment. A Final
Natural Resources Technical Report (Baker Engineering, 2007) was prepared for the proposed
project and is appended by reference.
1. Biotic Resources
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practice. Natural land
disturbances such as fire, hurricanes, and tornadoes result in uneven -aged vegetative stands or a
patchy mosaic within even -aged communities. Man-made disturbances such as logging,
farming, selective cutting, residential and commercial development, and road construction also
have contributed to the present landscape. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name only. Dominant
faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project
alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
a. Terrestrial Communities
As described below and shown in Figure 5.1, three terrestrial communities are present within
the project study area. These communities are upland forest, floodplain forest, and
maintained/disturbed. Most of the project area is comprised of forested communities. The
forest communities are generally classified as upland forest and floodplain forest. The forest
community boundaries are not well defined between each distinct community. A maintained
community located along roadsides, low residential areas, and pastures also exists within the
project area.
Upland Forest. This community is located on forested uplands throughout the study area
Signs of logging within the last 25 to 40 years were evident along most reaches of the project
area during field surveys. This community is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba),
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), hickories (Carya
spp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine
(Pinus strobus), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). The
understory plants include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), blueberry (Vaccinium
spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), may-
apple (Podophyllum peltatum), mapleleaf arrowwood (Viburnum acerifolium), poison ivy
47

(Toxicodendron radicans), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Rhododendron (Rhododendron
spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) were
present along the northern portion of the project area Most of the upland forest community
closely represents the Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest natural community as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Along the lower slopes where American beech was prevalent,
the community transitions into a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest natural community
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The northern section of the project area
consisting of eastern hemlock, rhododendron, and mountain laurel resembles an Acidic Cove
Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The edge areas between the maintained/disturbed communities and forested tracts provide
rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals
and birds associated with ecotones and upland forest communities are least shrew (Cryptotis
parva), southern short -tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). The project area may be host to a
variety of summer residents including red -eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), black -and -white
warbler (Mniotilta varia), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), scarlet tanager (Piranga
olivacea), and Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii). Game birds and other non -
song birds that inhabit the area include ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), wood duck (Aix sponsa), American woodcock (Phillohela minor),
and various woodpeckers. Reptiles likely to be found in the project area include the five -
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (E. laticeps), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), ring -neck snake (Diadophis punctatus), garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix).
Floodylain Forest. This community is located on floodplains adjacent to streams. Sections
of this community showed signs of recent logging or clearing. Dominant canopy trees
include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple, tulip poplar, river birch (Betula nigra), and black willow (Salix nigra). Understory
plants include tag alder (Alnus serrulata), hornbeam (Carpinus carohniana), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier, honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus
spp.), red mulberry (Mopus rubra), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy, wild grape (Vitis spp.) and Christmas fern.
Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), rhododendron, eastern hemlock, highland
doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), and witch -
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) were present in some sections of the Second Broad River
watershed. The floodplain forest community corresponds to the Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest and Montane Alluvial Forest natural communities as described in Schafale
and Weakley (1990).
48

Many of the animals mentioned for the Upland Forest community may also be associated
with this community.
Maintained/Disturbed Community. This community encompasses habitats that have recently
been or are currently impacted by human disturbance, such as landscaped lawns, maintained
roadside right of way, and pasture land. Because of mowing and periodic clearing, this
community is kept in a constant state of early succession. This community is made up of a
diverse assemblage of grasses, herbs, and vines including fescue (Festuca spp.), panic
grasses (Panicum spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), heal-
all (Prunella spp.), sunflowers (Helianthus spp.), coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.), beggar ticks
(Bidens spp.), tick -trefoils (Desmodium spp.), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), Queen
Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild grape, asters (Aster spp.), morning glory (Ipomoea spp.),
and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Transitions of this community with other
communities (upland forest and floodplain forest) also exist.
Many of the animals mentioned for the Upland Forest community may also be associated
with this community. Other common animals not previously mentioned that likely inhabit
disturbed communities include red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis),
brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), common
grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), brown -headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus).
b. Aquatic Communities
The streams within the project area appear to support a variety of benthic macroinvertebrates
including mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, damselflies, beetles, midgeflies,
craneflies, and crayfish. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) monitoring
data collected downstream of the project area exhibited a fairly high diversity of these
organisms (NCDENR, 2001 & 2003).
The streams in the area provide breeding opportunities for many amphibians. Common
amphibian residents in the project area may include northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), blackbelly salamander (D. quadramaculatus), two -lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander
(P. glutinosus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus
porphyriticus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (R. clamitans), pickerel frog
(R. palustris), wood frog (R. sylvatica), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad
(B. woodhousei), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer).
Based upon the NCDWQ fish data collected downstream (North Muddy Creek, Cathey's
Creek, and Second Broad River) of the project area, common fish species in the larger creeks
49

within the project area may include darters (Etheostoma spp.), shiners (Notropis spp.,
Cyprinella spp., Percina spp.), sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), silver redhorse (Moxostoma
anisurum), striped jumprock (Scartomyzon rupiscartes), bullheads (Ameirus spp.), margined
madtom (Noturus insignis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides).
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Project construction will have various impacts on the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential
impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and
the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area. However,
project construction often does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less. Impacts to the terrestrial communities within the proposed
construction limits are listed in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1
Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community
Estimated Impact by Segment Alternative (acres)
Type*
Al
Bl
B2
B3
C
D
DI
El
F1
F2
GI
G2
H
OF
14.7
17.8
20.0
17.6
52.3
121.4
118.5
14.1
12.1
10.4
18.3
18.4
18.5
FF
---
---
---
---
0.3
15.5
8.9
1.9
0.1
0.1
---
---
---
M/D
9.1
31.7
31.5
29.2
54.9
51.0
51.2
54.9
26.0
26.2
23.8
24.8
35.1
Totals
23.8
49.5
51.5
46.8
107.5
187.9
178.6
70.9
38.2
36.7
42.1
43.2
53.6
Notes: Anticipated terrestrial community impacts are based upon the construction limits (including fill, excavation,
clearing) of the preliminary designs.
--- denotes terrestrial community does not occur within segment
* UF=Upland Forest, FF=Floodplain Forest, NM-Nlaintained/Disturbed
Destruction of natural communities within the project area will result in the loss of foraging
and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will
be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are
mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile
species may suffer direct loss during construction.
50

Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitat in the project area will be both directly and indirectly affected by the
construction of the project. Direct impacts will include the destruction of habitat by the
placement of culverts at stream crossings. Impacts to aquatic communities include
fluctuations in water temperatures as a result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and
food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles,
will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and
animals will affect terrestrial fauna, which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to
affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills
and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and
riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Dissolved oxygen levels may be lower as well due to the influx of organic materials and
increase in water temperature.
Rutherford and McDowell Counties are listed as trout counties under the state fishery
management classification administered by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Through personal communication with Marla Chambers from the
NCWRC, it has been determined that the streams in the project area do not support trout and
therefore will not be subject to a trout moratorium during project construction (NCWRC,
2002).
Recommendations to Minimize Impacts
Measures to minimize terrestrial and aquatic impacts should include:
• Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation
during project construction.
• Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity.
• Limiting or eliminating discharges into streams.
• Reduction of fill slopes at stream/wetland crossings.
• Sensitive placement of drainage structures.
• Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and
herbicide management.
• Use of responsible litter control practices.
51

2. Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act.
The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR Parts 320-330. Impacts to Waters of the
United States fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE through Section 404 of the CWA and
under the jurisdiction of NCDWQ through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Process.
By regulation, wetlands are also considered "Waters of the United States." Wetlands are
described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas. [33 CFR Section 328.3(b) (1986)J
The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination. Wetlands were rated using
NCDWQ's wetland rating procedures (NCDENR, 1995). This system rates six values of
wetlands including: (1) water storage, (2) bank/shoreline stabilization, (3) pollutant removal,
(4) wildlife habitat, (5) aquatic life value, and (6) recreation/education. The six ratings are
summed for a maximum possible score of 100.
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
The majority of the proposed project is located within the Broad River Basin, NCDWQ
subbasin 03-08-02 (within United States Geological Survey [USGS] 8-digit Hydrological
Unit 03050105). The major tributary in this subbasin within the project area is the Second
Broad River. The northern end of the project study area, beginning north of the US 221 and
SR 1786 (Old US 221) intersection in McDowell County lies within the Catawba River
Basin, NCDWQ subbasin 03-08-30 (within USGS 8-digit Hydrological Unit 03050101).
The major tributary within the project area, in this subbasin, is North Muddy Creek.
Initially, 78 intermittent/perennial surface waters were located in the project area. However,
during a subsequent evaluation undertaken during a drier period, 25 of the 78 streams were
determined to be ephemeral channels and eight additional jurisdictional streams were located,
updating the total to 61 jurisdictional streams located in the project study area. Descriptions
of the intermittent and perennial streams are listed in Table 5.2. Surface waters within the
project area are shown in Figure 5.1.
52

Table 5.2
Physical Characteristics of Streams
Stream No. /
NCDWQ
Average Wet
Average Wet
Benthic (Bottom)
NCDWQ Best
Seasonality*
Stream Name
Index
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Substrate
Usage
(feet)
(inches)
Composition
Classification**
2
UT to
9-41-12-6-(1)
4
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Mountain Creek
sand, clay
12
UT to
9-41-12-6-(1)
4
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Mountain Creek
sand
13
UT to
Intermittent/
Mountain Creek
9-41-12-6-(1)
2
1
sand, clay
WS-V
Perennial
14
UT to
9-41-12-6-(1)
2
1
sand, clay
WS-V
Perennial
Mountain Creek
16
UT to
9-41-12-6-(1)
1.5
1
sand, clay
WS-V
Perennial
Mountain Creek
20
UT to
9-41-13-(0.5)
2-6
2
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Cathey's Creek
sand
21
Cathey's Creek
9-41-13-(0.5)
30
8
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
sand
22
UT to
9-41-13-(0.5)
3-4
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Cathey's Creek
sand
22a
UT to No. 22
9-41-13-(0.5)
2-3
1
bedrock, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
gravel, sand
23
Ephemeral to
UT to
9-41-13-(0.5)
2-3
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Cathey's Creek
sand, clay
25
UT to
9-41-13-5
2.5
1
sand, clay
WS-V
Perennial
Cherry Creek
27
UT to
9-41-13-(0.5)
2-3
1
sand
WS-V
Perennial
Cathey's Creek
33
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3
1
gravel, sand
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
34
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3
1
sand, silt
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
36
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
1.5
1
sand, clay
WS-V
Intermittent
Broad River
37
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
4
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
38
Stoney Creek
9-41-9
12
6
bedrock, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
gravel, sand
40
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
6
6
sand, silt
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
41
UT to Second
Linear
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)
1
1
sand
WS-V
Wetland/Ditch
42
UT to Second
Linear
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)
1
1
sand
WS-V
Wed d/Ditch
53

Stream No. /
NCDWQ
Average Wet
Average Wet
Benthic (Bottom)
NCDWQ Best
Seasonality*
Stream Name
Index
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Substrate
Usage
(feet)
(inches)
Composition
Classification"
43
Rockhouse Creek
9-41-8-1
3
2
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
sand
44
Rockhouse Creek
9-41-8-1
6
2
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
sand
45
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2-3
1
bedrock, boulder,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
46
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2
1
bedrock, boulder,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
46aUT
to No. 46
9-41-(0.5)
1.5-2
0.5-1
sand, silt
WS-V
Perennial
47
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2
0.5
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
48
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3
1
gravel, sand
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
49
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3-4
1
boulder, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
gravel, sand
50
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2
1
boulder, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
gravel, sand
51
Scrub Grass
cobble, gravel,
Perennial
Branch
9-41-6
12
6
sand
WS-V
51a
UT to Scrub
cobble, gravel,
Perennial
Grass Branch
9-41-6
2
1
sand
WS-V
51b
UT to Scrub
cobble, gravel,
Perennial
Grass Branch
9-41-6
2
1
sand
WS-V
52
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
1.5
1
sand, gravel
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
53
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2-3
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
54
UT to Second
bedrock, boulder,
Perennial
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)
10
2.5
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
sand
55
Second Broad
boulder, cobble,
Perennial
River
9-41-(0.5)
25
8
sand, gravel
WS-V
56
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
2
1
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
sand
57
UT to Second
bedrock, boulder,
Perennial
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)
15
4
cobble, gravel,
WS-V
sand
58
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3-4
1
boulder, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
gravel, sand
59
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
3
1
boulder, cobble,
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
gravel, sand
60
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
15
30
sand
WS-V
Perennial
Broad River
61
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)
1
1
sand
WS-V
Intermittent
Broad River
54

Stream No. /
NCDWQ
Average Wet
Average Wet
Benthic (Bottom)
NCDWQ Best
Seasonality*
Stream Name
Index
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Substrate
Usage
(feet)
(inches)
Composition
Classification"
62
UT to
11-32-1-2-1
1.5
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Stanfords Creek
63
UT to
11-32-1-2-1
2
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Stanfords Creek
63a
Perennial
UT to No. 63
11-32-1-2-1
1
1
sand, silt, clay
C
63b
Perennial
UT to No. 63a
11-32-1-2-1
1
1
sand, silt, clay
C
65
Goose Creek
11-32-1-2
12
3
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
sand
66
UT to
11-32-1-2
2
1
sand, silt
C
Perennial
Goose Creek
67
UT to North
11-32-1
3-4
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Muddy Creek
68
UT to North
11-32-1
2
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Muddy Creek
69
North Muddy
11-32-1
15
6
boulder, cobble,
C
Perennial
Creek
gravel, sand
70
UT to North
11-32-1
4
1
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
Muddy Creek
sand
71
UT to North
11-32-1
1.5
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Muddy Creek
72
UT to
11-32-1-1
5
2
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
Hicks Branch
sand
72aHicks
Perennial
Branch
11-32-1-1
7
2-4
cobble, sand
C
73
UT to
11-32-1-4
1.5-2
1
gravel, sand
C
Perennial
Corpening Creek
74
UT to
11-32-1-4
5
2
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
Corpening Creek
sand
75
UT to
11-32-1-4
8
3-4
boulder, cobble,
C
Perennial
Corpening Creek
gravel, sand
76
UT to
11-32-1-4
4-5
2
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
Corpening Creek
sand
78
Corpening Creek
11-32-1-4
15-20
8
boulder, cobble,
C
Perennial
gravel, sand
79
UT to
11-32-1-4
5
4
cobble, gravel,
C
Perennial
Corpening Creek
sand
Notes: * The stream numbers omitted from the table were determined to be ephemeral channels. To avoid confusion
with maps previously distributed, the streams were not renumbered.
** Unnamed tributaries carry the same surface water classification as the water body to which they connect.
55

Best Usage Classifications
NCDWQ classifies stream segments according to their highest supportable use. Unless
otherwise stated, unnamed tributaries with no designated best usage classification share the
classification of their respective receiving waters.
The project area is located within the Broad River (Second Broad River) and Catawba River
(North Muddy Creek) basins. The Second Broad River and its tributaries (including portions
of Cathey's Creek) within the project area are classified as Class WS-V (Water Supply V)
water bodies (NCDENR, 2011). Class WS-V waters have no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or wastewater dischargers like other water supply classifications, and
local governments are not required to adopt watershed protection ordinances.
North Muddy Creek and its tributaries are classified as Class C water bodies. Class C water
resources are used for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Point Source Dischargers
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits involving
the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system, treatment works, or
disposal system, and for certain stormwater runoff which would result in a discharge into
surface waters (USEPA, 1991). In North Carolina, the NPDES program is administered by
NCDWQ. All dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are six minor
dischargers within approximately one mile of the project area. Dischargers, their permit
numbers, and associated categories are shown below:
• Gilkey Lumber (NCG210156) — Sawmills and Planning Mills- General
• Haldex Services Corp. (NCG030020) — Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
• Johnson Paving Company (NCG020685) — Permit expired
• Park Inn International (NC0040291) — Hotels and Motels
• United World Mission (NC0032174) — Schools and Educational Services
• Universal Bedroom Furniture (NCG180031) — Wood Household Furniture
Non -Point Source Dischargers
Approximately 80 percent of the corridor is undeveloped, forested lands and thus has no
significant non -point source discharge. The land use for the remaining 20 percent of the
corridor is rural and low density residential. Septic systems, horse pastures, and other
agricultural activities may contribute to non -point source discharge. There are no NPDES
stormwater Phase I or Phase II communities in the project study area.
56

Water Quality Monitoring
The NCDWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for each of
the 17 river basins within the state. The Environmental Sciences Branch within the Water
Quality Section of the NCDWQ collects biological and physical data for use in basinwide
assessment and planning. River basins are reassessed every five years. The Basinwide
Assessment Program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
(benthos) organisms throughout North Carolina. The monitoring sites will vary according to
needs assessed for a particular basin. Monitoring of benthos is conducted concurrently with
monitoring of physical parameters in preparation for wastewater discharger permit renewals
for specific basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates are important indicator organisms and are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of
these organisms are reflections of water quality.
Sampling in the project area occurred in June 2003 (benthos biological integrity) and 2004
(fish biological integrity) on Cathey's Creek at the US 221 crossing. This site received a
Good -Fair rating in 2003 and a Good rating in 2004. The Second Broad River was sampled
in 2005 and received a Good rating for fish biological integrity.
Several unnamed tributaries (UTs) in the project area flow into monitored streams. Mountain
Creek was sampled for the biological integrity of its fish communities and benthos in 2005
and received a Good rating. Corpening Creek (also known as Youngs Fork) is listed on the
North Carolina 303(d) list of impaired waters (from source to North Muddy Creek) for poor
bioclassifications and impairments to benthos. The most recent sampling of Corpening
Creek occurred in 2007 and additional sampling took place in 2002. Corpening Creek was
originally listed on the North Carolina 303(d) list in 1998 (NCDENR, 2010).
b. Wetlands
Wetlands within the project study area that are shown on the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) map (Glenwood, NC quadrangle) all lie within the Second Broad River's floodplain,
east of the railroad tracks. These wetlands are described as Palustrine Forested, Broad-
leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded (PFOlA) according to Cowardin (1979). Wetlands
shown on the NWI map may not meet `jurisdictional" status according to the USACE
Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). A portion of these wetlands lie within the project
study area; however, no impacts to these wetlands are anticipated.
Five wetlands, not shown on the NWI maps, were delineated within the project area (four in
Rutherford County and one in McDowell County) (Figure 5.1). All wetlands exhibit
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil indicators such as low chroma or aquic moisture regime,
and wetland hydrology. While these wetlands are not depicted on the NWI map, they would
be classified as Palustrine Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded (PFOlA)
according to Cowardin (1979). Stream numbers shown below refer to the streams on
Figure 5.1.
57

Wetland 1, occurs as a very small toe -of -slope seep located near Stream No. 14, an unnamed
tributary to Mountain Creek, south of SR 1376 (Lane Road). Its dominant vegetation
includes red maple, tulip poplar, tag alder, Chinese privet, and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Hydric soil indicators include low chroma colors (10YR3/1 matrix with some 10YR6/8
mottles) and soil saturation within the upper twelve inches. The NCDWQ wetland rating for
this site is 13.
Wetland 2, appears to be a remnant of an artificial impoundment and is located north of
Stream No. 27, an unnamed tributary to Cathey's Creek, south of SR 1323 (Crutchfield
Road). Dominant vegetation for Wetland 2 consists of green ash, red maple, wild raisin
(Viburnum nudum), tag alder, Chinese privet, water primrose (Ludwidgia spp), Japanese
grass, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), sedges (Carex spp.), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Hydric soil indicators include low chroma colors (10YR4/2 matrix) and saturation within the
upper twelve inches. The NCDWQ wetland rating for this site is 68.
Wetland 3, is located approximately 0.5 miles north of Wetland 2 and is adjacent to Stream
No. 34, an unnamed tributary to the Second Broad River, north of SR 1323 (Crutchfield
Road). It is a small headwater forest located just outside the proposed construction limits of
the project. Dominant vegetation for Wetland 3 includes green ash, red maple, hornbeam,
sedge, and Virginia creeper. Hydric soil indicators include low chroma colors (10YR4/1
matrix) and soil saturation within the upper twelve inches. The NCDWQ wetland rating for
this site is 55.
Wetland 4, is a disturbed freshwater marsh adjacent to Stream No. 41, a channelized wet
ditch, north of Thermal City. Historically, its hydrology has been altered by past activities of
wetland filling and draining by the Thermal City Gem Mine. While hydrology has
essentially been removed, Wetland 4 still exhibits secondary wetland hydrology indicators
such as oxidized root channels in the upper twelve inches and the facultative (FAC)-Neutral
plant test. (The FAC-Neutral test reflects the range of estimated probabilities of a plant
species occurring in wetlands versus non -wetland across the entire distribution of the
species.) Dominant vegetation include hydrophytic plants such as sedge (Carex spp.), soft
rush, beak -rush (Rhyncospora spp.), and meadow -beauty (Rhexia mariana). Hydric soil
indicators include low chroma colors (10YR5/2 matrix with some 10YR5/8 mottles) and soil
saturation within the upper twelve inches. The NCDWQ wetland rating for this site is 22.
Wetland 5, is a headwater forest located near Stream Nos. 63, 63a and 63b, all unnamed
tributaries to Stanfords Creek, north of SR 1150 (Eplee Road). Dominant vegetation
includes red maple, tag alder, common sedge, soft rush, tear -thumb (Polygonum saggitatum),
spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), and Japanese grass. Hydric soil indicators
include low chroma colors (10YR3/1 matrix) and soil saturation within the upper twelve
inches. The NCDWQ wetland rating for this site is 67.
The jurisdictional delineations and stream channel designations (perennial versus
intermittent) within the Segment Alternatives were reviewed and approved by the USACE in
March 2005.
58

c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
A total of 61 jurisdictional (intermittent or perennial) streams are located within the project
study area. Jurisdictional wetlands were identified, flagged, and GPS located. Stream and
wetland impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake, plus an additional 25 feet
outside of each limit as determined from the current preliminary design plans for each
Segment Alternative. Stream and wetland impacts are shown in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4,
respectively.
Table 5.3
Estimated Impacts to Streams
SEGMENT Al
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
Al
2
UT to Mountain Creek
Perennial
143
Total Impacts (feet)**:
143
SEGMENTS Bl, B2, B3
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
Bl
B2
B3
12
UT to Mountain Creek
Perennial
849
841
849
13
UT to Mountain Creek
Intermittent'
Perennial
294
373
301
14
UT to Mountain Creek
Perennial
No Impact
64
No Impact
16
UT to Mountain Creek
Perennial
208
237
465
Total Impacts (feet)**:
1,351
1,515
1,615
SEGMENT C
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
C
20
UT to Cathe 's Creek
Perennial
177
21
Cathe 's Creek
Perennial
Bridge
22
UT to Cathe 's Creek
Perennial
207
22a
UT to No. 22
Perennial
No Impact
23
UT to Cathe 's Creek
Ephemeral to Perennial
1,042
25
UT to Cherry Creek
Perennial
No Impact
27
UT to Cathey's Creek
Perennial
No Impact
33
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
No Impact
34
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
463
36
UT to Second Broad River
Intermittent
176
37
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
325
Total Impacts (feet)**:
2,390
59

SEGMENTS D, D1
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
D
DI
38
Stoney Creek
Perennial
151
151
40
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
101
101
41
UT to Second Broad River
wetland
Channel/ Ditch
184
184
42
UT to Second Broad River
wetland
Channel/ Ditch
34
34
43
Rockhouse Creek
Perennial
No Impact
No Impact
44
Rockhouse Creek
Perennial
181
181
45
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
83
83
46
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
142
142
46a
UT to No. 46
Perennial
47
47
47
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
206
206
48
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
181
181
49
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
No Impact
No Impact
50
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
130
130
51
Scrub Grass Branch
Perennial
328
328
51a
UT to Scrub Grass Branch
Perennial
37
37
51b
UT to Scrub Grass Branch
Perennial
No Impact
No Impact
52
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
178
178
53
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
146
146
54
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
171
119
55
Second Broad River
Perennial
Bride
Bridge
56
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
No Impact
No Impact
57
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
361
178
58
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
122
156
59
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
902
947
Total Impacts (feet)**:
3,685
3,529
SEGMENT El
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
El
59
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
265
60
UT to Second Broad River
Perennial
237
61
UT to Second Broad River
Intermittent
126
62
UT to Stanfords Creek
Perennial
110
63
UT to Stanfords Creek
Perennial
160
63a
UT to No. 63
Perennial
132
63b
UT to No. 63a
Perennial
43
64
UT to Stanfords Creek
Intermittent
No Impact
65
Goose Creek
Perennial
230
66
UT to Goose Creek
Perennial
203
67
UT to North Muddy Creek
Perennial
No Impact
68
UT to North Muddy Creek
Perennial
223
69
North Muddy Creek
Perennial
241
Total Impacts (feet)**:
1,970
60

SEGMENTS F1, F2
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
FI
F2
70
UT to North Mudd Creek
Perennial
No Impact
No Impact
71
UT to North Muddy Creek
Perennial
167
181
72
UT to Hicks Branch
Perennial
422
422
Total Impacts (feet)**:
589
603
SEGMENTS G1, G2
Stream No.
Stream Name
Channel Status
GI
G2
72a
Hicks Branch
Perennial
647
647
Total Impacts (feet)**:
647
647
SEGMENT H
Stream No.*
Stream Name
Channel Status
H
73
UT to Corpening Creek
Perennial
No Impact
74
UT to Corpening Creek
Perennial
304
75
UT to Corpening Creek
Perennial
352
76
UT to Corpening Creek
Perennial
558
78
Corpening Creek
Perennial
No Impact
79
UT to Corpening Creek
Perennial
No Impact
Total Impacts (feet)**:
1,214
Notes: Anticipated stream impacts are based upon the construction limits (including fill, excavation, clearing)
of the preliminary designs.
* Stream numbers omitted from this table are ephemeral. To avoid confusion with maps previously
distributed, the streams were not renumbered.
** Stream impacts include an additional 25 feet to each side of the slope stake limit. Stream impacts do
not include length of stream within an existing culvert
Most of the segments have one alignment alternative; however,
the linear stream impacts are greatest for Segments 133, D, and F2
are least for Segments B1, D1, and F1.
Table 5.4
Estimated Impacts to Wetlands
for Segments B, D, and F,
The linear stream impacts
Wetland
No.
Wetland Type
Cowardin
Classification*
Riverine vs.
Non-Riverine
DWQ
Rating
(100 max)
Wetland
Size
(acres)
Segment
Alternative
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)**
1
Seep
PF01A
Non-Riverine
13
0.02
131,132,133
0.02
2
Headwater Forest
PF01A
Riverine
68
0.15
C
0.08
3
Headwater Forest
PF01A
Riverine
55
0.03
C
0.01
4
Freshwater Marsh
PF01A
Riverine
22
0.12
D,D 1
0.06
5
Headwater Forest
PF01A
Riverine
67
0.54
El
0.19
Total:
1 0.86
1
1 0.36
Notes: Anticipated wetland impacts are based upon the construction limits (including fill, excavation, clearing) of the
preliminary designs.
* PFOlA = palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
** Wetland impacts include an additional 25 feet to each side of the slope stake limit
61

Although several of the segments have more than one alignment, as shown in Table 5.4, the
wetland impacts do not vary by Segment Alternative.
At this phase in the planning process, the need for stream relocations is not anticipated.
Should such actions be required, as determined during final design, coordination with the
USFWS and the NCWRC would be completed in accordance with mandates expressed in the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as amended, 16 USC 661 et seq. [1976]).
Widening US 221 will affect many named streams and unnamed tributaries. Impacts to
water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in -
stream construction, extending or replacing existing pipes and culverts, bridge replacement,
fertilizers and pesticides in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts
to surface water resources are likely to result from the above -mentioned construction
activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• 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 groundwater flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will need to be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project. Limiting in -stream activities and revegetating
streambanks immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetland" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological
integrity of "Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of 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 in sequential order.
62

Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the USEPA and the USACE, "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts must be determined. Such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes. Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters
and wetlands will result from roadfill and stream crossings.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to "Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
widths, right-of-way widths, and/or fill slopes.
During the development of the preliminary engineering designs for each Segment
Alternative, efforts were made to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams
wherever practicable. Where stream crossings were unavoidable, they were located, within
design constraints, as perpendicular as practicable, in order to minimize the length of stream
impacted.
Mitigation must be provided for cumulative important stream channel impacts exceeding
150 linear feet under Section 404 of the CWA. Complete bridging of the stream channel
would not require mitigation, but construction of standard culverts would require mitigation
for the disturbed stream channel. The preliminary engineering designs currently propose a
bridge over Cathey's Creek for the Segment Alternatives.
Jurisdictional impacts would be minimized by reducing, where applicable, fill slopes and
median widths at stream and wetland crossings. The alignment in Segments D and D1
include a reduction in slopes from 2:1 to 1.75:1 or 1.5:1 in various areas along the length of
the segment to minimize impacts to streams. Also in Segments D and D 1, the median width
was reduced from 46 feet to 30 feet or a 22-foot concrete barrier in Segment D1 to minimize
impacts to streams. Constructing a bridge at Cathey's Creek in Segment C would further
address minimization requirements. Bridging floodplain wetlands along the larger stream
systems, such as Cathey's Creek, would decrease the degree of potential habitat
fragmentation and reduce potential wildlife mortality due to traffic operations by providing
riparian corridors for wildlife use. Sensitive placement of drainage structures would
minimize degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat
viability in streams and tributaries. Several retaining walls were incorporated into the
preliminary design to minimize impacts to streams, specifically the Second Broad River.
Once surveys of the project area are available, the preliminary design can be revised to
further minimize impacts to the human and natural environments.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters
of the United States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
63

every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, enhancement,
and preservation of "Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site if practicable.
If on -site mitigation locations are infeasible or insufficient to mitigate all project impacts, or
are not available for mitigation, off -site compensatory mitigation would be accomplished
through coordination with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP).
The USACE, NCDOT and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) entered into a MOA in July 2003 that established procedures for providing
compensatory mitigation through NCEEP to offset impacts to streams and wetlands from
NCDOT projects. The three parties agreed that mitigation for transportation projects should
occur before impacts and using a watershed approach. Appropriate compensatory mitigation
requirements for wetland and stream impacts from the Preferred Alternative would be
determined in consultation with the appropriate federal and state environmental resource and
regulatory agencies.
e. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Due to the placement of fill associated with stream crossings over jurisdictional surface
waters (i.e., wetlands and surface waters), it will be necessary to obtain permits from the
USACE and the NCDWQ. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until an
alignment footprint has been determined and construction impacts are quantified.
Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will
not be violated for activities which either involve issuance of a federal permit or license or
require discharges to "Waters of the United States." The USACE cannot issue a Section 404
permit until a 401 certification is issued. Therefore, NCDOT must apply to the NCDWQ for
401 Water Quality Certification as part of the permit process. Based on the assessments
made in this document, it is likely that a Section 404 Individual Permit requiring mitigation
will be required.
3. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally -Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The USFWS lists
species under federal protection for Rutherford (5 species) and McDowell (4 species)
counties as of March 21, 2011. These species are listed in Table 5.5. A brief description of
the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows, along with a biological
conclusion regarding potential project impact.
64

Table 5.5
Species under Federal Protection
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status*
Count y
Biological
Conclusion
Vertebrates
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Carolina northern flying squirrel
E
McDowell
No Effect
Clemm s muhlenber ii
Bog turtle
T (S/A)
McDowell
Not Required
M otis sodahs
Indiana bat
E
Rutherford
No Effect
Vascular Plants
Hexastylis nani ora
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
T
Rutherford
No Effect
Hudsonia montana
Mountain golden heather
T
McDowell
No Effect
Isotria medeoloides
Small -whorled pogonia
T
Rutherford,
McDowell
No Effect
Sis rinchium dichotomum
White irisette
E
Rutherford
No Effect
Non -vascular Plants
Gymnoderma lineare
Rock gnome lichen
E
Rutherford
No Effect
Notes:
* E Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T Threatened denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
S/A Similarity of Appearance denotes a species that closely resembles in appearance to an endangered or
threatened species that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in differentiating
between the listed and unlisted species. The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as T (S/A)
due to Similarity of Appearance with the northern population of the bog turtle (which is federally listed
as Threatened and which does not occur in North Carolina).
Glaucomys sabriuus (Carolina northern flying squirrel)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Northern flying squirrels are typically found in areas where northern hardwoods, such as
yellow birch, are adjacent to the higher -elevation red spruce -Fraser fir forest. These habitats
are often moist and cool. Carolina northern flying squirrels are found on high mountain
peaks in southwest Virginia, western North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee.
The highest elevation in the study area is approximately 1,432 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL), well below the location of the hardwood forest to coniferous forest ecotone preferred
by this species. Appropriate habitat for these squirrels is not available in the study area. A
search of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats, conducted on March 20, 2011, shows no occurrences of this species within two
miles of the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated during project
construction.
65

Clemmys muhleubergii (Bog turtle)
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Bog turtles live in the mud, grass and sphagnum moss of bogs, swamps, and marshy
meadows. These wetlands are usually fed by cool springs flowing slowly over the land,
creating the wet, muddy soil needed by the turtles. There are two distinct populations of the
bog turtle separated by about 250 miles. The northern population is found from New York
and Massachusetts south to Maryland. The southern population extends from southwestern
Virginia south through eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and northwestern South
Carolina to northern Georgia. Throughout their range they have been found from near sea
level to as high as 4,500 feet above sea level (USFWS, 2008).
The NHP files indicate a known population of bog turtles (first recorded in May 1993) in a
marshy meadow or degraded Southern Appalachian bog ("Vein Mountain Meadow Bog")
adjacent to Second Broad River and SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) in McDowell County
approximately 0.5 mile south of SR 1802 (Vein Mountain) junction. A representative of the
NC Museum of Natural Sciences stated that this is a known reproducing population and that
these turtles are utilizing the Second Broad River floodplain near the project area. The
representative also stated that transient bog turtles may use stream corridors, roadside
ditches, and even travel overland in dispersal route (NC Museum of Natural Sciences, 2002).
As more detailed design information becomes available, more intensive surveys for the bog
turtle may be recommended in the Second Broad River floodplain area adjacent to the project
area. A biological conclusion is not required since T (S/A) species are not afforded full
protection under the ESA.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Indiana bats winter in caves or mines with stable, but not freezing, cold temperatures. In
summer they generally roost in the loose bark of trees, either dead trees with peeling bark, or
live trees with shaggy bark, such as white oak and some hickories. The Indiana bat is a
migratory species found throughout much of the eastern United States (USFWS, 2008).
A survey for the Indiana bat is not required within the project area, based upon an internal
NCDOT memorandum dated July 2, 2002. A biological conclusion of no effect was
rendered after representatives from the NCDOT and the USFWS reviewed physical data
including county listing, river basin information, and aerial photography for the project.
NCDOT staff was contacted to determine the status of this species assessment. The staff
member stated that surveys for the species may be required in Rutherford County around
mines, caves, and bridges (NCDOT, 2007). The construction limits of the proposed project
do not impact any mines or caves. The only bridge located along existing US 221 within the
project study area is located in McDowell County. The Indiana bat does not occur in
McDowell County. Also, a search of the NHP database on March 20, 2011, found that no
populations have been recorded within two miles of the project area.
66

Hexastylis uauiflora (Dwarf -flowered heartleaf)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
Found in the upper piedmont region of Western North Carolina and upstate South Carolina
(USFWS, 2008).
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on
March 20, 2011, shows no occurrences of this species within two miles of the project area.
However, potential habitat does exist in the project area for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf. An
intensive field survey for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf was conducted by Buck Engineering
(now Baker Engineering) biologists in May 2004, in the project area. No individuals were
found during the survey. It is therefore anticipated that the project construction will have no
effect on the dwarf -flowered heartleaf.
Hudsouia moutaua (Mountain golden heather)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mountain golden heather usually grows on exposed quartzite cliffs at elevations of 2,800 to
4,000 feet. Mountain golden heather is found in Burke and McDowell Counties, North
Carolina (USFWS, 2008).
No potential habitat exists in the project area for the mountain golden heather. The known
populations are found in elevations well above the project area elevations. A search of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on March 20, 2011, shows no
occurrences of this species within two miles of the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this
species are anticipated during project construction.
Isotria medeoloides (Small -whorled pogonia)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small -whorled pogonia can be limited by shade. The species seems to require small light
gaps, or canopy breaks, and generally grows in areas with sparse to moderate ground cover.
Too many other plants in an area can be harmful to this plant. This orchid typically grows
under canopies that are relatively open or near features that create long -persisting breaks in
the forest canopy such as a road or a stream. It grows in mixed -deciduous or mixed-
deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third -growth successional
stages. The soils in which it lives are usually acidic, moist, and have very few nutrients.
Small -whorled pogonia is found sporadically across the Eastern United States and Canada
(USFWS, 2008).
67

A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on
March 20, 2011, shows no occurrences of this species within two miles of the project area.
However, potential habitat does exist in the project area for the small -whorled pogonia. An
intensive field survey for the small -whorled pogonia was conducted by Buck Engineering
(now Baker Engineering) biologists in May 2004, in the project area. No individuals were
found during the survey. It is therefore anticipated that the project construction will have no
effect on the small -whorled pogonia
Sisyriuchium dichotomum (White hisette)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The species is found on mid -elevation slopes, characterized by open, dry to moderate -
moisture oak -hickory forests. White irisette usually grows in shallow soils on regularly
disturbed sites (such as woodland edges and roadsides) and over rocky, steep terrain. White
irisette is known from Henderson, Polk and Rutherford Counties, North Carolina; and
Greenville County, South Carolina (USFWS, 2008).
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on
March 20, 2011, shows no occurrences of this species within two miles of the project area
However, potential habitat does exist in the project area for the white irisette. An intensive
field survey for the white irisette was conducted by Buck Engineering (now Baker
Engineering) biologists in June 2004, in the project area. No individuals were found during
the survey. It is therefore anticipated that the project construction will have no effect on the
white irisette.
Gymuoderma liueare (Rock gnome lichen)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Rock gnome lichen is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water from
forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times. It appears the species needs a
moderate amount of light, but that it cannot tolerate high -intensity solar radiation. It does
well on moist, generally open sites, with northern exposures, but needs at least partial canopy
coverage where the aspect is southern or western. This lichen is known from the Southern
Appalachian Mountains of North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, in areas of
high humidity, either at high elevations, where it is frequently bathed in fog, or in deep
gorges at lower elevations. Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet (Russo
and Sweeney, 2000).
The project area lacks high humidity environments such as deep river gorges or other seepy
wet rock faces. The highest elevation in the project area is approximately 1,432 feet above
MSL, well below the elevations preferred by this species. A search of the NHP database of
rare species and unique habitats, conducted on March 20, 2011, shows no occurrences of this
68

species within two miles of the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are
anticipated during project construction.
b. Federal Species of Concern / State -Protected Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 5.6 includes FSC species listed for
Rutherford and McDowell Counties and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed
as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act of
1987 and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. State listed
species are not afforded the protections of the Act on NCDOT projects.
Table 5.6
Federal Species of Concern
Scientific Name
Common Name
Counties
NC
Status*
Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Aneides aeneus
Green salamander
Rutherford
E
No
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
McDowell
W 1
Yes
Contopus cooperi
Olive -sided flycatcher
McDowell
W3
No
Dendroica cerulea
Cerulean warbler
Rutherford,
McDowell
SC
Yes
Desmo nathus wri hti
Pygmy salamander
McDowell
SR
No
Loxia curvirostra
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
McDowell
SC
No
Microtus chrotorrhinus
carolinensis
Southern rock vole
McDowell
SC
No
M otis leibii
Eastern small -footed bat
Rutherford
SC
No
Neotoma floridana
haematoreia
Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat
Rutherford,
McDowell
W2
Yes
Neotoma ma ister
Allegheny woodrat
McDowell
SC
Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
Northern pine snake
Rutherford
SC
No
Invertebrates
Caecidotea carolinensis
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater
McDowell
E
No
S e eria diana
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
McDowell
W2
Yes
Vascular Plants
Chelonecuthbertii
Cuthbert turtlehead
McDowell
SR-L
Yes
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall larkspur
McDowell
E-SC
Yes
Hexastylis contracta
Mountain heartleaf
Rutherford
E
Yes
Juglans cinerea
Butternut
McDowell,
Rutherford
W5a
Yes
Lilium grayi
Gra 's lily
McDowell
T-SC
Yes
Monotropsis odorata
Sweet pinesap
McDowell,
Rutherford
SR-T
Yes
69

Scientific Name
Common Name
Counties
NC
Habitat
Status*
Present
Packera millefolium
Blue Ridge ragwort
McDowell,
T
No
Rutherford
Parnassia grandifolia
Large -leaved Grass -of -Parnassus
McDowell
T
No
Saxi ra a carohniana
Gray's saxifrage
Rutherford
SR-T
Yes
Shortia galacifolia var.
Short -styled Oconee -bells
McDowell
E-SC
Yes
brevistyla
Silene ovata
Mountain cateldly
Rutherford
SR-T
Yes
Sohdago simulans
Granite dome goldenrod
Rutherford
SR-L
No
Non -vascular Plants
Plagiochila sullivantii
A liverwort
McDowell
SR-T
No
var. sullivantii
Porella watau ensis
A liverwort
McDowell
SR-L
No
Notes:
* E Endangered denotes a species whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or
fauna is in jeopardy.
T Threatened denotes any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the State's Endangered Species Act of 1987.
SC Special Concern denotes a species that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be
sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR Significantly Rare denotes a species not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in
small numbers.
SR-L Significantly Rare denotes a species whose range is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states.
SR-T Significantly Rare denotes a species that is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100 populations).
W1 Watch Category 1 denotes a species that is known to be declining in North Carolina.
W2 Watch Category 2 denotes a species that is rare to uncommon, but not necessarily considered to be
declining or otherwise in trouble.
W3 Watch Category 3 denotes a species that is poorly known, but not necessarily considered to be
declining or otherwise in trouble.
W5a Watch Category 5a denotes a species that has declined sharply, but which does not appear yet to
warrant site -specific monitoring.
The most recent search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted
on March 20, 2011, listed two occurrences of the Blue Ridge ragwort within two miles of the
project area. Additional FSC species with listings within two miles of the project area
include Cuthbert's turtlehead, Sweet pinesap, Large -leaved Grass -of -Parnassus, and Small -
leaved meadowrue (NHP, 2011). While these species occurred within two miles of the
project area, there is no habitat for these species in the project area (Table 5.6). Therefore,
there are no federally or state listed threatened and endangered species present in the project
study area.
c. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared
recovered, and removed (de -listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered
70

wildlife. This de -listing took effect August 8, 2007. After de -listing, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting
bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory
definition of "take" that includes "disturb." The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to
how to avoid disturbing bald eagles.
A review of the NHP database indicates no known occurrences of bald eagle within two
miles of the project area.
4. Soils
The process of soil development depends upon both biotic and abiotic influences. These
influences include past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human
influences, plant and animal activity, time, climate, and topographical position. The project area
includes six local soil associations: Evard-Cowee association, Hayesville-Evard association,
Iotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association, Evard-Cowee-Fannin association, Pacolet-Cecil
association, and Madison-Pacolet-Grover association. A soil association is defined as a
landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils consisting of one or more major soils
and at least one minor soil. The soils within an association can vary in slope, depth, stoniness,
drainage, and other characteristics (USDA, 1995). These soil associations are described in
Appendix D. Individual soil types in the project study area are described in Table 5.7 and
mapped in Figure 5.2. Individual hydric soils found in the project area include Chewacla loam
and Fluvaquents.
Table 5.7
Physical Properties of Soils in the Project Study Area
Soil
Name
Sloe
General Properties
ApB
Appling sandy loam
1-6%
Well drained soil, found on summits and footslopes of
Piedmont divides.
BrC2
Braddock clay loam, eroded
2-6%
Well drained, gently sloping soils, found on high stream
terraces along many of the larger streams.
CaB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded
2-8%
Well drained soil, found on summits of Piedmont divides.
CaF
Chestnut-Ashe complex, stony
25-80%
Somewhat excessively well drained soil, found on
mountain ridgetops and side slopes.
ChA*
Chewacla loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
Somewhat poorly drained hydric soil, found on Piedmont
floodplains.
CoA*
Colvard loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
Well drained soil, found on floodplains along streams in
the intermountain areas.
DdB*
Dillard loam
1-4%
Rarely flooded soils.
EsB
Els nboro loam, rarely flooded
1-4%
Well drained, gently sloping soils, found on low stream
terraces along many of the larger streams.
EvD
Evard loam
10-25%
Well drained, moderately steep soil, found on mountain
ridgetops.
EvE
Evard-Cowee complex
30-50%
Well drained soil, found on summits and sideslopes of
mountain divides.
EwE
Evard-Cowee complex
25-60%
Well drained, steep soil, found on mountain side slopes.
71

Soil
Name
Sloe
General Properties
Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex,
Somewhat poorly drained (Fluvaquents) hydric soil,
FvA *
occasionally flooded
0-2%
moderately well drained to well drained (Udifluvents)
soils, found on mountain floodplains.
GrE
Grover loam
25-45%
Steeply sloping soil.
HaC
Hayesville loam
6-15%
well drained, strongly sloping soil found on
intermountain foothills and ridgetops.
HcC2
Hayesville clay loam, eroded
6-15%
well drained, strongly sloping soil found on ridgetops in
mtermountam areas and foothills.
HeD
Hayesville-Evard complex
15-25%
well drained, moderately steep soil, found in
mtermountam areas and on side slopes of foothills.
HrD
Hayesville-Evard-Urban land
15-25%
Moderately steep soil.
complex
HsC2
Hiwassee clay loam
8-15%
Eroded soil.
HuC
Hayesville-Urban land complex
6-15%
well drained, strongly sloping soil, found ridgetops and
side slopes in mtermountain areas and foothills.
IoA*
Iotla sandy loam, occasionally
0 2%
Somewhat poorly drained non-hydric, nearly level soil,
flooded
found on mountain floodplains adjacent to streams.
MaD2
Madison clay loam, eroded
15-25%
well drained soil, found on summits and sideslopes of
Piedmont broad and narrow mterstream divides.
PaC2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
8-15%
well drained soil, found on summits and sideslopes of
Piedmont divides.
PaD2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
15-25%
well drained soil, found on summits and sideslopes of
Piedmont divides.
Potomac cobbly loamy sand,
Somewhat excessively drained, nearly level to gently
PtB
frequently flooded
1-5%
sloping soil, found on floodplains at the headwaters of the
major mountain streams.
Potomac-Iotla complex, mounded,
Somewhat excessively drained to somewhat poorly
PxA
frequently flooded
0 3%
drained, nearly level soil, found on floodplains adjacent to
streams.
RaE
Rion sandy loam
25-45%
well drained soil, found on sideslopes of Piedmont
divides.
RoA*
Rosman loam
0-3%
Occasionally flooded soil.
Consists of areas where the natural soil has been greatly
UdC
Udorthents, loamy
0-15%
altered by excavation or intensive grading or covered by
earthy fill material.
Consists of areas that have been cut or filled during
Uo
Udorthents, loamy
0-60%
grading for roads, railroads, dwellings, recreational areas,
and similar uses.
Consists of areas along floodplains where the natural soil
UpA
Udorthents-Pits complex, mounded
0-2%
material has been altered by excavation activities that
removed gold or gravel.
Ur
Urban land
Consists of areas covered by more than 85% impervious
surfaces.
Note: * denotes hydric soil
Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995, 2000
Table 5.8 lists the acreages of each soil type within the construction limits of the Segment
Alternatives engineering designs. Thirty different soil types are present in the Segment
Alternatives.
72

Table 5.8
Acreages of Soil Types in the Segment Alternatives
Segment Alternative
Soil
Al
131
B2
B3
C
D
D1
El
F1
F2
G1
G2
H
APB
---
---
---
---
0.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
BrC2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.6
CaB2
3.6
4.4
4.4
6.5
2.7
---
---
---
CaF
---
---
---
---
17.5
13.0
ChA*
---
---
---
---
2.6
---
--
CoA*
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.5
1.2
1.2
---
---
---
DdB*
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.9
---
---
---
---
0.8
EsB
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.2
0.7
0.6
EvD
---
---
---
---
---
15.5
15.5
---
---
---
---
EvE
---
---
---
---
---
4.1
4.1
---
---
---
---
EwE
---
---
---
---
---
55.6
53.6
2.2
3.7
3.9
4.7
4.7
0.3
FvA*
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
GrE---
---
---
---
0.2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
HaC
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.5
---
---
---
---
0.8
HcC2
---
---
---
---
---
1.1
1.2
10.1
4.2
3.2
1 ---
---
1.4
HeD
---
---
---
---
---
7.1
3.6
10.2
11.6
11.2
2.4
3.2
15.5
HsC2
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
HuC
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
4.2
---
---
---
---
1.4
IoA*
---
---
---
---
---
1.2
1.5
4.0
---
---
---
---
0.9
MaD2
1.7
2.3
2.6
3.4
1.3
---
---
---
PaC2
7.5
15.7
15.4
17.3
23.9
0.3
0.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
PaD2
---
1.7
1.4
2.6
19.7
3.1
3.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
PtB
---
---
---
---
---
5.5
5.0
---
---
---
---
PxA
---
---
---
---
---
7.6
7.6
---
---
---
---
RaE
---
---
---
---
---
3.0
3.0
---
---
---
---
RoA*
---
---
---
---
---
0.1
0.1
---
---
---
---
UdC
---
0.4
2.2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Uo
---
---
---
---
---
0.7
0.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
UPA
---
---
---
---
---
4.5
4.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
Ur
--
---
---
---
0.4
0.2
---
TOTAL:
12.8
24.5
26.0
29.8
55.0
128.9
118.8
34.8
21.4
20.1
7.5
8.1
21.7
Notes: * denotes hydric soil
--- denotes soil does not occur within segment
Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995, 2000
As a result of earthwork and various other construction activities associated with the Build
Alternatives, the project will result in localized alterations of project study area topography,
geology, and soils within the right-of-way limits. As construction materials are added to the
project site, soils may be replaced, redistributed, and/or compacted. Addition of material will
raise the elevation of certain areas. The project is expected to have a negligible overall impact to
the region's geology and loss of or creation of soils.
73

5. Mineral Resources
Parts of the Slate Belt have been known to contain small amounts of metals, specifically
molybdenum and gold, but the main economic use of this formation has been its use as a source
of crushed stone and aggregate (NCDENR, 2006). Based on a review of the NCDENR Division
of Land Quality Land Resources database of active and inactive mining sites, there are permitted
mines within one mile of the project study area. The Boyd Mine (North Carolina permit number
59-23) is listed as an active sand and gravel mine and is located just north of the intersection of
US 221 with I-40. There is one inactive mine, the McCormick Gravel Mine (permit number
59-19), listed as a sand and gravel mine located west of US 221 in McDowell County
(NCDENR, 1999). However, no mines would be directly impacted under any of the Segment
Alternatives.
6. Important Natural Areas
Rutherford and McDowell Counties are largely rural. The only large, contiguous forested area in
the area is the Dysartsville Gameland. It is located on the east side of existing US 221 in
McDowell County, at its border with Rutherford County. The gameland is east of and adjacent
to the railroad in that area. However, no direct impacts to the gameland under any of the
Segment Alternatives would occur. There are no other areas that could be considered as prime
wildlife habitat.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The US Department of the Interior (USDOI) National Park Service and the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service maintain a list of designated rivers, as well as rivers which
may be eligible, for wild and scenic rivers designation. These rivers are listed on the National
Rivers Inventory and are afforded a degree of protection under the federal Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. The State of North Carolina also maintains a state river designation intended to
protect certain free flowing rivers or segments with outstanding natural, scenic, educational,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, scientific or other cultural values. No federally
designated, state designated, or National River Inventory waters occur within the project study
area (USDOI, 2009).
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally -funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
74

2. Historic Architectural Resources
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) recommended a survey of the
project area by qualified architectural historians in their memo dated November 20, 2002. A
field survey of the area of potential effects (APE) for TIP Project R-2597 was conducted by
Mattson, Alexander & Associates in late 2002. Thirty-eight resources over fifty years of age
within the APE were photographed and mapped. On February 4, 2003, the survey findings were
presented to the NC-HPO and it was decided that a report would be needed to evaluate several
historic properties in depth. A report was prepared by Mattson, Alexander & Associates in April
2003 which stated that three properties are eligible for the NRHP. The William Monteith House
is eligible under Criterion C for Architecture; the Albert Weaver Farm is eligible under Criteria
A and C for Agriculture and Architecture; and the B.G. Hensley House is eligible under
Criterion C for Architecture. The report was forwarded to NC-HPO for their concurrence and
they responded by memo dated May 23, 2003 where they agreed with the eligibility findings and
boundaries for each of the three properties. The NC-HPO also reminded NCDOT that the
eligibility findings for an adjacent project, TIP Project R-2233 (Rutherfordton Bypass) were still
valid, and eligible resources should be identified in the overlapping survey area. There is one
eligible property within the overlapping project areas, Gilboa United Methodist Church and it is
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for Architecture. NC-HPO also requested a
re-evaluation of Gilbert Town, a Revolutionary War resource; however, the subsequent National
Register nomination for the property confirmed that its boundaries are outside the APE for this
undertaking. Finally, NCDOT architectural historians surveyed the TIP Project R-204D&E
project area and did not identify additional eligible resources out of the five properties over fifty
years of age.
In a meeting between NCDOT and NC-HPO on August 1, 2006, each of the four eligible
resources was evaluated for effects. Table 5.9 outlines the determinations and a copy of the
signed effects form is included in Appendix E. Only Segment 131 resulted in an adverse effect to
a historic property. With the Segment 131 alignment, the William Monteith House would be
directly impacted by the proposed roadway and result in removal of the house. All other impacts
were considered to cause no effect or no adverse effect to the historic properties.
Table 5.9
Determinations of Effects to Historic Resources
Historic Resource
Segment
Alternative
Gilboa United
Methodist Church
William
Monteith House
Albert Weaver
Farm
B.G. Hensley
House
BI
No Effect
Adverse Effect
---
B2
No Effect
No Adverse Effect
---
B3
No Effect
No Effect
---
C
---
---
No Adverse Effect
---
D
---
---
No Adverse Effect
---
DI
---
---
No Adverse Effect
---
Fl
---
---
---
No Effect
F2
---
---
---
No Effect
Note: --- denotes historic resource does not occur within segment
75

3. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of the APE for TIP Project R-2597 was conducted by Legacy Research
Associates. One previously recorded site (31RF99**) lies within the archaeological APE. This
site was recorded during an archaeological survey of Rutherford County (Youngs, 1979);
however, this site was not assessed for the NRHP in 1979. This site appears to have been located
within the project APE; however, the Gilkey Welcome Center is presently at the 31RF99**
location. The area has been extensively disturbed by the construction of the welcome center and
the structural remains documented in 1979 are no longer extant. Therefore, no additional
archaeological work is recommended at this site.
The archaeological survey resulted in the identification of six additional archaeological sites.
Four sites were recorded that are recommended as not eligible for the NRHP: 31RF168**
31RF169**, 31RF170, and 31MC330. Site 31RF171/171** is eligible for the NRHP and is
located within the boundaries of the Albert Weaver Farm, an NRHP-eligible architectural
resource. This site is recommended as being eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its
potential to contribute to our understanding of the area's history, and possibly prehistory. The
small portion of Site 31RF171/171** within the APE is disturbed and does not contribute to the
NRHP eligibility of the site. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the
archaeological component of Site 31RF171/171**.
Additional archaeological work is recommended at Site 31RF167**, located in Segment C, after
right of way has been acquired to determine boundaries and to assess the site for the NRHP. Due
to denied access from the property owner, the intensive survey at this site was limited to two
shovel tests, one of which yielded brick and clear bottle glass. As a result, the archaeological
component of the site is unassessed for the NRHP. Access was also denied in the area on the
west side of US 221 across from its northern intersection with SR 1501 (Coney Island Road)
(Segment C). This area will also be surveyed after right of way has been acquired.
An archaeological survey of the APE for TIP Project R-204 was conducted by NCDOT
archaeologists. The archaeological survey resulted in the identification of five archaeological
sites and the recovery of one isolated artifact. Four sites were recorded that are recommended as
not eligible for the NRHP: 31MC282**, 31MC283/283**, 31MC284, and 31MC286. One
previously unrecorded archaeological site, 31MC285/285** is eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP. Although no features were discovered during the shovel tests, the subsequent test units
did expose an undisturbed, albeit narrow, midden zone. The occurrence of undisturbed cultural
zones is uncommon in the mountain uplands. A modest effort to expose a larger area of the
midden zone with the potential for features and clarification of site formation processes begs the
question of significance for the site (Glover, 2002). The site holds significance under Criterion
D. Site 31MC285/285** lies on the west side of US 221 within Segment E1, where widening is
occurring along both sides of US 221. Additional archaeological work is recommended at this
site to develop a small-scale Data Recovery plan if the site cannot be avoided by the project.
Correspondence from the NC-HPO regarding eligibility for these properties is included in
Appendix E.
76

C. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
Section 4(j)
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (23 CFR 774), protects
publicly owned parks, recreational areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges, as well as historic sites
listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. If the use of a Section 4(f) resource would occur due to a
proposed action, a Section 4(f) Evaluation must be prepared.
There are no federal funds currently appropriated for this project. Therefore, a Section 4(f)
Evaluation was not prepared.
Section 6(j)
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act applies to the conversion of certain recreation
lands to non -recreational purposes. The act applies to recreation lands that have received Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funds. Any land conversions on property that has received
LWCF money must be approved by the US Department of the Interior — National Park Service
(FHWA, 1987). Section 6(f) also requires that any applicable land converted to non -recreational
uses must be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location, and usefulness.
There are no known properties within the proposed project corridor that have been acquired or
developed with assistance of Section 6(f) funds. Therefore, none of the Segment Alternatives would
impact Section 6(f) resources.
D. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) requires all federal agencies
to consider the impact of their activities on prime, unique, statewide, and locally important farmland
soils, as defined by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (Public Law 97-98,
Subtitle 1, Section 1540). In accordance with the FPPA and State Executive Order Number 96, an
assessment was undertaken of the potential impacts of land acquisition and construction activities in
prime, unique, and local or statewide important farmland soils. The NRCS, in cooperation with state
and local agencies, developed a listing of Prime and Statewide Important Farmland of North
Carolina.
Prime Farmland is defined as soils best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed
crops. These soils are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a favorable growing
season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields on an average of eight out
of every ten years. Land already in or committed to urban development or water storage is not
included.
Unique Farmlands are used for production and specific high -value food or fiber crops. They have
the special combinations of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to
economically produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and
managed.
77

Statewide Importance and Locally Important are terms that are defined by the appropriate state or
local government agency as soils important in the agriculture of an individual county. These
definitions are based on measures of the soil's capacity to support productive farm activity, not of
current cultivation.
The NRCS completed soil surveys in Rutherford and McDowell Counties (USDA, 2000 and 1995,
respectively). Soils in the project study area considered to be Prime or of Statewide Importance are
listed in Table 5.10 and mapped in Figure 5.2. There are no soils designated Unique Farmland in the
project study area
Table 5.10
Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Project Study Area
Soil
Name
Slope
Farmland Status
ApB
Appling sandy loam
1-6%
All Areas Prime Farmland
BrC2
Braddock clay loam, eroded
2-6%
All Areas Prime Farmland
CaB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded
2-8%
All Areas Prime Farmland
ChA*
Chewacla loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
Prime Farmland if Drained
CoA*
Colvard loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
All Areas Prime Farmland
DdB*
Dillard loam
1-4%
All Areas Prime Farmland
DoB*
Dogue Loam
1-6%
All Areas Prime Farmland
EsB
Elsinboro loam, rarely flooded
1-4%
All Areas Prime Farmland
EvD
Evard loam
10-25%
Farmland of Local Importance
HcC2
Hayesville clay loam, eroded
6-15%
Farmland of Statewide Importance
HeD
Hayesville-Evard complex
15-25%
Farmland of Local Importance
HsC2
Hiwassee clay loam
8-15%
Farmland of Statewide Importance
IoA*
Iotla sandy loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
Prime Farmland if Drained
MaC2
Madison clay loam
8-15%
Farmland of Statewide Importance
PaC2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
8-15%
Farmland of Statewide Importance
RoA*
Rosman loam
0-3%
All Areas Prime Farmland
Note: * denotes hydric soil
Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995 and 2000
As required by the FPPA, coordination with the NRCS for this project was initiated by submittal of
Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. This coordination effort served as the basis
for determining the farmland impacts of the Segment Alternatives. The NRCS responded by
completing their portions of this form and providing a relative value of farmland that may be
affected (converted) by the proposed project.
The NRCS assigns ratings to potential farmland impacts in order to determine the level of
significance of these impacts. The ratings are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation
Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted and is determined by
the NRCS on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a sale of 0 to
160 points, evaluates farmland soil based on its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in
the immediate area The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points.
Sites receiving a total score of less than 160 should be given a minimal level of protection and sites
78

receiving a total score of 160 or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for
protection (7 CFR Section 658.4).
Completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms for the project are provided in
Appendix F. None of the Segment Alternatives resulted in a total site assessment score greater than
160 points. Therefore, in accordance with the FPPA, no mitigation for farmland loss is required for
the project.
The amount of Prime and State Important farmland that would be converted by the project varies
slightly among the alignments in Segment B. Segment B2 has the lowest acreage of Prime and State
Important farmland impacts (approximately 19.8 acres), while Segment B3 would impact the
greatest acreage of Prime and State Important farmland, approximately 23.9 acres. Segments D and
D1 have similar impacts to Prime and State Important farmland (26.4 and 23.1 acres, respectively).
Segments F1 and F2 impact approximately 17.7 and 16.1 acres of Prime and State Important
farmland, respectively, while Segments Gl and G2 impact approximately 2.4 and 3.2 acres of Prime
and State Important farmland, respectively.
In general, the Segment Alternatives would have some impact on the agricultural activities in the
project study area, however, the total acreage of farmland that would be acquired for the project
(151 to 161 acres) is not considered to be substantial as compared to the overall agricultural activity
in both of those counties. Rutherford County has 329,807 farmable acres, of which 54,587 acres are
active farmland and McDowell County has 205,326 acres of farmable acres, of which 50,093 acres
are active farmland as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981.
Local Farmland Policies
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties have Voluntary Farmland District Ordinances. The
Rutherford County Ordinance was adopted in October 2003, while the McDowell County Ordinance
was adopted in August 2002. The purposes of the ordinances were to:
• Facilitate communications with non -farm county residents.
• Protect the rural nature and character of the county.
• Encourage and protect the economic viability of the agricultural community.
• Increase the identity and pride in the agricultural community and its way of life.
Both ordinances have the same public hearing requirement, "Pursuant to N.C.G.S 106-740, which
provides that no state or local public agency or governmental unit may formally initiate any action to
condemn any interest in qualifying farmland within a District until such agency or unit has requested
the Advisory Board to hold a public hearing on the proposed condemnation," (Rutherford County,
2000; McDowell County, 2003).
The Rutherford and McDowell County Agricultural Extension Agencies were contacted to
determine the number of agricultural districts along the project corridor; however, a response was
not received.
79

E. Social Effects
Potential residential and business relocation impacts were estimated based on the preliminary
engineering designs within each Segment Alternative. Additional information regarding residential
and business relocation impacts will be included in the FONSI.
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
There are no clearly defined neighborhoods in the project study area in Rutherford County;
however, there is established linear residential development along US 221 in the community of
Gilkey (Figure 5.3). There are a few residential areas adjacent to the project study area in
McDowell County. The Robins Nest neighborhood is located entirely on the western side of
US 221, south of SR 1149 (White Pine Drive) and north of the Vein Mountain area, but the
majority of this neighborhood is situated outside of the project study area. The Alma Morgan
subdivision is located entirely on the east side of US 221, off SR 1786 (Old US 221) and north of
SR 1135 (Mud Cut Road), but the majority of this subdivision is located outside of the project
study area, with a few homes adjacent to the project study area. The Oakwood Forest
neighborhood is located entirely on the west side of US 221, just outside the project study area,
in the vicinity of SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road). There is established linear residential
development in several areas along US 221, including the community of Glenwood. There is
also a pocket of family homes on the east side of US 221, near Heather Grove Gold and Gems in
the Vein Mountain area.
Segment 131 would require several residential displacements in the Gilkey area, including the
William Monteith House historic property, as well as business displacements and the
displacement of a church. Segment B2 would require several residential and business
displacements in the Gilkey area, including the Gilkey Lumber Company, which would have
several buildings displaced. Segment B3 would require numerous residential displacements and
a few business displacements in the Gilkey area. However, none of the displacements among the
Segment Alternatives in Segment B would result in neighborhood divisions or loss of
community cohesion.
Segments D and D1 would require a few residential and business displacements in the Vein
Mountain area. However, these displacements would not result in neighborhood divisions or
loss of community cohesion.
Segment E1 would require several residential and business displacements in the Glenwood area.
However, these displacements would not result in neighborhood divisions or loss of community
cohesion.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
Potential residential and business relocation impacts within each of the Segment Alternatives are
presented in Table 5.11. These estimates are based on preliminary engineering designs and are
subject to change as the project progresses through the final, avoidance, minimization, and
design phases.
80

Table 5.11
Estimated Relocations by Segment Alternative
Segment
Alternative
Residential
Relocations
Business
Relocations
Churches
Displaced
Al
4
1
---
Bl
18
6
1
B2
18
5*
---
B3
21
2
---
C
23
4
---
D
9
5
---
DI
8
2
---
El
24
10
---
F 1
3
4
---
F2
3
5
1
G1
3
5
---
G2
2
5
---
H
23
12
---
Notes: --- denotes no relocations within segment
* Includes the displacement of several buildings associated with
Gilkey Lumber Company
Construction of the proposed project would require acquisition of residential, commercial, and
other privately -owned properties throughout the corridor. Based on the preliminary engineering
designs, the majority of business and commercial right-of-way acquisitions would be scattered
throughout the Segment Alternatives. However, TIP Project R-204D&E, as it approaches the
City of Marion, includes an increased number of business relocations. Potential displacements
and relocations are located primarily in Segment B in the Gilkey area, throughout Segment C,
Segment E1 in the Glenwood area, and Segment H, south of Marion.
Information regarding NCDOT's Relocation Assistance Program is included in Appendix G.
3. Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination on the grounds
of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations
(February 11, 1994), provides that each federal agency must make achieving environmental
justice a part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Special populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low-income areas, American
Indians, and other minority groups.
The three environmental justice principals are: 1) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social
and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations; 2) to ensure the full
and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the decision -making process; and
81

3) to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority
and low-income populations.
Table 5.12 shows environmental justice related demographic characteristics for the census tracts
within the project study area.
Table 5.12
Environmental Justice Related Demographic Characteristics
for Census Tracts within the Project Study Area
Census Tract or
Census Block Group
Minority
Hispanic
Population Below
Poverty Level
Rutherford County
12.7%
1.8%
13.9%
9601
3.9%
1.8%
11.7%
9601-1
2.9%
0
9.8%
9602
9.8%
0.3%
12.1%
9602-1
16.2%
0.3%
13.5%
9602-3
6.05%
0.7%
9.0%
McDowell County
8.3%
2.6%
11.6%
9702
6.3%
0.8%
12.3%
9702-2
1.0%
0
10.8%
9705
18.5%
3.3%
18.7%
9705-1
15.3%
2.8%
18.2%
9709
8.3%
0.8%
10.5%
9709-2
11.6%
0
10.4%
9709-3
22.1%
0.3%
9.0%
9709-4
1.7%
0
7.4%
9709-5
5.8%
0.7%
10.7%
North Carolina
27.9%
4.6%
12.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Summary File 3 data
Based on the available census data and as identified in Table 5.12, portions of the project study
area in McDowell County meet the definition of an EJ community, in that they contain minority
populations at least ten percent higher than the county average. The largest concentration of
minority populations is found in Census Tract 9709, which is located between the McDowell
County line and I-40, south of the City of Marion. The US 221 project study area includes
several block groups in Census Tract 9709 (Figure 2.5). Of these, the block group with the
largest concentration of minority populations (22 percent) compared to the county average
(8 percent) is Census Block Group 3. Census Block Group 3 is located south of I-40 along the
east side of US 221 and north of SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) (Figure 2.5). There are no known
neighborhoods immediately south of I-40, although, there is linear residential development along
US 221 in the community of Glenwood. However, this development does not appear to extend
north of SR 1168 (Ashworth Road). Thus, there are no established neighborhoods with minority
or low-income populations that would be affected by the proposed action.
Census Tract 9705, located near the northern terminus of the project study area, immediately
south of the City of Marion, also has a high concentration of minority populations compared to
82

the county average. Within the project study area, Census Block Group 1 within Census Tract
9705 has a slightly larger minority population (15 percent) than the McDowell County average.
Census Block Group 1 includes the portion of the project study area north of I-40, as well as
portions of downtown Marion. The minority populations within the City of Marion would not be
directly affected by the proposed action since downtown Marion is north of the project study
area. No other concentrations or communities of minority or low-income residents exist within
the project study area; therefore, disproportionate impacts to these populations are unlikely.
Relocation impacts associated with this project would be distributed throughout the project study
area, with varying impacts to residences, businesses, and churches depending on the Segment
Alternative. The locations of the displacements along the project are not situated in areas
identified as having minority or low-income populations. Therefore, the relocation impacts do
not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations
within the project study area. Relocation opportunities for all types of displacements in these
communities are anticipated to be readily available.
There are several communities in the project study area. Improvements to US 221 will primarily
take place on or adjacent to the existing US 221 right of way and relocations in these
communities are expected to be minimal; therefore, no effects to the overall cohesion of these
communities is expected.
4. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed project will not affect any existing bicycle routes or pedestrian facilities.
5. Recreational Facilities
Thermal City Gold Mine is located on the east side of US 221, at the Rutherford/McDowell
county line, halfway between Rutherfordton and Marion. The Thermal City Gold Mine offers
gem mining, gold panning, camping, and hosts a Miners Meet each year during Memorial Day
weekend. The Gem Mine at Thermal City Gold Mine also has a Rock Shop and a Mineral
Museum, in addition to cabins and campsites. Thermal City Gold Mine offers camping sites, as
well as four cabin rentals. Thermal City Gold Mine is open from approximately March through
November, seven days a week.
The Lucky Strike Gold and Gem Mine at Vein Mountain is located on the east side of US 221
approximately six miles south of I-40 in McDowell County. It is located between US 221 and
SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) on the Second Broad River. The Lucky Strike Gold and Gem Mine
offers gold panning, gem mining, camping, and hosts numerous events throughout the year. The
Gem Mine also has a Miner's Diner, in addition to a cabin and 51 campsites open year round.
The Lucky Strike Gold and Gem Mine is open all year except December 25, seven days a week.
83

Heather Grove Gold and Gem Panning is located on the east side of US 221 at its northern
intersection with SR 1781 (Polly Spout Road) between Rutherfordton and Marion. The Heather
Grove Gold and Gem Panning offers gold panning, gem mining, and camping. The Heather
Grove Gold and Gem Panning has campsites, as well as five rustic cabins and a furnished
cottage. They are open from approximately March through December 1", except holidays, and
have heated indoor panning facilities during the cold months.
The Town of Rutherfordton, south of the project study area, has tennis courts, ball fields,
basketball courts, playgrounds, a nine -hole golf course, a picnic shelter, and a walking trail. In
the Union Mills community, in the vicinity of the project study area, there is a ball field and a
Boy Scout Camp.
The recreational facilities in the Town of Rutherfordton and Union Mills are located outside the
project boundaries and will not be affected by the proposed project. However, two of the gem
mines will be directly impacted, The Lucky Strike Gold and Gem Mine and Heather Grove Gold
and Gem Panning. Right of way for the proposed project will be acquired from both. The
amount of right-of-way acquired from these two businesses is not anticipated to require them to
be relocated. However, this information will be updated in the FONSI, as needed.
6. Public Facilities and Services
Churches and Cemeteries
The churches and cemeteries located in the vicinity of the project study area are listed in
Table 5.13 and the churches are shown on Figure 5.3.
Table 5.13
Churches and Cemeteries in the Vicinity of the Project Study Area
Segment
Alternative
Public Facility
Location
Rutherford County
B 1, B2, B3
Gilboa United Methodist
East side of US 221, east of SR 1532 (Gilboa
Church and cemetery
Church Road)
B1, B2, B3
Gilkey Baptist Church
West side of US 221, at southern intersection
of US 221 and SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road)
C
Church Building
Near Arthur Trail; apparently no longer being
used
---
Gold Hill Baptist Church
South of project study area across from
SR 1535 (Broyhill Road)
Little White Country Church
Outside project study area, near SR 1362
and cemetery
(Gilkey School Road)/SR 1328 (Painters Gap
Road) intersection
C
Cemetery
East side of US 221, near project study area
D,D1
Cemetery
West side of US 221, ear project study area
84

Segment
Alternative
Public Facility
Location
McDowell County
D,D1
Vein Mountain Baptist
East side of US 221, between US 221 and SR
Church and cemetery
1781 (Polly Spout Road); Vein Mountain area
El
Glenwood Independent
East side of US 221, just north of SR 1135
Baptist Church and cemetery
(Mud Cut Road)
El
Glenwood Baptist Church
East side of US 221, adjacent to SR 1153
(Glenwood Baptist Church Road)
F 1, F2
Redeemed Freewill Baptist
East side of US 221, just north of SR 1168
Church
(Ashworth Road)
F1, F2
Seventh Day Adventist
West side of US 221, along SR 1318 (Ward
Church
Drive); adjacent to project study area
H
Chapel Hill Baptist Church
West side of US 221, between US 221 and
and cemetery
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Loop)
---
Glenwood United Methodist
East side of US 221, near project study area
Church
H
Hoover Cemetery
East side of US 221, just south of the US 221-
NC 226 intersection
Note: --- denotes church or cemetery is outside project study area
The US 221 Improvements project would require the displacement of Gilkey Baptist Church in
Segment B1, located at the intersection of US 221 and SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road) in the
Gilkey community. In addition, Segment F2 would require the displacement of Redeemed
Freewill Baptist Church, located near the intersection of US 221 and SR 1168 (Ashworth Road).
Although there are cemeteries located within the project study area, no cemeteries would be
directly impacted under any of the Segment Alternatives.
Community Centers
There are community centers located in the Town of Rutherfordton and in the Gilkey and Union
Mills communities. However, no community centers would be directly impacted under any of
the Segment Alternatives.
Public Schools
R-S Central High School is located along US 221 just south of the project study area in
Rutherford County and serves grades 9-12. Three other Rutherford County schools are located
in the project vicinity: Rutherfordton Elementary (located on Bob Hardin Road); R-S Middle
(located on Charlotte Road); and Pinnacle Elementary (located on SR 1328 [Painter Gap Road]
near Gilkey).
Glenwood Elementary School is located along SR 1786 (Old US 221) near SR 1152 (Firehouse
Way), in McDowell County, and serves Kindergarten-6 students. Two other McDowell County
schools are located in the project vicinity: McDowell High (located on McDowell High School
Road) and East McDowell Junior High (located on State Street in Marion).
85

No elementary, middle, or high schools would be directly impacted under any of the Segment
Alternatives.
Public Safety
The Union Mills Volunteer Fire Department is the only fire department located within the project
study area in Rutherford County (Figure 5.3). It is located on the east side of US 221, along
SR 1510 (Hudlow Road), and serves the communities of Union Mills and Gilkey. The fire
station has a response area of five miles. Rutherford County's major municipalities, including
Rutherfordton, operate their own police departments. The Rutherford County Sheriffs
Department serves the rest of the county, including the project study area. The Rutherford
County Rescue Service has two stations and the rescue workers (emergency medical technicians)
are volunteers. Two other volunteer rescue services provide back-up; one of these, located in
Rutherfordton, serves the project study area.
The Glenwood Volunteer Fire Department is the only fire department located in McDowell
County within the project study area (Figure 5.3). It is located on the east side of US 221, just
north of SR 1152 (Firehouse Way), and serves the area along US 221, extending from SR 1165
(Chapel Hill Church Loop) south, to the county line. According to the McDowell County
Emergency Services Director, all of the police, rescue, and emergency medical services for the
project study area in McDowell County are dispatched from the City of Marion and serve the
region extending from Marion south to the county line.
No fire stations would be directly impacted under any of the Segment Alternatives.
Health Services
Rutherford Hospital in Rutherfordton is located approximately three miles south of the southern
terminus of the project. Rutherford Counseling Services is located within the project study area
on SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road). The McDowell Hospital is the only hospital in McDowell
County and is located in the City of Marion, approximately two miles west of the northern
terminus of the project.
No known health service would be directly impacted under any of the Segment Alternatives.
F. Economic Effects
Local business is essential to the vitality of a community. The Gilkey Lumber Company is located
along US 221 within the project study area, near SR 1362 (Gilkey School Road) between
Rutherfordton and Vein Mountain. Broyhill Furniture Industries is located in the vicinity of the
project study area and operates three stores (furniture dealer, retail, and new and salvage furniture),
two in Forest City and one in Marion.
Facebook has plans to construct a new data center in Rutherford County, "in which it will invest
$450 million, having an immediate impact on the community by becoming the county's sixth -largest
nonresidential taxpayer, even after incentives are factored in." (Trade and Industry Development,
2011) Facebook's infusion of new jobs as a result of its construction project will have a welcome
86

reverse -impact on the county's unemployment rate. As of October 2010, the unemployment rate
was 13.2 percent, significantly higher than the state's average of 9.1 percent. The new project is
expected to create 250 construction and mechanical jobs during the projected 18-month construction
period. When the data center is completed, it is expected to employ between 35 and 45 full-time and
contract workers.
In July 2010, Governor Beverly Perdue announced that C.M.I. Enterprises Inc, a national supplier of
automotive soft -trim materials, will locate a new manufacturing facility in Rutherford County
(Office of the Governor, 2010). The company makes interior soft -trim materials for the auto, bus,
truck, RV, and commercial markets. The company plans to move its Florida manufacturing plant to
Rutherfordton, creating 53 jobs and investing $697,000 including lease payments.
A number of service businesses (hotels, restaurants, garages, gas stations, and rental companies) are
located along US 221 in the project study area, as well as near the I-40 interchange. In addition, a
commercial development (that includes Dodge Rockwell Automation and Kennedy Die Casting) is
located near the I-40 interchange. Tourist attractions such as gold and gem mines and campgrounds,
in the Thermal City and Vein Mountain areas, are also located along the project corridor.
Major employers in Rutherford County include Rutherford County Schools, Wal-Mart, Watts
Regulator Company (valves), AG Industries (cabinets), Rutherford Hospital, and Isothermal
Community College (Rutherford County Economic Development Commission, 2011). Major
employers in McDowell County include Baxter Healthcare Corporation (medical supplies), Coats
American Inc (thread finishing), Swift Galey (cloth manufacturing), McDowell County Schools,
Ethan Allen (furniture), and Wal-Mart (ESCNC, 2011).
Rutherford County is working to attract businesses for its new 1,150-acre Riverstone Business Park.
The industrial park is located along US 221 south of the project study area. The anchor tenant is
ArvinMeritor, a premier global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and
components to the motor vehicle industry.
According to the McDowell Economic Development Association (MEDA), the McDowell County
Industrial Park, located at the US 221/I-40 interchange, has 7.32 acres available for industrial
development. The Barnes site, located on the east side of US 221 just north of I-40, has 35 acres
available for development. The Boyd site, located along US 221 adjacent to the I-40/US 221
interchange, has 64 acres available for industrial development (MEDA, 2011). All of these sites
have available water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas service and would be likely areas for
industrial and commercial growth. McDowell County hopes to increase commercial development at
the US 221 interchange with I-40.
The US 221 project can have both positive and negative impacts on the economy of an area. The
analysis of the potential economic impacts of the Segment Alternatives is related to the expected
growth in the industrial and commercial sectors that could result from improved access to the
industrial development near the I-40 interchange and other similar types of properties in the area, as
well as the additional traffic capacity provided by the proposed project. In addition, it is anticipated
that increased state and local tax revenues would be generated in the project area during the
construction phase of the proposed project, thereby providing additional financial support for public
87

programs that aid low-income persons. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority
and/or low-income populations in terms of economic development would be expected as a result of
the proposed project.
Based on the preliminary engineering designs, all of the Segment Alternatives would require the
relocation of businesses. Relocation opportunities for all types of displacements are anticipated to
be readily available.
G. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
The project study area is located between Rutherfordton in Rutherford County and Marion in
McDowell County and lies outside the municipal boundaries of both Rutherfordton and Marion.
Rutherford County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can be found in the
Rutherford County Land Use Plan (2001), prepared by the Isothermal Planning and
Development Commission. The purpose of this comprehensive land use plan is to allow local
government to develop policies that address the needs of the Rutherford County community and
those issues that are vital to its growth and development and the protection of its natural and
economic resources. The plan also helps local government to make informed decisions that take
into consideration the county's resources and financial constraints, as well as public opinion
(Rutherford County, 2001). The county's plans include maintaining the transportation and
utilities systems so that they are safe, convenient, and economical for use by citizens and for the
delivery of goods.
According to the Rutherford County Land Use Plan, the majority of the existing land use within
the project study area is classified as rural, limited transition, community, or conservation. These
land use classifications, described in Table 5.14, were established by the North Carolina Division
of Community Assistance. The rural classification covers most of the land in the demographic
area. The limited transition classification covers land near the boundary of the southern project
study area, and the community classification covers land in the Gilkey area. Near the northern
Rutherford County boundary, in the vicinity of Thermal City, land falls under the conservation
classification. Adjacent to US 221 in the project study area is land that falls under industrial,
residential, and recreational classifications. Several towns in Rutherford County, including
Rutherfordton, have zoning restrictions to prevent disorderly development within their
jurisdictions, but Rutherford County does not.
�3

Table 5.14
Land Use Classifications in Rutherford County
Classification
Description
The Limited Transition classification provides for development in areas
that will have some services but are suitable only for densities lower
than those associated with the Urban Transition classification and/or
areas that are geographically remote from existing towns and
Limited Transition
municipalities. Areas meeting the intent of the Limited Transition
classification will experience increased development (primarily
residential) during the planning period. They will be in a state of
development requiring some municipal services, such as community
water or sewage systems.
The Community classification provides for clustered, mixed land uses at
low densities to help meet the housing, shopping, and employment
Community
needs of rural areas. Areas meeting the intent of the Community
classification are currently developed at low densities suitable for
private septic tank use.
The Rural classification provides for agriculture, forestry, mineral
extraction, and other allied land uses. Areas meeting the intent of the
Rural classification are appropriate for (or currently used for)
Rural
agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, and hazardous or noxious uses
that require isolated and undeveloped areas. Very low -density,
dispersed, single-family residential users are also appropriate within the
Rural classification.
The Conservation classification provides for the effective, long -tern
management and protection of significant, limited, or irreplaceable
areas. Such management is vital because of the natural, cultural,
recreational, scenic, or natural productive values of local (and greater)
concern. Areas meeting the intent of the Conservation classification
Conservation
include lands significant for their natural role in the integrity of
mountain regions, such as ridge tops, areas of excessive slope,
floodplains, wetlands, and areas with a high potential for wildlife
habitat. Areas containing significant productive, natural, scenic,
cultural, or recreational resources also meet the intent of the
Conservation classification.
Source: North Carolina Division of Community Assistance —Rutherford County, 2001
The latest McDowell County land use plan was developed in 1993. The land along US 221
includes residential and commercial uses. While the project study area lies outside the city limits
of Marion, the city has satellite zoning that includes several parcels located along US 221 in the
project study area. These parcels, near NC 226 and I-40, are zoned as commercial, with one
exception, a cemetery, which is zoned as residential.
Watershed Plans
Plans are under development in both the Cathey's Creek and Muddy Creek watersheds to address
water quality concerns. The NCEEP funded the Cathey's Creek Watershed Plan (NCEEP,
2005). The Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership, which includes the NCWRC, Duke Energy
89

Corporation, Trout Unlimited, USDA NRCS, McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation
District, the Foothills Conservancy of NC, NC Cooperative Extension Service, and McDowell
and Burke Counties, is developing the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative.
Cathey's Creek Watershed Plan
The NCEEP is working to develop a mitigation strategy to address water quality concerns in the
southern portion of the Cathey's Creek watershed, which includes two streams included on the
303(d) list of impaired waters: Cathey's Creek and Hollands Creek (which is a tributary of
Cathey's Creek). Sedimentation, terrestrial habitat degradation, high turbidity, metals, nutrient
concentrations, and fecal coliform are listed as potential concerns in the watershed (NCEEP,
2005).
As part of the Cathey's Creek Watershed Plan, the watershed was broken into 14 subwatersheds
(SWs), SWs 04, 05, and 06 include portions of US 221 through the project study area and SW 07
is located just east of existing US 221 in the project study area. In the watershed assessment,
SWs 04 and 05 were assigned a functional status of "High," SWs 06 and 07 were classified as
having a "Moderate" function. The plan noted that the impaired SWs of Hollands Creek and
Cathey's Creek coincided with areas with high percentages of impervious cover (NCEEP, 2005).
The Cathey's Creek assessment identified several remediation steps to restore and maintain
watershed function and improve water quality, site hydrology, and habitat. Steps included
restoration of riparian buffers, erosion and sediment control practices, stormwater management,
regulation of non-stormwater discharges, land use planning, improved conservation, low -impact
design (LID) development, and initiation of watershed stewardship programs (NCEEP, 2005).
Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative
The Muddy Creek watershed contains one stream listed on North Carolina's 303(d) list of
impaired waters (Corpening Creek, also called Young's Fork). Corpening Creek is located at the
northern terminus of the project study area. The stream originates in the City of Marion and
flows southeast, crossing US 221 before emptying into North Muddy Creek. Corpening Creek is
considered impaired by NCDWQ because it is unable to support a balanced and diverse
community of aquatic organisms (NCDENR, 2004).
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership states that stream entrenchment is severe and
pervasive in the watershed. A total of 886 sites with barren banks were identified (encompassing
more than 36 miles of stream). An analysis of four percent of the barren sites estimated that a
minimum of 350 tons of sediment in the last 1.5 years were lost due to stream bank erosion.
Riparian buffers were less than 25 feet wide on approximately 780,000 feet of creek side land. It
was also noted that cattle had access to over 20,000 feet of stream in the watershed (Muddy
Creek Restoration Partnership, 2003).
The Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership identified six, high -priority stream restoration projects
that would restore function to over 12,000 feet of stream. The partnership also hopes to restore
riparian buffer to approximately 32,000 feet of stream currently without any riparian forest
vegetation. Three additional subwatersheds were identified where adequate riparian buffer was
missing in more than 50 percent of the stream reaches in the subwatershed. In addition,
90

15 projects were identified that could exclude cattle from streams and acreage was identified for
potential riparian buffer preservation (Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership, 2003).
In 2008, the partnership reported that the natural channel design projects completed to date had
reduced sediment inputs to Muddy Creek and its tributaries by at least 6,000 tons per year. In
addition, further sediment reductions were assumed due to the exclusion of cattle and
revegetation of stream banks for more than 15,000 linear feet of stream (Muddy Creek
Restoration Partnership, 2008).
2. Future Land Use
The Rutherford County Land Use Plan is designed to provide a guide for future growth and
development in the county. The growth patterns suggested are the result of analysis of the
natural features, existing development and infrastructure, and current demographic
characteristics and projections. According to the Rutherford County Land Use Plan, land use in
the project area is expected to change through 2011. The commercial zone south of Gilkey is
expected to grow and expand northward, while areas surrounding Gilkey to the north and around
SR 1367 (Thompson Road) are expected to have residential growth and are expected to change
from rural to limited transition use (Rutherford County, 2001).
The specific classifications reflecting the areas of anticipated growth and development were
established by the North Carolina Division of Community Assistance as a requirement of the
Mountain Area Planning Program. The classifications are listed in Table 5.14.
The future development patterns of the land adjacent to US 221 in the project study area are
classified as limited transition near the southern boundary, community in the Gilkey area, and
rural and conservation in the vicinity of Thermal City.
Although McDowell County's land use plan was last updated in 1993, in the 1995 McDowell
County Thoroughfare Plan, growth along US 221 was expected to take place north of Marion
through the Woodlawns community and south of Marion through the Glenwood community.
These communities were expected to be more attractive for potential development since they had
relatively flat terrain and water and sewer service expansions were planned. It was noted that
topographic concerns limited development in other parts of the US 221 corridor (NCDOT,
1995).
Representatives from Rutherford and McDowell Counties do not anticipate any major changes in
land use classifications or any new developments corresponding to current land use
classifications for the project study area.
Since US 221 has been in existence for a number of years and has played a large part in the
development patterns of the area, the addition of travel lanes will not have an immediate or
substantial impact on the surrounding land use.
91

3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E have been top priorities for both Rutherford and McDowell
Counties for several decades, dating back at least as far as 1976, when the Rutherford County
Thoroughfare Plan recognized that improvements to US 221 would improve traffic flow through
the area In the 1995 McDowell County Thoroughfare Plan, widening of US 221 was the top
priority of county projects in the 1996-2002 STIR
In "A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal Planning Region,"
Poole and White (2005) state that widening US 221 to four lanes from I-85 through McDowell
County is the top action item needed to increase the area's connection to the world. In an
assessment of infrastructure needs for North Carolina's 10'' and 11t' Congressional Districts, the
proposed improvements were rated as a high priority road project. The advantages cited for the
project were that it would provide additional major commercial airport access to the region
(easier connection with Spartanburg, SC) and that the proposed improvements to US 221 would
provide improved routing to Atlanta, GA.
4. Housing Units
Housing characteristics provide insight into the availability and type of replacement housing for
any persons displaced by the project. Based on data from the 2000 Census, housing in the
demographic area is 72.5 percent owner -occupied, 19.2 percent rental, and 8.3 percent vacant.
These figures vary slightly from the surrounding counties. Housing in Rutherford County is
63.5 percent owner -occupied, 21.8 percent rental, and 14.7 percent vacant. Housing in
McDowell County is 69.7 percent owner -occupied, 20.6 percent rental, and 9.6 percent vacant.
In both the demographic area and the surrounding counties, the rate of owner occupation is
higher than the state average (61.6 percent).
Of the owner -occupied housing units, a subset is considered "specified owner -occupied housing
units" by the US Census Bureau. These units are owner -occupied, one -family, attached or
detached units on less than 10 acres of land, without a business on the property. In the
demographic area, 56.4 percent of the owner -occupied housing is specified owner -occupied
housing. In Rutherford County, 63.6 percent of owner -occupied housing falls under this
designation and in McDowell County the number is 61.1 percent. Statewide, the percentage of
owner -occupied housing that is considered specified owner -occupied housing is 74.4 percent.
The demographic area includes 3,922 specified owner -occupied units with mortgages and the
average median mortgage cost -per -month for the Census tracts in the demographic area is $738.
In Rutherford and McDowell Counties, the median cost -per -month for that housing is $748 and
$680, respectively. Statewide, the median mortgage is $985. The average median cost -per -
month for specified owner -occupied housing that is not mortgaged is $203 within the census
tracts in the demographic area In Rutherford and McDowell Counties, it is $212 and $183,
respectively.
92

No specified owner -occupied housing units valued over $750,000 exist within the demographic
area. The value of specified owner -occupied housing units in Rutherford County ranges from
less than $10,000 to greater than $1,000,000. The vast majority of homes in Rutherford and
McDowell Counties and in the demographic area are valued at less than $100,000. The median
value of homes is reported to be $77,600 in Rutherford County, $72,000 in McDowell County,
and $77,000 in the demographic area. The breakdown of specified owner -occupied housing
units for Rutherford and McDowell Counties, as well as the demographic area can be found in
Table 5.15.
Table 5.15
Housing Values (Specified Owner -Occupied)
Housing Values
Demographic Area
(Number of Units)
Rutherford County
(Number of Units)
McDowell County
(Number of Units)
Total Number of Units
6,711
11,942
7,835
Less than $50,000
1,288
2,747
1,877
$50,000 to $99,000
3,442
5,724
4,111
$100,000 to $149,000
1,088
2,031
1,158
$150,000 to $199,999
592
826
467
$200,000 to $299,999
212
432
149
$300,000 or more
89
182
73
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
As shown in Table 5.16, homeownership within the demographic area is 79 percent, slightly
higher than that of Rutherford County (75 percent) and McDowell County (77 percent). All of
these are higher than the statewide rate of 69 percent. In the demographic area, the average
median gross rent for specified renter -occupied housing is $397. Among the specified renter -
occupied housing units in Rutherford County, McDowell County, and the state, the median gross
rent is $404, $411, and $548, respectively.
Table 5.16
Housing Characteristics
Demographic
Rutherford
McDowell
North
Area
County
County
Carolina
Median Home Value
(Owner -Occupied)
$77,733
$77,600
$72,000
$108,300
Median Rent
$397
$404
$411
$548
Homeownership Rate
79%
75%
77%
69%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000
H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The 2006 Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Assessment for this project is not consistent with
current ICE methodology. In the case of the subject ICE, increase in impervious surface in the
project area is not expected to exceed 2%. Given the refinement in methodology and the notable
changes in economic conditions since the beginning of "the Great Recession, " it is very likely that
93

identified growth effects are grossly overstated for this primarily existing location widening. The
ICE will be updated for the FONSI and permitting documents.
Indirect and cumulative effects (ICES) to the human environment from a transportation project are
primarily related to changes in land use, development, and infrastructure. Such changes can alter
area economics, travel patterns, and demographics. The CEQ guidelines define indirect and
cumulative as follows:
• Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance,
but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and
other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or
growth rate, and related effects on air, water, and other natural systems, including
ecosystems. (40 CFR § 1508.8)
• Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR § 1508.7)
ICES to the human environment are primarily related to changes in land use, development, and
infrastructure. Such changes can alter area economics, travel patterns, and demographics. The ICE
evaluation was developed in accordance with the guidance provided in the NCDOT's and
NCDENR's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in
North Carolina. AFinal Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment (Buck Engineering, 2006) was
prepared for the proposed project and is appended by reference in the following sections.
In order to determine an appropriate study area boundary for ICE analysis, several factors were
considered such as the location of the project in relation to planning and growth boundaries;
drainage basins and watershed boundaries; the role the roadway will play in the local network;
regional and local travel patterns; and the development patterns of the region. The ICE study area as
shown in Figure 2.5 was determined based on these factors.
The ICE study area includes all properties that extend within a half mile on either side of existing
US 221 along the length of the project. The ICE study area extends one mile from the proposed
project termini to include portions of Rutherfordton and Marion. The ICE study area was extended
into Rutherfordton to include the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass. The extension into Marion
includes the split between US 221 and Business US 221. Between these communities, the ICE study
area is largely undeveloped, so the narrow, half mile ICE study area in this region was deemed
appropriate. In the Gilkey area, the ICE study area was widened to include a corridor one half mile
wide on either side of all of the Build Alternatives.
Potential Cumulative Effects of Other TIP Projects in the Vicinity
Several roadway improvement projects listed in the NCDOT 2009-2015 STIP that are intended to
address traffic improvement needs within the area are discussed in Section IL Among these is TIP
Project R-2233, the proposed widening of US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to North of
94

SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). A part of this project is under construction; however, some of the
sections are currently unfunded. TIP Project R-204 Sections A, B, and C include the proposed
widening of US 221-NC 226 from SR 1434 north of Marion to the US 221-NC 226 intersection
south of Marion. Construction of Sections A, B, and C of TIP Project R-204 is complete.
None of the communities within the project study area are anticipated to be impacted by either TIP
Project R-2233 or TIP Project R-204 Sections A, B, or C. These projects are located near the
southern and northern project termini, respectively, outside of the project study area.
Growth Limiting Factors
There are several factors that serve to limit potential ICES for the US 221 project. Rutherford and
McDowell Counties, as well as the communities of Rutherfordton and Marion, are expected to
experience slow population growth through the project design year. Rutherford and McDowell
Counties have higher unemployment rates than the state average, which should serve to limit
migration to the ICE study area. There is a lack of water and sewer service along much of the area
between Rutherfordton and Marion, and no expansions are planned along this area. Without the
proper infrastructure, industrial and high density residential development is restricted and it is not
likely that either the Build or the No -Build Alternatives would lead to expansion of the water or
sewer systems in the ICE study area.
Also, the ICE study area contains several regions with high slopes. The excavation required to clear
and grade areas with higher slopes would increase building costs for new residential and commercial
development. While these costs would not preclude future development, they would serve as a
disincentive.
The final factor that would limit development relates to the above average unemployment rates
(especially in Rutherford County) caused by the loss of area manufacturing jobs. A report on the
Rutherford County workforce noted that in addition to unemployed workers in the area, there were
substantial numbers of underemployed workers and individuals currently out of the workforce who
would rejoin it for the right opportunity (Pathfinders, 2004). The report defines underemployed
workers as those individuals who are working but who desire better jobs and who possess the skills,
education, and experience which qualify them for those better jobs. If new businesses are
established in the ICE study area, it is likely that these businesses will be staffed largely by the
unemployed workers, so the migration of workers into the ICE study area would be slowed.
Potential Growth Areas
Even with the development constraints within the ICE study area, there are some areas identified for
future growth. In Rutherford County, the areas that appear to be favorably positioned for
development include the area around SR 1367 (Thompson Road) on the west side of US 221 and the
Gilkey area, especially east of existing US 221. Both areas have existing water service through the
Broad River Water Authority and have topographic areas favorable for development. State Road
1367 (Thompson Road) connects US 221 with US 64, providing access to Lenoir and Morganton
(NCDOT, 1995).
95

ICE Analysis
There are multiple ways that a road construction project can result in ICES on the human and natural
environments. However, the potential for ICES is limited with this project. The rural character of
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, areas of relatively steep terrain, and the lack of infrastructure
make it unlikely that substantial industrial growth would take place as a result of the project.
Because of the rural nature of the counties in the ICE study area and the lack of zoning in McDowell
County, complete build -out analyses were deemed to be inappropriate for the ICE analysis. Based
on current conditions and input from local planners, it is unlikely that build -out conditions would
occur in the ICE study area within the ICE timeframe (2030). For the purposes of the ICE analysis,
three potential scenarios were explored: no induced growth (Scenario 1), moderate induced growth
(Scenario 2), and high induced growth (Scenario 3).
Under Scenario 1, the No -Build Alternative, growth in the ICE study area was assumed to be equal
to the average growth for Rutherford and McDowell Counties. Under Scenario 2, a widened US 221
was assumed to induce a growth rate of five percent above the projected rate for the counties.
Scenario 3 assumed a growth rate of ten percent above average. Based on the assumed construction
dates for TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E at the time of this analysis, growth for all scenarios
was held constant through 2015. Growth rates after 2015 vary based on the scenario.
Under the No -Build Alternative, Scenario 1 outlined above, an additional 984 houses would be
added to the Rutherford County census tracts in the ICE study area by 2030. For McDowell County,
there would be an increase of 2,259 houses by 2030.
Due to the constraints on growth previously discussed, the most likely scenario under a build
alternative would be moderate growth (Scenario 2). It is assumed that this residential growth would
be supported by businesses growth, which would be able to take advantage of improved truck access
and mobility associated with a four -lane facility with access to I-40, I-85, and US 64. Under this
scenario, an additional 1,746 houses would be added to Rutherford County and 2,934 houses would
be added to McDowell County within the ICE study area
The high induced growth scenario (Scenario 3) is unlikely to occur due to the strength of the area's
economy relative to other parts of the state and the constraints on growth previously mentioned.
However, examining this "worst case" scenario helps to place the expected growth into context.
Also, unexpected circumstances can induce high rates of growth that state and local officials could
not anticipate.
Under the high induced growth scenario, outlined above, an additional 2,261 houses would be added
to the Rutherford County census tracts in the ICE study area by 2030. For McDowell County, there
would be an increase of 3,629 houses by 2030 within the ICE study area
There are small watersheds that are currently affected or impaired by development, such as portions
of Cathey's Creek, with high levels of sediment and nutrients (NCEEP, 2005). These watersheds
had been affected prior to the widening of US 221. Any indirect growth associated with this project
in these areas may lead to localized impacts to water quality. However, Rutherford County has
96

development regulations in place for this water supply watershed, which, if followed, should
minimize potential effects.
In summary, factors that may limit potential indirect and cumulative effects in the ICE study area
include small local population with low projected growth, topographic limitations, the loss of area
manufacturing jobs, and the lack of infrastructure.
As mentioned in the introduction of this section, the ICES will be updated for the FONSI and
permitting documents.
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Data for potential floodplain effects were downloaded from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
website on March 27, 2011. The effective dates of the downloaded Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (DFIRM) were July 2, 2008, for Rutherford County and October 2, 2008 for McDowell
County.
Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) definition, a floodplain is
divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of the stream and the
adjacent floodplain area that needs to be kept free of encroachment so the 100-year flood can be
carried without increasing the level and extent of base flood elevations. The 100-year flood is
defined as an event that has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year. The area between the
floodway boundary and the 100-year floodplain boundary is known as the floodway fringe or the
100-year floodplain. Streams for which detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies have not been
conducted do not have defined floodways, so only the 100-year floodplain boundaries are estimated
and mapped.
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program.
The crossings at Cathey's Creek, Stoney Creek, Second Broad River, Goose Creek, and North
Muddy Creek are designated as special flood hazard areas within the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE,
meaning that base flood elevations have been determined for these streams). The proposed project
will require a crossing of these streams, in addition to Rockhouse Creek, Scrub Grass Branch, and an
unnamed tributary to Corpening Creek. Figure 3.1 depicts the established limits of the flood hazard
areas in the project study area. Table 5.17 provides information regarding the 100-year floodplains
impacted by the proposed preliminary engineering designs within each Segment Alternative.
97

Table 5.17
Floodplain Impacts
Segment
Alternative*
Stream Impacted
Floodplain
Area Impacted
(acres)
C
Cathey's Creek
1.64
D (New Loc)
Second Broad River, Stoney Creek
3.69
DI (Existing)
Second Broad River, Stoney Creek
3.35
El
Goose Creek, North Muddy Creek
2.31
Fl**
North Muddy Creek
0.03
F2**
North Muddy Creek
0.03
H
Corpening Creek
0.65
Notes: Anticipated floodplain impacts are based upon the construction limits (including
fill, excavation, clearing) of the preliminary designs.
* Segments omitted from table do not have floodplain impacts.
** Floodplain impacts are associated with parallel stream impacts at North
Muddy Creek rather than at a crossing.
Segments C, D, El, and H cross Cathey's Creek, Stoney Creek, Second Broad River, Goose Creek,
North Muddy Creek, and Corpening Creek where limited detailed flood studies have been
performed. Among the alignments in Segment D, floodplain impacts are greatest for Segment D and
the least for Segment D 1, but the segment alternatives differ by less than half an acre. NCDOT has
recommended construction of bridges for the crossings of Cathey's Creek and Second Broad River.
However, no substantial difference in floodplain impacts is anticipated for any of the proposed
Segment Alternatives.
Where possible, major drainage structures proposed for the project would cross the 100-year
floodplains at or near perpendicular angles, resulting in floodplain encroachments that minimize the
length of floodplain traversed. In the case of the Second Broad River, the stream parallels US 221
through Segment D and some of the floodplain impacts area associated with parallel stream impacts
rather than at the crossing. Avoidance and minimization will be pursued in these areas to reduce
total floodplain impacts.
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated
state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status
of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR). This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-regulated
stream. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction
plans, both horizontally and vertically.
98

J. Traffic Noise Anal
A Noise Analysis Report (Baker, 2006) for TIP Project R-2597, prepared based on NCDOT's 2004
Traffic Noise Policy (NCDOT, 2004), and a Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
(NCDOT, 2002), prepared for TIP Project R-204D&E, are appended by reference. These reports
were prepared to determine the effect of the proposed improvements on noise levels in the
immediate project area. Appendix H contains Tables 1 through 4 which are discussed below.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and it is usually described in decibels on the A -weighted scale
(dBA). This scale most closely approximates the response characteristics of human hearing. Traffic
noise levels are typically reported as an hourly equivalent sound level (Leq(,)) in A -weighted
decibels (dBA Leq). The Leq(hi descriptor is the constant sound level that contains the same acoustic
energy as the actual fluctuating sound levels occurring over a one hour period. The Leq(hi is the
descriptor used for the noise analysis in this document.
To determine noise impacts, existing traffic and the projected 2025 traffic were determined for
US 221. The facility was divided into segments based on average daily traffic (ADT) and truck
traffic. The TIP Project R-2597 noise analysis evaluated population clusters in Gilkey (Segments
B1, B2, and 133) and sensitive receptors (churches) along the project study area TIP Projects
R-2597 and R-204D&E noise levels were determined for east and west side widening. This analysis
applied the "worst -case" topographical conditions.
1. Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the NCDOT has
adopted the noise abatement criteria and procedures developed by the FHWA, as detailed in
23 CFR Part 772, to be used in the planning and design of highways.
Traffic noise impacts are defined in the FHWA regulations as project -generated noise levels that
approach or exceed the FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or noise levels that are a
substantial increase over existing noise levels. Noise abatement must be considered for impacted
receivers in either category.
Table 1 in Appendix H lists the FHWA NAC. Approach values are defined by the NCDOT as
being 1 decibel less than the NAC The NCDOT considers noise level increases from existing
conditions to be substantial as defined in Table 1. All of the identified receptors within the
vicinity of the US 221 Improvements were classified as B (residential), C (commercial), or E
(churches).
The Date of Public Knowledge of the location and potential noise impacts of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document, e.g., Categorical
Exclusion (CE), state or federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or state or federal
Record of Decision (ROD) (NCDOT, 2004).
99

• After the Date of Public Knowledge, the federal and state governments are no longer
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development within the
noise impact area of the proposed highway project.
• The criteria (e.g., trigger date) for determining when undeveloped land is "planned,
designed and programmed" for development will be the approval of a building permit for
an individual lot or site.
• It is the responsibility of local governments and private landowners to ensure that noise -
compatible designs are used for development permitted after the Date of Public
Knowledge.
2. Ambient Noise Levels
In order to evaluate possible noise impacts in the project study area, existing background noise
levels were measured. Noise measurement sites were selected to represent sensitive land uses in
communities within the project study area.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine existing noise
levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify
the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of future noise
level increases. These ambient noise levels were compared with the predicted future noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts would result from the proposed project. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise
impacts must be considered. The ambient measurement locations are included in Table 2 in
Appendix H.
The results of the ambient noise measurements were then compared with noise levels generated
by inputting the observed traffic into the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5. The results
of this comparison are shown in Table 2 (Appendix H) for TIP Project R-2597.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions, along with the most current traffic noise prediction
model, were used to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured in order to validate the model results. For TIP Project R-2597, the average calculated
existing noise level (65.0 dBA) was within 0.8 dBA of the average of the eight measured noise
levels (65.8 dBA). The median modeled noise value (66.0) was within 0.4 dBA of the median
measured value (66.4 dBA). Based on this analysis, the computer model is a reliable tool in the
prediction of noise levels for US 221. For TIP Project R-204D&E, the existing noise level in the
project area was measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement and ranged from 69.5 dBA to
71.6 dBA. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly -spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. A
background noise level of 45 dBA was determined for TIP Project R-204D&E to be used in
areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
100

3. Analysis Results
The maximum number of receptors, by roadway section, in each activity category that would be
impacted by future traffic noise associated with US 221 is shown in Tables 3 and 4 in
Appendix H. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise
impacts either by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels.
Segment D1, replacing the bridge over the Second Broad River along existing alignment, was
added to the proposed project on June 9, 2011, after completion of the traffic noise analysis for
TIP Project R-2597. Segments D and D1 run concurrently except in the vicinity of the Second
Broad River where they differ slightly. In the vicinity of the Second Broad River bridge,
Segment D is on new location, west of existing US 221 and Segment D1 widens along existing
US 221. In this area, there are residences located west of Segment D; however, there are no
residences located along existing US 221 near the Second Broad River bridge. Therefore,
Segment D1 may reduce noise levels to the above -noted residences by up to 3 dBA less than
those created by Segment D. However, appreciable changes in noise levels are not expected,
regardless of the alternative selected in Segment D.
Table 3 in Appendix H lists the number of receptors in each activity category predicted to
approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, based on projected traffic
volumes for TIP Project R-2597 for the Build Alternative, a maximum of 28 residences and
1 church in the project vicinity are predicted to experience traffic noise impacts due to future
noise levels that exceed the noise abatement criteria. The maximum extent of the 67 dBA and
72 dBA noise level contours are 104.9 ft and 63.2 ft, respectively. For TIP Project R-204D&E,
six residences are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The
maximum extent of the 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise level contours are 100.5 ft and 63.8 ft,
respectively. 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.
Predicted exterior noise level increases are shown in Table 4 in Appendix H for each Build
Alternative by roadway section. For TIP Project R-2597, two receptors are expected to
experience a substantial increase (+10 dBA) in exterior noise levels; one of which is located in
Segment B3. Segments 131 and B2 do not have any receptors expected to experience a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level increases for this project
range up to +16 dBA. For TIP Project R-204D&E, there were no substantial noise level impacts
anticipated by this project. The predicted noise level increases for TIP Project R-204D&E range
up to +8 dBA. When real -life noises are heard, it is possible barely to 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.
101

4. Noise Abatement Alternatives
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for
noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the 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 sensitive
areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement for this
project.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures that limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic system
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on
the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a
noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise
reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity,
it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management
measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with
the project's objective of providing a high-speed, limited -access facility.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels could 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.
It is not feasible to construct noise abatement walls for the proposed improvements to US 221.
Because the proposed facility has partial access control, it is not possible to construct the long,
continuous walls needed for effective noise abatement. Also, the rural character of the US 221
project study area means that there are few extensive groupings of impacted receptors, which
increases the cost of walls per impacted receptor. Therefore, based on NCDOT's Noise
Abatement Policy, no noise walls are recommended for the proposed improvements to US 221.
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.
102

Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire
impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold cost allowed per
benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not
recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is also not considered reasonable for this project, due
to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA
research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100 ft wide to provide a
3 dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5 dBA reduction, substantial amounts of
additional right of way would be required. The cost of the additional right of way to plant
sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited
receptor plus an incremental increase of $500 per dBA average increase in the predicted exterior
noise levels of the impacted receptors. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public
or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
5. No -Build Alternative
For the No -Build Alternative, based on projected traffic volumes, 40 residences, 4 businesses
and one church in the US 221 project study area for TIP Project R-2597 are predicted to
experience traffic noise impacts due to future noise levels that exceed the noise abatement
criteria. For TIP Project R-204D&E, seven receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the
noise abatement criteria. Increases for the No -Build Alternative for TIP Projects R-2597 and
R-204D&E will be in the 2-3 dBA and 0-4 dBA range, respectively. 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.
6. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
7. Conclusion for Traffic Noise Anal
This analysis found that the proposed improvements to US 221 (TIP Projects R-2597 and
R-204D&E) will create traffic noise impacts for up to 34 residences and 1 church by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria, or by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels. However, due to the partial control of access, noise mitigation measures
cannot be considered for this project based on NCDOT's Noise Abatement Policy.
103

K. Air Analysis
AFinal Air Quality Analysis for TIP Project R-2597 (Baker, 2007) and an Air Quality Analysis for
US 221-NC 226 for R-204D&E (NCDOT, 2002) was prepared for the proposed project and is
appended by reference.
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants
into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening
of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be
offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions will
decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in
reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle
travel has increased rapidly.
1. Background CO Concentrations
The background CO concentration for the TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E project area was
estimated to be 2.9 parts per million (ppm) and 1.8 ppm, respectively. Consultation with the
NCDENR Division of Air Quality indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 2.9 ppm and
1.8 ppm and a persistence factor of 0.79 are suitable for the area (NCDAQ, 2006).
2. Air Quality Analysis Results
The worst -case air quality scenario for the TIP Project R-2597 project area was located just north
of Rutherfordton near SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road). The receptor with the highest predicted CO
concentration was along the right of way at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the
existing roadway. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build
years of 2010 and 2015 are both 3.9 ppm. The predicted concentration for 2025 is 4.1 ppm.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm (40 mg/m3);
8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)) indicates no violation of these standards. Since
the results of the worst -case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenarios are less than 9 ppm, it
can be concluded that the 8-hour CO levels do not exceed the standard.
The worst -case air quality scenario for TIP Project R-204D&E was determined to be in the
vicinity of the intersection of US 221 and NC 226. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 8.6, 8.5, and 9.6 ppm,
respectively. Using the regional persistence factor of 0.61, the predicted 8-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 5.25, 5.19, and 5.86 ppm,
respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS indicates no
violation of these standards.
104

3. Mobile Source Air Toxics
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, USEPA also regulates air
toxics. Additional information regarding Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) is included in
Appendix I.
4. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, and burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D .0520. Care will be taken to ensure burning will be
done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
5. Conclusion for Air Qualitv Analvsis
The project is located in Rutherford and McDowell Counties, both of which have been
determined to comply with the NAAQS. The proposed project is located in attainment areas and
is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these attainment areas.
L. Hazardous Material
A field reconnaissance survey for hazardous materials and waste sites was conducted along the
project corridor by the NCDOT in April 2007 (NCDOT, 2007). Six sites presently containing
underground storage tanks (USTs) were identified within the project area. Five additional sites were
identified that may have petroleum USTs and one other geoenvironmental concern, an active
automotive machine shop, was identified within the project study area. In addition to the field
surveys, a file search of appropriate regulatory agencies records was conducted to identify any
known sites along the project corridor. The sites are listed in Table 5.18 and shown in Figure 5.4.
Additional information regarding each site is included in Appendix J.
105

Table 5.18
Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
Property Name
Property Use
Property Address
Hendrens Racing Engines*
Engine building garage
1310 US 221 North
221 Office Center
Office building; former restaurant/gas station/
convenience store
1364-70 US 221 North
Pritchard Heat & Cooling
Closed heating/cooling office; former gas station
1953 US 221 North
McKay's Appliance Service
Closed appliance repair business; former gas
station
1192 Gilboa Church Road
Gilkey General Store
(aka Sam's General Store)
Sunoco gas station/convenience store
2310 US 221 North
Bailey's Market
BP gas station/convenience store
3620 US 221 North
Hodge's Used Cars*
Used car sales/repair - former Union Mills 66
and garage
4064 US 221 North
Glenwood Grocery & Video
Exxon gas station/convenience store
6259 US 221 South
West Court Food Center
Gas station/convenience store
6050 US 221 South
Dollar Mart #10
Shell gas station/convenience store
4323 US 221 South
Vacant Lot*
Former A&R BP Station
4222 US 221 South
Former Gas Station
Former gas station/convenience store
4201 US 221 South
Note: * denotes UST(s) removed
Based on the field reconnaissance survey, six sites presently containing USTs, five additional sites
with the possibility for UST's, and one geoenvironmental concern were identified within the project
study area. No hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the project study
area. All of these sites are expected to have a low impact to this project.
The NCDENR UST section database lists four USTs as having been removed and closed in
December 1990 at Hodge's Used Cars. The NCDENR incident monitoring records that groundwater
contamination was present as of June 1989. One monitoring well was noted on this site.
If any potential hazardous materials sites cannot be avoided during the avoidance and minimization
stage of the project, further assessments, including soil and groundwater assessments, of the
properties will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition. Based on current knowledge, it is not
expected that any of these sites would preclude the construction of any of the Segment Alternatives.
Once right-of-way plans are complete, final investigations for hazardous materials sites would be
conducted according to those plans.
106

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational W
The NCDOT has conducted three Citizens Informational Workshops for the US 221 project: one for
TIP Project R-204D&E and two for TIP Project R-2597. The purpose of the first Citizens
Informational Workshop for TIP Project R-204D&E, held on March 20, 2002, in the McDowell
Technical Community College in Marion, was to present information, answer questions, and involve
the public in the project planning process. Participants at this workshop were able to view exhibit
boards that depicted environmental constraints, proposed project limits, and typical sections. Prior
to the workshop, a meeting was held with local officials to obtain input from them on issues
associated with the project.
Approximately 24 people attended the workshop and no written comment forms were completed at
the workshop and/or mailed to the NCDOT. Concerns raised by the public regarding the proposed
project included potential property impacts and access concerns. Appendix K contains copies of the
Citizens Informational Workshop press release and workshop handout.
The purpose of the second and third Citizens Informational Workshops for TIP Project R-2597, held
on September 29, 2003, in the City Hall Community Building in Marion, and September 30, 2003, at
R-S Central High School in Rutherfordton, was to involve the public in the project planning process.
Participants at both workshops were able to view exhibit boards that depicted environmental
constraints and proposed project limits. Prior to the workshops, meetings were held with local
officials to obtain input from them on issues associated with the project.
Approximately 225 people including local and agency officials attended the workshops and
approximately 39 comment forms were completed at the workshop and/or mailed to the NCDOT.
Concerns raised by the public regarding the proposed project included high project cost; insufficient
funding for right of way; US 221 becoming a busy thoroughfare; impacts to the natural resources in
the area (wildlife habitat, streams); impacts to the human environment, specifically near SR 1362
(Gilkey School Road) north; additional alternatives suggested, including a 5-lane section; narrower
median requested to minimize impacts; property impacts; roadway access; and safety concerns.
Appendix K contains copies of the Citizens Informational Workshop press releases and workshop
handouts.
B. Newsletters
In July 2003, the NCDOT issued the first newsletter for the US 221 project. The newsletter
provided information about the project, including the project schedule and advertised two Citizens
Informational Workshops to be held in September 2003. The newsletter included a project vicinity
map and photos of the project study area. In November 2004, the NCDOT issued a second project
newsletter, which summarized the previous workshops, discussed the design options being studied,
and presented the alternatives carried forward for further study based on the Concurrence Point 2
meeting. This newsletter included a project schedule, as well as comment sheet and maps depicting
the project segments. Copies of the newsletters are included in Appendix K.
107

C. Public Hearing
A Public Hearing will be conducted by the NCDOT after formal distribution of this State
Environmental Assessment (SEA). The purpose of this meeting will be to present the alternative
alignments and receive comments from the public in a formal setting. These comments will be
considered in the selection of a preferred alternative for the US 221 Improvements project. The
recommended alternative will be addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
D. NEPA/404 Merger Process
Project coordination took place in accordance with the guidelines of "An Interagency Agreement
Integrating Section 404/NEPA" for North Carolina transportation projects. This agreement, signed
in 1997 by NCDOT, FHWA, and the USACE, merges the FHWA's NEPA requirements and the
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulations. Interagency, or Merger Team, meetings are held at
designated milestones or Concurrence Points (CP) during the planning and design process, where
team members and other interested parties discuss and agree upon project specifics.
The following agencies are typically part of the Merger Team:
• USACE
US Army Corps of Engineers
• FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
• NCDOT
NC Department of Transportation
• USFWS
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• USEPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
• NCDWQ
NC Division of Water Quality
• NCWRC
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC DCR (HPO)
NC Department of Cultural Resources (HPO)
The Initial Merger Team Meeting was held on October 16, 2002. The purpose of this meeting was
to discuss Concurrence Point 1 which addressed the Purpose and Need of TIP Project R-2597. The
Merger Team expressed concern regarding the location of the northern terminus of the project. The
Merger Team was unable to reach agreement at this time. The Purpose and Need Statement was
revised to include an expanded project study area that incorporated TIP Project R-204D&E, which
provides a more logical project terminus at US 221-NC 226. The NCDOT agreed to prepare a single
environmental document for TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204D&E. A copy of the revised Purpose
and Need Statement was provided to each team member on May 23, 2003 via US mail. At this time,
agreement on the Purpose and Need and project study area was received. The concurrence form
dated October 16, 2002 is included in Appendix L.
A Second Merger Team Meeting was held on June 15, 2004. The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss Concurrence Point 2 which addresses the alignment alternatives that would be carried
forward for further study. The Merger Team was unable to reach agreement at this time and
requested more detailed review materials to allow them to fully evaluate the proposed alternatives.
These materials were distributed to the team members on June 30, 2004. A Third Merger Team
Meeting was held on August 17, 2004, in which agreement was reached on Concurrence Point 2,
108

with the following alternatives being carried forward for further study: Al, B1, B2, B3, C, D, El,
F1, F2, Gl, G2, and H. The concurrence form dated August 17, 2004 is included in Appendix L.
The Fourth Merger Team Meeting was held on June 9, 2011. The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss Revised Concurrence Point 2 and Concurrence Point 2a which addresses the alignment
alternatives that would be carried forward for further study and the bridging decisions, respectively.
An additional alternative was introduced, Segment D1, that replaces the bridge over the Second
Broad River on existing alignment. This shift in the alignment to existing US 221 was studied and
presented because it would decrease the impacts of the project, particularly to streams and utilities.
The Merger Team agreed to add Segment D1 to the alternatives that would be carried forward for
further study and reached agreement on Revised Concurrence Point 2. Bridging versus culvert
decisions at the 12 major stream crossing sites were discussed at this meeting. Agreement was
reached for all of the major stream crossing sites at this meeting. The Merger Team agreed with the
crossing structure at Site 1. It was agreed that the use of a bottomless culvert for the culvert
extension at Site 7 would be reconsidered. In addition, the Merger Team agreed to consider both
1) extending the reinforced concrete box culvert at Site 7, as well as 2) extending the bridge over the
Second Broad River at Site 6 through Site 7 for Segment D. The concurrence forms are included in
Appendix L.
To date, the Merger Team has reached concurrence on Concurrence Point No. 1 (Purpose and Need),
Concurrence Point No. 2 (Alternatives to be Studied in Detail), and Concurrence Point No. 2a
(Bridging Decisions). After the SEA is distributed, selection of a Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) or preferred alternative (Concurrence Point No. 3) and discussions
of avoidance and minimization efforts (Concurrence Point 4a) will occur and will be summarized in
the FONSI.
E. Other Coordination
Several small group meetings were held with various businesses and communities during the project
planning process. A meeting was held with Gilkey Lumber Company where the preliminary design
was reviewed in the vicinity of their property. Representatives of the Gilkey Lumber Company
expressed concern that according to the preliminary plans, approximately 60% of the concrete pad
used for log storage would be eliminated by the proposed roadway widening. This loss would be the
Gilkey Lumber Company's most important loss. The concrete pad stores 1.25 million feet of logs
for winter inventory. The Gilkey Lumber Company met with NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
several years earlier to discuss the future widening of US 221 and their expansion plans. During
their expansion, the Gilkey Lumber Company rerouted the mill layout to the back or east side of the
existing mill to avoid possible roadway expansion plans. The Gilkey Lumber Company requested
that the NCDOT strongly consider widening US 221 to the west side of the existing roadway.
A meeting was held with parishioners of Gilkey Baptist Church to review the widening scenario in
the vicinity of the church and to discuss the proposed roadway typical section in the area The
church had concerns if the roadway was widened on the west side (same side as the church) and
requested advance notice if they have to relocate so they could begin looking for a new location
early in the process.
109

A meeting was held with the Glenwood and Chapel Hill communities to review the widening
scenarios along US 221 in the Glenwood area. Concerns raised by the community regarding the
proposed project included relocation impacts; roadway access; right-of-way impacts associated with
the typical section; and safety concerns. Approximately 75 persons attended this meeting.
A meeting was held with Mr. and Ms. Gerth, owners of the William Monteith House historic
property. The alternatives in the vicinity of the historic property were presented to the property
owners. The Gerths indicated that they would not be opposed to moving the historic house to the
rear of their property as long as there is plenty of space between their house and the neighboring
house.
Multiple meetings were held with both CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway regarding
potential impacts to their property in the vicinity of the Second Broad River bridge crossing.
Segment D1 includes a proposed retaining wall that is situated in close proximity to the Norfolk
Southern Railway and CSX Transportation railroad right of way. Potential impacts to the railroad's
property in this area were discussed and eventually eliminated due to refinements in the preliminary
design.
The City of Marion, McDowell County officials, and area citizens have commented that they would
prefer some five -lane sections along the proposed facility. The City of Marion would prefer a five -
lane section from SR 1168 (Ashworth Rd) to US 221-NC 226 (along Segments F, G, and H). In
addition, McDowell County Emergency Management representatives would prefer a five -lane
section to extend southward from SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to at least SR 1135 (Mud Cut Road)
(along Segment E) to allow emergency vehicles to respond quicker by allowing left -turns at each
road and driveway. Some area citizens in Gilkey, Thermal City, and Glenwood prefer a five -lane or
a four -lane divided section with a narrow median to reduce property impacts. However, the NCDOT
would prefer to minimize the use of five -lane sections along US 221. This preference is based on
research data that concludes median divided facilities improve travel speeds, reduce congestion, and
lower crash rates.
110

VII. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Based on the planning and environmental studies, there is no indication that this project will have a
significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human and/or natural environment. The proposed
project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial
in nature. Through the Merger Process, the project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies and no substantial objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were
voiced at the citizens informational workshops held. For these reasons, it is concluded that a State
Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.
111

VIIL REFERENCES
Airnay.com, 2009. The pilot's window into a world of aviation information. Website cited
March 28, 2011.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001. A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C. p. 448.
Baker Engineering, 2006. Noise Analysis Report. Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County to
Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County (R-2597). August 2006.
Baker Engineering, 2007. Final Natural Resources Technical Report. From SR 1536 in Rutherford
County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County (R-2597 and R-204D&E). June 2007.
Baker Engineering, 2007. Final Air Quality Analysis. Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County
to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County (R-2597). September 2007.
Birdsong, Rod, 2002. Executive Director, McDowell County Chamber of Commerce. Personal
communication. August 9, 2002.
Buck Engineering, 2004. Traffic Capacity Analysis. US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) in
Rutherford County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County (R-2597).
April 2004.
Buck Engineering, 2004. Final Community Characteristics Report. US 221 from Old US 221
(SR 1536) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County (R-2597 and
R-204D&E). September 2004.
Buck Engineering, 2006. Final Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment. Old US 221 (SR 1536)
in Rutherford County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County (R-2597 and
R-204D&E). September 2006.
City of Marion, 2011. Public Works - Wastewater Treatment. Website cited March 28, 2011.
http://www.marionnc.org/waterTreat.php.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (ESCNC), 2003. Civilian Labor Force
Estimates. Website cited April 6, 2006. http://www.ncesc.com.
ESCNC, 2011. North Carolina Unemployment Rates County by County. Statistics cited by
WRAL.com website. Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/page/4879060/.
112

ESCNC, 2011. Labor Market Information. Top 25 Employers by NC County and Employment by
Sector. Website cited March 26, 2011. www.ncesc.com.
Federal Highway Administration, 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and
Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8A. October 1987.
Federal Highway Administration, 1998. DOT Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low -Income Populations.
Giles, Kerry, 2006. Marketing Director - Rutherford County Economic Development Commission.
Personal communication. April 24, 2006.
Glover, Gerald, 2002. Archaeological Study. Widening US 221 to multilane from US 221-NC 226
split to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) (R-204D&E). October 2002.
Huneycutt, Maria, 2011. Manager - Broad River Water Authority. Personal communication,
March 28, 2011.
Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc., 2003. Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report:
Widen US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to I-40 in McDowell County. April 24,
2003.
McDowell County, 2003. Letter from McDowell County Emergency Services regarding comments
on project. Letter dated October 1, 2003.
McDowell County, 2003. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance of McDowell
County, North Carolina - Adopted August 11, 2003. Website viewed March 30, 2011.
http://mcdowellgov.com/.
McDowell County, 2011. McDowell County - Tourism Development Authority. Website cited
March 24, 2011. http://www.mcdowellnc.org/trip_planner/pdf/travel_guide.pdf. Last
updated 2004.
McDowell Economic Development Association (MEDA), 2011. Site search. Website cited
March 30, 2011. http://www.mcdowelleda.org/sites.htm.
McDowell News, 2011. County to review transportation options. Media General Communications
Holdings, LLC. January 10, 2011. Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://www2.mcdowellnews.com/news/2011/jan/10/county-review-transportation-options-ar-
682088/.
Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership, 2003. Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative:
Feasibility Report and Restoration Plan for the Muddy Creek Watershed. McDowell and
Burke Counties, December 2003. Website cited April 11, 2006.
http://www.equinoxenvironmental.com/Muddy-Creek-72dpi.pdf.
113

Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership, 2008. Final Project Report Section 319 Grant Project
Number EW06043. September 2008. Website cited May 30, 2011.
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/muddy_creek/Muddy monitoring report.pdf.
NC Department of Commerce, 2000. County and Regional Scans. Rutherford and McDowell
County unemployment rates. http://www.nccommerce.com/econscan/.
NC Department of Commerce, 2011. The Economic Impact of Travel on North Carolina Counties.
Prepared for the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development by the
Travel Industry Association. NC County Preliminary Estimates Expenditures. Website cited
March 21, 2011. http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (formerly
NCDEHNR), 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR, 1999. Permitted Active and Inactive Mines in North Carolina. North Carolina
Geological Survey database. Website cited March 20, 2011.
http://www. geology. enr. state.nc.us/Permitted%20Mines%201999-2000/permitte.htm.
NCDENR, 2001. Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina. Volume IL Practitioners Handbook. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR, 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Broad River Basin. NC Division of Water
Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR, 2003. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Catawba River Basin. NC Division of Water
Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR, 2004. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the Corpening Creek Watershed.
NC Division of Water Quality Planning Branch. Raleigh, NC. February 2004.
NCDENR, 2006. Mineral Resources. NCDENR website cited October 10, 2006.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html.
NCDENR, 2010. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Basinwide Planning Program,
Division of Water Quality. July 2010. Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/catawba/2010plan.
NCDENR, 2011. Surface Water Classifications. NC Division of Water Quality. Website cited
March 28, 2011. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), 1976, Updated 1997. Rutherford Urban
Corridor Thoroughfare Plan. NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch, Small Urban Planning
Unit. Raleigh NC. September 1976.
114

NCDOT, 1991. NCDOT Bicycle Policy. NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
Website cited March 23, 2011. http://www.ncdot.org/bikeped/lawspolicies/policies.
NCDOT, 1995. Thoroughfare Plan for McDowell County. NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch,
Small Urban Planning Unit. Raleigh NC. December 1995.
NCDOT, 2002. Preliminary Review of TIP Project R-204D&E. US 221 from NC 226 to SR 1153
(Goose Creek Road) in McDowell County. NCDOT Congestion Management. November 7,
2002.
NCDOT, 2002. Traffic Forecast for US 221 from SR 1153 in McDowell County to SR 1536 in
Rutherford County (R-2597). NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch. July 2002.
NCDOT, 2002. Traffic Forecast for Proposed Widening of US 221 from the intersection of US 221
and NC 226 to SR 1153 in McDowell County (R-204). NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch.
March 2002.
NCDOT, 2002. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis. US 221, McDowell County,
TIP R-204D&E. December 2002.
NCDOT, 2002. Air Quality Analysis. US 221-NC 226 - Marion Bypass from 2 miles south of I-40
to intersection of existing US 221-NC 226, TIP R-204D&E. December 2002.
NCDOT, 2004. Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. North Carolina Department of Transportation -
Office of Human Environment.
http://www.ncdot. org/doh/preconstruct/pe/ohe/noiseair/NoisePolicy_2004.pdf.
NCDOT, 2006. Correspondence with Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch - Congestion
Management regarding Traffic Capacity Analysis.
NCDOT, 2007. Discussion regarding the Indiana bat. Personal communication with Mary Frazer,
NCDOT Human Environment Unit. February 12, 2007.
NCDOT, 2007. GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation (R-2597 and R-204D&E). Geotechnical
Engineering Unit, GeoEnvironmental Section. April 2007.
NCDOT, 2009. 2008 Highway and Road Mileage. NCDOT State Road Maintenance Unit, Road
Inventory Information Section. September, 2009. Website cited March 21, 2011.
http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/download/highwayroadmileage_2008.pdf.
NCDOT, 2011. Strategic Highway Corridors. Transportation Planning Branch.
http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/vision/.
NCDOT, 2011. State Transportation Improvement Program 2009-2015. Website cited March 28,
2011. http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/TIP/Trans/divisionl3.html.
115

NCDOT, 2011. Crash Report (R-2597 and R-204D&E) for 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2011.
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch.
NCDOT, 2011. Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch. 2007-2009 Statewide Crash Rates.
Website cited March 29, 2011.
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/crashdata/rates.html.
NC Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), 2006. Personal communication with Karen Harris and
Connie Horne regarding determination of background concentration and persistence factor.
Email dated April 21, 2006. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC.
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2005. Cathey's Creek Technical Watershed
Assessment: Watershed Management Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC. August 2005. Website
cited April 10, 2006.
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/WECO/Catheys_Creek/WMP aug29.pdf.
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2002. Personal communication with Dennis Herman.
June 19, 2002.
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2011. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, 2010. 2009 County Municipal Totals,
Municipal and Non -Municipal Land Area by County. State Demographics Branch. Website
cited March 20, 2011.
http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_esti
mates/demog/clndm09.htm.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 2002. Personal communication with
Marla Chambers. September 13, 2002.
Office of the Governor, 2010. Automotive Trim Manufacturer to Bring 53 Jobs, New Manufacturing
Facility to Rutherford County. State Grant Helps CMI Enterprises Locate in Rutherfordton.
Released July 16, 2010. Website cited March 26, 2011.
www.nccommerce.com/en/PressRoom/PressReleases.
Pathfinders, 2004. Rutherford County, North Carolina: Area Workforce Report. Pathfinders,
Dallas, TX. Website cited April 10, 2006.
http://files.changemywebsite.com/458877/doc/Rutherford_ County_ Final_ Report June_2004
.pdf.
Poole, K. E. and M.C. White, 2005. A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the
Isothermal Planning Region. Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, Arlington, VA.
September 2005. Website cited April, 10, 2006. http://www.regionc.org/vertical/Sites/.
116

Russo, M. and J. M. Sweeney, 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of North
Carolina: A Guide to Assist with Forestry Activities. International Paper Company.
Rutherford County, 2000. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program. Rutherford County North
Carolina Code of Ordinances. Ordinances viewed through Municode.com website,
March 30, 2011. http://library.municode.com/.
Rutherford County, 2001. Rutherford County Land Use Plan — revised 2001. Developed by
Isothermal Planning and Development Commission, Rutherfordton, NC. Website cited
March 28, 2011. http://www.rutherfordcountync.gov/dept/planning/—Ordinances.php.
Rutherford County, 2002. Realize Rutherford: A Strategic Plan Written by and for the Citizens of
Rutherford County, 2002-2022. Website cited March 21, 2011.
http://www.lukevision.com/PDFs/Rutherford.pdf.
Rutherford County, 2005. Rutherford County Comprehensive Arts, Parks, and Recreation Plan.
Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://www.rutherfordcountync.gov/files/24993/Rutherford%20County%20APR%20Plan%2
OFull.pd.
Rutherford County, 2011. Email correspondence with Keith Ward, Supervisor, Rutherfordton
Wastewater System and Karen Andrews, Rutherfordton Town Manager regarding
Rutherfordton Wastewater Treatment Plant. July 6, 2011.
Rutherford County Economic Development Commission, 2011. Major employers. Website cited
March 26, 2011. http://www.rutherfordncedc.com/.
Rutherford Outdoor Coalition, undated. Road Cycling Maps. Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://www.rutherfordoutdoor. org/outdoor-activities/biking/cyclingmaps.
Rutherford Tourism, undated. Biking and Hiking in Western N.C. Website cited March 22, 2011.
http://www.rutherfordtourism.com/news/hiking biking.php.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina
Thomas, Will, 2011. McDowell County School System. Personal communication, March 23, 2011.
Toll, G., Ph.D., 2003. Strategic Assessment of Regional Infrastructure Assets: loth and llth
Congressional Districts of North Carolina. Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana. August
2003. Website cited April, 10, 2006.
http://www.future-forward.net/pdf/lnfrastructure.pdf.
117

Trade and Industry Development, 2011. 2011 CiCi Awards — Community Impact Top 15.
Facebook - Rutherford County, NC. Website cited March 26, 2011.
http://tradeandindustrydev.com.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Special Report 209. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.
USACE Environmental Laboratory, 1987. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
US Census Bureau, 2000. Census Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data Census Tracts 9601,
9602, 9605, 9702, 9705, and 9709; Rutherford County, NC; McDowell County, NC; and
State of North Carolina. December 2000. Washington: U.S. Department Of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. Website cited September 14, 2003.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.
US Census Bureau, 2010. County Population Estimates. US Census Bureau, Washington DC.
Website cited March 24, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1995. Soil Survey for McDowell County, North
Carolina.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000. Soil Survey for Rutherford County, North
Carolina.
US Department of the Interior (USDOI), 2009. Nationwide Rivers Inventory, North Carolina
Segments. National Park Service. Updated February 28, 2009. Website
cited March 20, 2011. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/nc.html.
USEPA, 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control. EPA
Number 50529001, March 1991. Website cited June 30, 2011.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrccatalog.nsf/.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Website cited June 10, 2011.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/html/listedspecies/.
York, Phil, 2011. Rutherford County School System. Personal communication. March 23, 2011.
Youngs, Kathryn A., 1979. An Historic Archaeological Survey of Rutherford County, North
Carolina. Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
118

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Begin
Project R-2597
�221- �
Gilkey
e�
,a
Rutherfordton
Ru[Ir`eno �,
County 111
Airport
MCDOWELL CO I
•R�.'Arw��ll'IAJ�i'!r;��
RUTHERFORD CO
Thermal
City
1X,
=! End Project R-2597
Begin Project R-204 D&E
221
11�Carjjrra Branch
n
7
A 1\
( J
End
Project R-204 D&E
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
\
$'
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
v
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 1.1 Project Vicinity Map and Project Study Area
— Hydra - Rivers/Streams
ri Interstate ----. County Boundary
_
® Hydro Water Bodies
HIS R-2597 Project Study Area.
Unnamed Tributaries
P
� ®R-204 B&E Protect Study Area
Posts
+� Railroads
Cell Tower
0 0.5
1 2 3 4
Miles

4Hydro - Rivers/Streams Interstate NWI

(J/
Gte
Site 3
(3) 6 ft. x 6 ft. RCBC
Co.
r`
lRocK �'s'
—
C; o° �
�t3 J
Ga�N�
rO�Se Site 4
�eG� 72 in. CMP
0
Site 4a
72 in. CMP
Co.
� Site 7a
� 6 ft. x 5 ft. RCBC
Site 6
3 Span Structure
1 @ 39 ft.; 1 @ 38.5 ft.;
1 @ 39.3 ft.
Vein Mountain,
Hicks Branch
I
Site 8
(3) 9 ft. x 8 ft. RCBC
Camp Branch
Site 5
(3) 6 ft. x 6 ft. RCBC
CSX Raitroad
Site 9
(3) 11 ft. x 12 ft. RCBC
o Site 10
ament — Se n 6 ft. x 6 ft.. RCBC
,77
End Project R-2597
Begin Project R-204 D&E
M4a�ycr�
End Project
�IKMarion R-204 D&E
i
4q,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
hoe�P1ry
y
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
*
9" o
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
M
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
o �ANSe�r
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.1 Existing Major
Drainage Structures for McDowell County
Sheet 2 of 2
— HydrO-Rivers/Streams
Interstate NWI
Hydro -Water Bodies
— Us
— NH R-2597 Project Study Area
Unnamed Tributaries
----• County Boundary � R-204 B&E Project Study Area
Stream crossing
Roads
Water Supply Watersheds
+� Railroads cell Tower
Protected -WSIV
® Flood Plains
0 0.5
1 2 3
Miles

Section 1
`i
k 7800 (E
0 14400 (E
%
Section
4
19
30 Gm�"
Q'T�r 5000 (C)
Gy .. 9200 (D)
Section 3
Lewinn Mlns
Gilkey
s �
'P J�
0
1600
4800 C "
9000 (D)
30 Section GC�t�{`e3dP'd
4200 (C)
7800 (D)
Section
Thermal City
A r
2
m
n
O
0
0
O
f
-r
�L
N
160
3800
3000 i
Section 8
5400 (C)
��
�a 1 1 50
10200(D
'Rt"'5
SR1786..-
q
Section 7
Section 6
600
Glenwood
\ Ra
i onn
Vein Nbuutain�
North Carolina Department of Transportation
w"'"Qqw Project Development & Environmental
x Analysis Branch
s US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.2 Average DailyTraffic Volumes and Levels of Service (No -Build)
Sheet 1 of 2
Average daily Average daily
traffic volume & traffic volume at
level of service intersection
xxxx(LOS) Year2002 Year2002
xxxx(LOS) Year2025/2030 AxxxxYear2025/2030
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles

11,21111e1
6800 D)
12800 (D) o \
Section 8
r ,
s Section 9
8000 D
15200 (E)
180
Glenwood 300
3000
t 800
1600 600
46900
r
1
r o�
.1t
100
1900 SR110"
Section 10
9000 E
15600 (E)
226
1800
Section 11
8200 D
15200(E)
Marion
Y�
70 _� J
North Carolina Department of Transportation /
Project Development & Environmental
x
Analysis Branch
g US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.2 Average DailyTraffic Volumes and Levels of Service (No -Build)
Sheet 2 of 2
Average daily Average daily
traffic volume & traffic volume at
level of service intersection
xxxx (LOS) Year 2002 Axxxx
Year2002
xxxx (LOS) Year 2025/2030 Year 2025/2030
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles

TIP R-2233
o'
i Spindale
4s 3z %
Forest City
Ruth
TIP R 2597
T0.
TIP B-4262
IP B-4261
0O
TIP B-3673
TIP R-2597
TIP R 204 D&E
TIP B-4191
IS,
J \
Marion
NLT;I:P_R-204 A, BC
If -
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
R US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.3 TIP Projects in Vicinity
Rural Projects Interstate
Urban Projects — US
Bridge Projects — NC
Roads
— — County Boundary �r Railroads
0 1 2 4 6
Miles

2
Boiling Springs
C�
Ruth
Spindale
3
?st City
Lake Lure
GO.
RUTHERF_ORD CO.
CLEVELAND CO. "
Polkvil
CO
13
jo
nj m
Aj r
510
019
O.
Montreat
CO
Ald Fort
C Marion
McOOWE`` CO I
nnnft� Z
I Burnsville
MITCHELL CO. 61
AVERY CO Bakersville
A
Spruce Pine
G0.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
1
Tti, i
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
181
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.4 Existing Road Network
Interstate Blue Ridge Parkway
us ----- County Boundary
NC Railroads
Morganton
0 1.5 3 6 9 12
iles

r_
Block Group 4Yj
64
Block Grouper
�G< 0' Block Group 1
9602 G�ee�
e�\5
Gee°
Begin Project R-2597
Gilkey
Block Group 3
rfordton Gteems
e�5
9605
Block Group2 Rutherford
County
Airport
°bb 6�an
5�0
ermal G
e 1 city`
Pba�dored
�O
'm
°
GS*
RUTHERFORD CO.
i (
9601
Block Group 1
Z
` Block Group 6
Block Group 2
r
Block Group 5
Block Group 3
705 �G
C eeK g
End Project R-2597 221
Begin Project R-204 D&E
a
,J , End Project R-204 D&E
Co Block Group 1
Block Group 4 g
Gige� �mc _` 221
5 221
i ( Bus
Glenwoo
Marion
9709 N 9702
Vein Mountain Camp Branch °hM /Block
Lacy 26 Group 2
Cre
61 Block Group 3 r
`0s �� Block Group 2
L �%
m
�--- p4„ORrHC4R North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Q US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
ror7pA, °� TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 2.5 Census Tracts and ICE Study Area
Rivers/Streams Interstate Census Tract (2000)
Lakes/Ponds US Block Group 1
NC
Unnamed Tributaries Roads Block Group 2
R-2597 Project Study Area Railroads Block Group 3
R-204 D&E Project Study Area Block Group 4
Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study Area Block Group 5
Block Group 6
0 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2
Miles

h�
•.5+�
G
�e� 1rL

EBB 40M
)/ v\
ov
Ple
or
t' rall e'
w Air *Wk
rr
��
�;room Carolina Department of Thansportetion
\�� ' 7►\ \

*64
OPK

4 L
(SEGMENT Al)
SR 1366 (ROPER LOOP RD.) TO SOUTH OF SR 1376 (LANE RD.)
(SEGMENTS C, D NEW LOCATION, El)
NORTH OF 1362 (GILKEY SCHOOL RD.) NORTHERN INTERSECTION TO
SOUTH OF SR 1168 (ASHWORTH RD.)
(SEGMENT Dl EXISTING ALIGNMENT)
NORTH OF SR 1501 (CONEY ISLAND RD.) TO
SOUTH OF SECOND BROAD RIVER CROSSING AND
NORTH OF SECOND BROAD RIVER CROSSING

4 L
WITH RAISED MEDIAN
(SEGMENTS Bl, B2, 133)
NORTH OF SR 1532 (GILBOA CHURCH RD.) NORTHERN INTERSECTION TO
SR 1362 (GILKEY SCHOOL RD.) NORTHERN INTERSECTION
(SEGMENTS Fl, F2, GI, G2, H)
SOUTH OF SR 1168 (ASHWORTH RD.) TO US 221 - NC 226

rL
US 221
DUAL STRUCTURES OVER
SECOND BROAD RIVER
SEGMENT D (NEW LOCATION)

4L
WITH CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER
SEGMENT DI (EXISTING ALIGNMENT)
VICINITY OF SECOND BROAD RIVER CROSSING

4 RP
I
RAMPS AT 1-40
4 L
I
I
W WE TO FACE
US 221
SINGLE STRUCTURE OVER 1-40
USE WITH FIVE -LANE SECTION

2400 1600 14400
Section
5600
16000 a�
9a N m� Gy,
Section 1
221
2400 hF
R°5'Z
s
1600
I ti
Y Y
0
`i
5y' J v 1600
j'
3000
3800 i
9200
>v
v 12800
9000
Section 3 s 138o ion 4 t�{e\a¢a
�o/R
�� �;
�v - Section 8
Gee
,wing Mills % SRIS o� C%eyes
Ikey°o
p Thermal City /
� � o SP.'i 150 -,
"tea
10200 gR115o s�
4--_
ha a 7800
Section / sR17s6
Section 50
221
8600
Section 6
Glenwood
R
3200 s
' . Sf; .
t�; 1600
Vein Nbuutain�
North Carolina Department of Transportation
w"'"Qqw Project Development & Environmental
x Analysis Branch
s US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 4.2 2025/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Build)
Sheet 1 of 2
Average daily
Average daily traffic volume at
traffic volume intersection
xxxx Year2025/2030 Ayear 2025/2030
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles

J
3000
12800
Section 8
12800
Glenwood
( 1600
/C / 600
200 r 51500
T/I
21
3300
/ 600
\� N
J
Marion
1900 �
3000 Section 10 25200 /
Se n 11 r lk�� \
18400 J
18000 j
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 4.2 2025/2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Build)
Sheet 2 of 2
Average daily
Average daily traffic volume at
traffic volume intersection
x Year2025/2030 Ayear 2025/2030
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles

Z
y a �
,9 Rutherford County (.( McDowell County
zi
d jrn Lw Ilerm2
o�.ar'o
R/ ,
SIR13 s
(C uteM eW fttl '
ad
22 i o CO all e nrreeyaZaw al City
sN 's yYa nr Wenano3 ";_ ryRi g H
Pg as
goc,Se
t ' o
a
x ( Nhnc Ian DepartmentorT anay nlon
P ro t &EnvironmentalPn lysBanm
Y" v US221 fromNorth of SIR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US221 NC226 in McDowell Cty
Y.
TIP Projects R2597 andR-2➢4DE
a- Yen
Fg 51 Brotic Communities and Water personal MV
2 Spend ofd
' _ _ �mlnd Bros cea Sarre ❑
�.Upland Foredt F TpMtl5 1 54earrtNOlMBi
�underlaid Forest —county Boundary
.A
20m 10m 0 2om aomce

Vil � t
_ y Al
2
SE . Begin Project R 2597 cojesy!
End Pruiert R 2233
a
1
rfordton'
e
21
ryryq y
Yis`p� Northsardine
p1 u
-� ♦ ProjectO Development aEnvironmental tl
de
a Branch
ugnlfrom NmorSIR 1366 in Rutherford Coding
✓ :?] to US 221 NC226 in m Orwell County
TIP Projects R Z97 and R-204FPS
E logul5u1 in Project Stur Nrea
SM1eNi I
-2 — For Soil NPE OesUrptlon6 see Tattle 57
ON
yf'
+ %al,0 750 1$00 30m A$m
11 Feet

y
dd

11
Tol
SR IAs
s
+'Thermal City
/ham or C ' IIIl /
cv oe Are 74 .,...
P�D2 her,
RaE
Ni mA .. e.eOk
tome
>"9
Ioe, ,r, w , I yp yQ
8\ r q i r �a
sxt
no
I Vein Mou
Ru[h �fortl County ll McDowell County
/� mono Carolina De fondant mTan1Po rotor
Aro Protect Development a Environmental Ana Wss Branch
9s 221 from north of SR 1366In Rutherford County
de{' toUSN5 226 s1 and R-ioa FPS
-igul %Soils in Protect Study Area
deal I
-F,,r soil Type 4eSsf p[ ns see Table s D
If 750 t$m 3,om a$m
Feet

IS
rt7P ¢i�. T is
r �►' r
1
,10
� x
s r
>'
3y
r

Pinnacle Elementary School �� z
l
JGilkey Baptist Church
obbBranch
�\ William Monteith
House v/r y•Q Little White Country Church ' \ �•�•�-�
e
0/aJ Church Albert Weaver Farm�o�e�
Begin Project R-2597
\ / Gilkey — _ rmaT ,�'�
Gilboa United SR 1501 City J f• 0
Methodist Church Union Mills �� (Coney Island Rd)
Gold Hill Volunteer Fire Department
Baptist Church
�qJ Gr
Ra�\ Line /
R-S Central High School
ed -
Rutherfordton
... 'r i.
TKEPf.ORD CO. MCDOWELL- O.
---� o4NORZH�,q North Carolina Department of Transportation
yAp,� Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
s¢ M�Nror ra"µS@o& TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
/ Figure 5.3 Community Facilities in Project Area
Sheet 1 of 2
Hydro -Rivers/Streams
Interstate - National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Hydro -Water Bodies US
` NC ®Floodplains
Unnamed Tributaries
County Boundary
R-2597 Project Study Area Roads
R-204 D&E Project Study Area Railroads
Gamelands
!, ` 1
/ 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

-IF
-
City
Glenwood Independent
Baptist Church
Hicks Branch
Redeemed Freewill
Baptist Church
a
Oakwood Forest
Q)
(9 4z
neighborhood
°'
r
co Q)
_
Glenwood o°
Baptist Church �z ?I—
Robins Nest r-
��°� neighborhood `— 221
gk Alg6
pd vs 22A1
CSX Railroad
Alma Morgan
ceG Subdivision
Glenwood Park
Vein Mountain Camp Branch
o ;'1 Glenwood
Fire Department
Vein Mountain Baptist Church
Y.
C,
,
e*
Gee
nwo
221
Seventh Day
Adventist Church II p
B.G. Hensley House j
S? 2211
�0\d
End Project R-2597
Begin Project R-204 D&E
Glenwood United
Methodist Church
5� 06P
Glenwood -
4acyy Elementary School 226
Cre
F`"74
221
BLS
End Project
ion R-204 D&E
V Chapel Hill
Baptist Church
North Carolina Department of Transportation
h �oFµoRTN�gQo
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
4 o
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
;f
to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
6i TM�Qoe
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 5.3 Community Facilities in Project Area
Sheet 2 of 2
! Hydro - Rivers/Streams
Interstate - National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Hydro -Water Bodies
US
NC Floodplains
Unnamed Tributaries
R-2597 Project Study Area
- County Boundary
Roads
R-204 D&E Project Study Area
F Railroads
Gamelands
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
�I
I j

Z -
64
� m
Heat &Cooling G� k
�,5 1 ocM End Project R-2597 r' 1 �. �;f \{
Begin Project R-204 D&E zz1
Begin Appliance Service LI
Project R-2597 — bbg t West Court n
pan .% Food Center #10100 End
Gilkey Bailey's Market �` /�� 4 Project R-204 D&E
General Store GcmzLD Dollar, Inc
Hodge's Used Cars ;oom�1� �J Glenwood Grocery &Video--
5 P/ e ° d
221
/" �J^�'�.�.`.�> ( /• oJs �a5 — Vacant Lot - Bus
Gilkey (Former A&R BP Station)
221 221 Office Center
RUtherfOrdtOn Hendrens Pbandonednad U"e / �`" L.\ Former Gas Station Mario
Thermal i J'
Racing Engines V �_ - �..
City Camp Branch
Catheys Creek �O+ `-� - 4d7 226
yj L= o em Mountain yo'ee�
v 1 apo� -ed�
�.p44
i RFO O. j McDOWE L CO: �'° Fey
�RO[Irerfo
Alton
Airport
1IR-
64-_
om I
North Carolina
ent of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental iAnalysis Branch
US 221 from North of SR 1366 in Rutherford County
i v to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Figure 5.4 Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
_ H4dra Rivers/Streams Interstate --•County Boundary
Hydno Water Bodies HIS R-2597 Project Study Area
iUnnamed Trlbutones
1 Roads � R-2n1 D3E Prnlect study Area
p +�
i ® GeoEnvlranmental Im act site Railroads
i
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles

APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
- TIP Project R-2597
- TIP Project R-204D&E

APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
TIP Project R-2597

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 10, 2002
Planning Services Section
Ms. L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Grimes:
This is in response to your letter dated July 29, 2002, requesting comments on the
"Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in
McDowell County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597". In addition to
roadway widening, the proposed improvements will likely include replacement of the
Second Broad River Bridge.
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps constructed flood control or
navigation project. 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,
Thomas G. Corder, P.E.
Chief, Planning and
Environmental Branch
Enclosure

September 10, 2002
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in. Rutherford County to SR 1153 in
McDowell County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP Project R-2597"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). We do not have Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels
in our office that would cover the portion of the improvements in Rutherford County.
However, from another information source, it appears that identified flood hazard areas
in Rutherford County are mapped approximately and do not have 100-year flood
elevations shown. Based on a review of Panel 175 of the July 1988 McDowell County
FIRM, the section of roadway proposed for improvements would cross Second Broad
River and Goose Creeks, both of which are mapped approximately without 100-year
flood elevations shown. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the
NFIP, administered by FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. For more
information related to FEMA requirements, we recommend that one of the following
individuals be contacted: Mr. Phil Letsinger, state coordinator of the NFIP at
[phone], extension 273; or Mr. John Gerber, P.E., of the North Carolina Division
of Emergency Management, Western Branch at [phone]. Specific questions
pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be referred to
the local building officials.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC- Steve Lund, Proiect Manager, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Division, at [phone]
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with
this project, including temporary impacts for construction access or bridge demolition,
site de -watering, and the disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements
will depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within waters of the United
States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and
other factors.
The following items need to be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.

September 10, 2002
Page 2 of 2
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time -of -the -year" restrictions on in -stream work if
recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if
undercutting is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be
stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
g. You are reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits within any of the
25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer.
When final construction plans are complete, including the extent and location of
any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division
would appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a project -specific
determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.

f e
V
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
September 10, 2002
Mr. John Wadsworth
NCDOT
Program Dev. and Envir. Analysis Branch
Highway Bldg
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Wadsworth:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4220-0040; Scopi.ng; Proposed improvements to US 221 from SR1536 in
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County; TIP Project R-2597
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region C
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1302 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
P 2002
MEMORANDUM r�r, BOA . fhce
P,
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
�E: 03-0040 Scoping for US 221 Improvements, Rutherford County
DATE: September 6, 2002
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the.
proposed project.The attached comments are a result of this review.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental review
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the environmental document, additional information is needed, the
applicant is encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
Ar. Eaua O000rr AO—uye Aim Emrtioyer-50°. Recyae 10—r Past Corr —Paper -

North Caroli=za Depa�rtmeat of
Ensz3ronment azsd Natural Resources
Di mon o$ Soil azzcTWLter CoaserQatioaz
AEchael F Easley, Governor
> William :G.:Ross Jr., Secretary
DavidS. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison f
August 16, 2002
NCDENR
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 (Rutherford County) to SR
1153 (McDowell County). _Project # 03-E-0040
The environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to Prime
or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
16143f1si1 Sersrice-Ceates, RalPsgll, Naz-�li Casabas. 27699-1614
Phoae_'.919-733-2502. \ F`�='.919-715-3559
ZatP.T•••et_ -s¢��_P�+�-_state-ac.us/�NR/DSYQC/
A14 EQUHL.O7PPOFCT'Q'NZZ`Y\.�'A'iR�vraT=YE-SCSSOXrivroz,,Ov'�sr
'S0%.RE�Y�"'T-Frs/10%.P06T CONS�F'RPApER.

. 0� wArF9p
�O G
r
�
o �
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator CGvCi)
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Proposed Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County, State Project No. 6.899002T, TIP
Project R-2597. State Clearinghouse Project No. 03-E-0040.
In reply to your correspondence dated August 7, 2002 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water resources lie
within the project area:
■ Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030802
Stream
Index
UT to Mountain Creek
9-41-12-6
Catheys Creek
9-41-13
Stoney Creek and unnamed tributaries
9-41-9
Rockhouse Creek
9-41-8
Scrub Grass Branch
9-41-6
Second Broad River and UTs
9-41
■ Catawba River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 030830
Stream Index
UT to Huntsville Creek 11-32-1-2-1-1
UTs to North Muddy Creek 11-32-1
Goose Creek and UTs 11-32-1-2 ,
Class
WS-IV
WS-V; §303(d) list impaired waters
WS-V
WS-V
W S-V
WS-IV Critical Area
Class
C
C
C
The NCDOT plans to widen a 15-mile section of US 221. This project will connect with the US 221
improvements south of this section, known as the Rutherfordton Bypass. The Division of Water Quality
offers these comments:
1. US 221 is a principal north -south corridor on North Carolina's Intrastate System The proposed
purpose of this project is to: (1) improve, the level of traffic service, (2) decrease travel time and (3)
improve safety. DWQ strongly urges the use of Access Management techniques to prolong the life of
these three objectives.
2. DWQ recommends that NCDOT and the applicable Rural Planning Organization staff work in
concert to develop long-term solutions to transportation issues that insures environmental protection,
continued economic growth and preserves the quality of life enjoyed by McDowell. and Rutherford
County residents. This would include, but is not limited to, the development of comprehensive access
management plans and policies for the region.
Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure. that development is done in a manner
that maintains water quality. These planning efforts will need to find a balance between water quality
JOR
NCDEN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

protection, natural resource management and economic growth. Growth management requires
planning for the needs of future population increases as well as developing and enforcing
environmental protection measures. These actions are critical to water quality management and the
quality of life for the residents of the basin.
3. According to the 1998 Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan and the 1999
Catawba River Basinwide Management Plan, water quality issues include controlling sedimentation
and nonpoint sources. NCDOT is urged to abide by Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters (March 1997) for design, construction and maintenance of this transportation facility.
Additionally, design plans should include ways to maintain the existing good water quality in this
Basin.
In order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged.
Storm water should be designed to flow into buffer areas or retention basins rather than routed
directly into streams. DWQ prefers that storm water runoff be designed to drain into a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
4. Catheys Creek is on the §303(d) list of impaired waters and is only partially supporting its use rating
.(WS-V). The source of impairment is sedimentation and nonpoint source pollution.
5. Since the proposed project is a major arterial road, hazardous spill catch basins will be required at all
crossings of Second Broad River and its unnamed tributaries (WS-1V Critical Area).
6. DWQ advocates the replacement of bridges with bridges rather than culverts. If existing culverts
along this project are perched and do not allow for passage of aquatic life, they should be removed
and correctly installed during the construction process.
7. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within these basins, NCDOT is encouraged to retain
vegetation as much as possible. Do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is
absolutely necessary. Especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in place to
minimize damage to stream banks.
8. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There should be a discussion on
mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a
conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. For projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification:
9. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
10. Wetland delineation should be performed prior to permit application. Wetland and stream impacts
should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize
wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC
211.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the. NCDWQ Wetlands

1
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water,quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
PC: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy

awn
NCDENR
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
NatLrral Resources
i4lichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr.,. Secretary
'
NortlL Carolina
FOREST
Division of Forest Resources
SERVICE
N.0
Stanford 11. Adanis, Director
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
September 10, 2002
11
MEMORANDUM °� '� P 0
TO: Melba McGee; Office of Legislative Affairs
�0 — 0
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Widening US 221 from SR 1536 to SR 1153
PROJECT #: 03-0040 and TIP R-2597
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced Scoping document and
offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
I. The widening of an existing roadway usually has fewer impacts to forest resources than
a new location project. Sot that we may evaluate the potential impact, the total forest land acreage by
type that would be removed or taken out of forest production as a result of the project should be listed
in the EA. Efforts should be made during the planning phase to align corridors that minimize impacts
to woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. The productivity of the forest. soils affected by the proposed project as indicated by the soil series.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub
grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and
smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
4. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. McDowell and Rutherford
Counties are classified as non -high hazard counties, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning
permit would apply.
1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Minna- 919 — 731-2162 \ FAX- 919 — 7. 3-0133 \ Inrcuner• ww•w clfr smtz nc u;

5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill,
exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on our
forestland be considered during the planning process.
cc: Mike Thompson

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ` }
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
C h.tirlcs R. Fullwood, Executive Director
t t 1; L. Gail Grimes, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Frivironmental Analysis 11ranch, NCDOT
OT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
llahitat ConscrvaLlOn Program, NC WRC:
i );1"I'1 September 5, 2001
1t TJEC'T: Review of NCDOT request liar cOntrttcnts for proposed improvements to
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1 153 in McDowell
County. State Project No. 6,899002T, TTP No. R-2S97.
North Carolina Dcpartment of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments
from the North Carolina Wildlife resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to
fish and wildlife resources resulting Cram the subject project. Staff biologists have
rcvicwcd the int6rination provided and have the roilowing preliminary comments. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of -the National Fnvironmcntal
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661.667d).
The. NCDOT proposes to widen a l 5-mile portion of US 221 ti•otn two to lbur
lanes, same realignment may be needed. The project will likely include replacement of
the Second Broad River bridge.
The N("WTZC' his no specific concerns at this tine regarding this project.
1 lowever, to help lacilitatc document preparation and the review process, Our gencral
information needs are outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife. resources within the project area, including a.
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species_ Potential borrow areas to he used for project construction should IX
included in the inventories. A listing oNcsignated plarit species can he
developed through consultation with the fallowing programs_

SEP-0b-02. 02:90 PM QUALITY CHILD CARE
11 ' 221
Rutherford & McDowell Counties 2
and,
704+4254-U121
The Natural IlcritLige Program
N. C. Division of Parks and 17ecreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
NCUA Plant Conservation Program
P. Q, Rtix 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. if applicable,
include the linear fcct of stream that wily be channelized or rclocatcd,
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland
acreage should include all project -related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project. construction.
Wetland identification nuay be accomplished through coordination with the U. S.
Army Corps of'Erigincers (USAGE). I1'the USACE is not consulted, the Nrson
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteriu listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed. project, Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Shaw the extent to which the Project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan ror avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct
and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative fosses,
7. Address the ovgra11 environnicnial effects of the project construction and quantify
the contribution of this individual project to envirowncntal degradation.
8. Providt. a- discussion of the probably; itnp:tots on natural resources, which will
result from secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. Provide details ortittfrni water treatment in the project area.
10. Provide details of bridge demolition techniques to be used. We prefer demolition
techniques that are non -shattering and prevent debris from tieing dropped into TbQ
water.
]I. if construction of this facility is to be coordinated winh other state, municipal or
private development projects, a description of thew projects should be included in
the environtt}ental document, and all project sponsors should he identified.
r' b .s

SEP 05-02 02:31 PM QUALITY CHILD CARE
U S 221
Rutherford McDowell Counties 3
r04+47j=) -25 1.4 1
1'hn� you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning singes of this
project. If YOU have any questions regarding theso comments, please contact me at (704)
4fii-2384,
CC: Cynthia Van Der Wicle, D WQ
man lla Buncick, USFWS

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum
To:
Attn:
From:
State Project:
F/A Project:
County:
Description:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
September 10, 2002
L. Gail Grimes, PE, Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
John Wadsworth, PE
Bryan L. Edwards, PE, Project Engineer.
Rail Division
6.899002T (R-2597)
N/A
Rutherford / McDowell
Widening of 15-mile portion of US 221 from two to four lanes from
SR 1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County
Subject: Response to Scoping Request Letter
The Rail Division has reviewed the information provided and has determined that rail
interaction can be expected on this project. Below are our comments:
The proposed project calls for widening of US 221 from two lanes to a four -lane,
possibly divided, facility. There are two railroad lines that run parallel and adjacent to
US 221. The line that runs closest to US 221 is owned by Norfolk Southern Railway
(NS) and is currently out of service and may abandoned. Our records indicate that
NS currently owns 100' of right-of-way for this track, centered about the centerline of the
track. Based upon the project scoping map, it appears that the widening of US 221 in
some locations could encroach upon this right-of-way. The Rail Division recommends
that DOH contact NS to confirm the status of this track and to determine if highway
widening encroachments will be allowed on their right-of-way.
The second track which parallels US 221 on this project is the CSX Transportation
(CSXT) Z-line which is active and is used as a heavy tonnage mainline. The Z-line
approaches US 221 near the northernmost crossing of the Second Broad River
(Milepost Z-227.5) and runs southward paralleling US 221 before turning away near
Thermal City (Milepost Z-233.0). The CSXT right-of-way varies from 100' to 200'
through the project limits. We recommend that CSXT be contacted prior to the
preliminary design phase to inform them of this potential project. If it is determined that
MAILING ADDRESS:
RAIL DIVISION
ENGINEERING & SAFETY BRANCH
1556 MSC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1556
TELEPHONE[phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. www bytrain.org
LOCATION:
CAPITAL YARD
862 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH. NC 27603

widening of US 221 would encroach upon CSXT right-of-way, we recommend relocating
US 221 away from the railroad by the amount necessary to remove the encroachment.
Also, both NS and CSXT should be contacted to determine the presence and location of
train control signals and fiber optic cables within the project limits.
Thank you for your assistance in notifying the Rail Division of this project. If we can be
of further assistance, please contact me at [phone].
BILE
Cc: File

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY PO BOX 3279, ASHEVILLE, NC 28802 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY"
September 7, 2002
Project Number: 6.899002T
TIP Number: R-2597
Counties: McDowell -Rutherford
"Widen US 221 to Multi -Lanes from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
SR 1153 in McDowell County"
MEMORANDUM TO: Gail Grimes, PE
PD & EA Branch
FROM: M. R. Phillips, PE , /L P
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Improvements to US 221
Division 13 has the following comments on this project:
1. We agree that a four -lane divided section with a 46-foot median is desirable.
2. The existing road should be used as much as possible for two lanes of the proposed
four -lane divided section. This would make traffic control easier as well as being more
cost effective. At other locations, the best -fit alternate should be used.
3: Replacement of the Bridge 17 over the Second Broad River (Tip #B-3673) should be
be combined with this project.
4. Control of access was not mentioned. Partial control is probably the most feasible.
5. The Division Environmental Officer looked over the project and did not identify any
critical environmental issues.
6. Bridge demolition should be according to best practices. The existing superstructure
should not be dropped into the river during demolition.

i LUI II I I ICI III
Subject: R-2597 Scoping Comments
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:44:02 -0400
From: "Nya K. Boayue PE" <nkboayue@dot. state. nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: John Wadsworth <[e-mail]>
CC: "Jay A. Bennett PE" <jbennett@dot. state. nc.us> ,
"Ted S. Walls" <tswalIs@dot. state. nc.us>
We (Roadway Design) have reviewed the information sent requesting
scoping comments for the subject project. We do not have any
comments at this time.
Thanks
1 of 1 9/6/02 7:57 AM

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 29, 2002
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
COUNTY: McDowell/Rutherford
STATE PROJECT#: 6.899002T
I.D. #: R-2597
DESCRIPTION: US 221 from SR1536 in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County
MEMORANDUM TO: L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Manage:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Robert L. Haskett, Jr. �l
Senior Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Comments on the above -referenced project_
A survey of the above -referenced project improvement was made on August 28, 2002, in reference to your"_
memorandum, dated July 29, 2002, to Mr. John B. Williamson, Jr., Right of Way Branch Manager. The
following possible areas of concern were noted (beginning in Rutherford County at SR 1536 and then'
proceeding North into McDowell County):
Gold Hill Missionary Baptist Church (just across US 221 from SR 1535) may sustain considerable
proximity damage from project.
There is a Phillips 66 gasoline station just North of Oak Springs Road.
There is a large lumber mill fronting on US 221 North of its intersection with SR 1527. Depending on
the proposed alignment, there could be quite significant damages to this site due to loss of storage
areas, changes in access, and loss of available one story frame office building.
Gilkey Baptist Church (at intersection of US 221 and SR 1362) may suffer severe damages due to
proximity and loss of available parking.
There is a large radio transmitter tower located very near to US 221, just North of SR 1325.
In McDowell County, Vein Mountain Baptist Church could suffer substantial damages due to proximity
and possible loss of parking. Also, the church cemetery is located to the South of the church parking
area and, depending on the alignment, could possibly be affected.
Heather Grove Gold and Gem, North of the intersection with SR 1781, would appear to be required to
relocate (depending on alignment).

Page 2
Arrowood's Garage (at Spooky Hollow Road) may suffer considerable damages due to proximity and
loss of parking.
Glenwood Independent Baptist Church, just past SR 1135, could suffer substantial damages due to
loss of parking areas and proximity to church building.
Davis Heavy Truck Repair, just North of SR 1150, possible loss of parking and proximity.
Glenwood Garage, just past SR 1152, could suffer damages due to loss of parking and proximity.
There is an Exxon gasoline station located between SR 1152 and SR 1153.
Depending upon the alignment, there will be several residential and business relocatees due to this
project.
There are several large metal utility transmission towers that may be required to be relocated due to
the project.
Also, there may be the possibility of soil contamination from UST's and chemicals at the numerous
garages and gasoline stations that were noted on the proposed project.
If additional information is needed, please feel free to contact this office at [phone].
RLH,Jr./cyg
cc: David M. Bailey, Assistant State Right of Way Agent
Mr. Joe Thompson, Area Negotiator
File
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY
79 TURTLE CREEK DRIVE
ASHEVILLE, NC 28803
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NG.US

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICI IAEL F. EASLEY RIGHT OF WAY BRANCI-{ LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR 1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH N C 27699-1546 SECRETARY
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
September 10, 2002
STATE PROJECT: 6.899002T (R-2597)
F. A. PROJECT: N/A
COUNTY: McDowell
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. L. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Asst. Manager
Project Development Environmental Analysis Branch
ATTN: Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E.
FROM: Mr. Aydren D. Flowers
State Utility Agent
BY: .P
Robert Memory
Asst. State Utility Agent
SUBJECT: Utility Conflicts — Comments for the Proposed Improvements to
US 221 from SR 1536'in Rutherford County to SR 1153 in
McDowell County.
This memorandum is in regards to utility relocations due to the above -mentioned project
and the potential environmental impacts to the project.
A field review was not conducted by this office to determine the type of utilities and
possible impact regarding utility conflicts. My understanding of this situation is that US
221 is being studied to widen from an existing two-lane roadway to four -lanes.
Pursuant to your request, the worst case scenario concerning utility relocations and the
possible environmental impact would deal with aerial power facilities (distribution lines)
located parallel to the highway rights of way. By widening the existing roadway, the
utility poles would be relocated in order to accommodate for the proposed construction.

Ms. r . Gail Grimes, P.E.
September 10, 2002
Page
The Department's responsibility in coordinating the relocation of utilities is to establish a
new location for setting their facilities in order to clear the proposed highway
construction and the highway clear recovery area (clear zone). In order to meet the
minimum specifications, the possible locations of the relocated poles would place them
one (1) foot inside the State's highway rights of way, back of the proposed ditch, or a
minimum of six (6') feet back of proposed curbs. These minimum specifications as noted
above does not always meet the NCDOT criteria in establishing a clear zone. Once the
new pole alignment is established, the power company would still need an additional
fifteen (15') feet of clearing to the back side of their facilities opposite from the roadway.
Due to the terrain in this area, the utility company setting poles could be limited on pole
placement in order to maintain a safe clear zone for the traveling public.
From an environmental impact view concerning the relocation of utilities for hignway
construction, the relocation of power distribution lines could require an additional fifteen
(15') feet of clearing outside the State highway rights of way. However, in order io
accommodate the relocation of power transmission, lines, large pipelines, proposed
highway structures and detours, additional clearing beyond fifteen (15') outside the State
right of way might be needed.
On this particular project, the utility companies located in this area would most likely
attempt to relocate their facilities on the same side of the project they presently maintain.
The relocated distribution line would be aerial since the cost to bury is not feasible or
practical due to operational maintenance problems. Utilities crossing this project
perpendicular should have little or no impact concerning environmental issues.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone],
Ext. 362.
ADF:RM:cam
(mr-2597)

McDOWELL COUNTY
�M EMERGENCY SERVICES
60 East Court Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 828-652-3982
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
August 2. 2002
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Assistant Mana�.er
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Centel
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Re: Comments. State Project No. 6.899002T TIP Project R-2597 US 221 from SR 1536 7
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell Count;
Dear Ms. Grimes:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project.
Although there will be a need for bridge replacement and slowing of traffic in completing this
project, please be advised that alternate routes are available for emergency response to citizens within
the area.
McDowell County Emergency Service will be happy to cooperate with your agency during
all periods of the project.
Should you need further information, please feel free to call this office.
Respectfully,
Carroll W. Hemphill, Director
C WH/ml
cc: Charles R. Abernathy, Jr.

MCDOWELL COUNTY
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
October 1, 2003
EMERGENCY SERVICES
60 East Court Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752
828-652-3982
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Mr. John Wadesorth, PE
NCDOT —Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Improvements to US 221 from Old US221 (SR1536) to US221-NC226
Rutherford and McDowell County
TIP Project R-2597 and R-204 D & E
COMMENTS
Safety Issues / Project Design:
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Thinking about "safety issues" associated with emergency response of vehicles, EMS /
Fire / Rescue / Law Enforcement we believe it to be in the best interest of everyone that
the highway be of a five lane type with curb and guttering. Should a five lane highway
not be financially feasible for the entire project, that at least a five lane highway be
constructed from the Mud Cut Road (SRI 135) Intersection North to the tie in at the 221
North (Marion By -Pass). We believe that a five lane highway would be safer and allow
emergency vehicles to reach their designation quickly and in a safe manner.
That special considerations of design be given not only to the highway travel lanes, but
special consideration to the design of intersection and their sight distances. This is
extremely important being that the present posted speed is an open highway 55 MPH.
There are several very dangerous intersections on Highway 221 South. They include:
Mud Cut Road intersection, Firehouse Way Intersection, Goose Creek Road intersection,
Ashworth Road Intersection, Old 221 South intersection just south of I-40 and many rear
end type collisions at 221 South and its intersection with (I-40). We believe that
accidents records will reveal many accidents at these intersections. Most all these
intersections are travel routes for not only emergency vehicles but also school busses.
Consideration could be given to some of these intersection be signaled controlled.
We also would encourage that the Glenwood / Chapel Hill Communities be allowed
public information sessions not only for the purpose of allowing public input but also for
the citizens to be kept abreast of project progress. This office would be happy to
coordinate these meetings by securing facilities.

Please feel free to call this office at any time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Respectfully,
Carroll W. Hemphill, Director
CC: County Manager
Grayson England

cz-
2250 US Hwy 221 North Rutherfordton, North Carolina 2E
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Mr. John C. Wadsworth, P.E.
State of NC
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1548
Dear John,
Thank you so much for taking the time to visit our company yesterday. Your attention to
our concerns of the widening of US Hwy 221 is greatly appreciated.
Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc, was founded in 1953 by my father, Jess Parton and has been in
operation in the some location since that time.. We are a hardwood mill that currently
produces 15 million feet. of lumber a year, We have an employee base of approximately 60
and a gross annual payroll of $2.02 million. We pay approximately $40,000 annually in
property tax and with our new expansion expect the bill to'increase substantially.
Expansion for Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc. has been a problem over the years. The company is
located with Hwy 221 on the west and railroad tracks on the east side. About 15 years ago
the railroad was abandoned and we were able to purchase land on the north end across the
tracks. At that time, we were able to complete a major expansion with our company on the
property.
Another problem. Gilkey Lumber Co., Inc. has experienced over the years is that there is no
publicwater in. the Gilkey Community. Gilkey Lumber has worked for over to years to get a
water line to the community.
About 4 years ago we purchased a 6,500-gallon stainless steel tanker to haul water in order
to have enough water to supply our boiler which supplies steam to the dry kilns.
Just this past year a water line is in the process of being laid that will enable us to expand
our dry kilns.

State of NC Department of Transportation
Page - 2
We have 3 air drying sheds that hold approximately 2.3 million feet of lumber. By looking at
your map where the new road expansion would be the construction would take one of our air-
dry sheds. There is no way that we can operate our dry kilns on just 2 air -drying sheds.
The loss of a dry shed would be a great detriment, but the most injurious result would be all
expansion of Gilkey Lumber would halt.
But the most important loss of land would be our log yard. As we showed you yesterday we
have a concrete pad that measures 200' x 225', 10" to 12" deep with double layered rebor
and stores 1,25 million feet of logs for winter inventory. The logs are sprinkled with water
during summer months to hold logs and without the added moisture the logs would be ruined.
By your estimate we would lose approximately 60% of the concrete pad used for storage.
We would lose the re -circulating pond below the concrete pad that we use to sprinkle logs.
We are permitted through NC DEHNR to operate these re -circulating ponds. As you saw
when we toured the log yard there is no room to expand or relocate the log yard and pond.
On September 7, 2001, I came to Raleigh to meet with Jimmy Norris, Roadway Project
Engineer. In our meeting we discussed future widening of Hwy 221 and the expansion plans
that we had for Gilkey Lumber. Phase 1 of our expansion plans was to add $3.85 million
addition to current mill operations. Mr. Norris advised me to go ahead with expansion.
Because of possible widening of Hwy 221, we rerouted the mill layout to the backside or
east side of our existing mill. We are currently implementing our initial start up of Phase 1.
Phase 2 of our plans was to add 2 dry kilns in 2004-2005 and also add a 4fh air drying shed.
This phase would cost our company approximately $2 million and would result in increased.
production of 30-35% and increase our labor base.
With the current plan for the widening of Hwy 221 Gilkey Lumber would lose 1 air-dry shed,
60% of our log yard and the re -circulating pond that supports the log _yard . These losses
would put the lumber company out of business directly impacting 60 employees and their
families and approximately 48 loggers who employ 2-8 man crews, which supply us with our
inventory. At this time, Rutherford County has the highest rate of unemployment in the
state and the loss of Gilkey Lumber Co. would only acerbate the situation.
In addition to the loss of the lumber company the local service center would also be out of
business - which would impact even more families and the community as a whole.
There are currently 4 houses located across Hwy 221 from Gilkey Lumber along with the
church on the corner. Two of the houses have been unoccupied for 15 years or more - the
other two are older homes. The church has indicated that they would like to move. Sitting
so close to the Hwy doesn't afford them much room for their children to safely play and
with the widening, their safety is even more of a concern.

State of NC Department of. Transportation
Page - 3
We respectfully request that you alter the widening plans to move land acquisitions on the
west side of the highway and allow the ownership of the land on the east side to remain with
Gilkey Lumber Co.
Sincerely,
Mike Parton,
Secretary
Cc: Charles Hill, Chairman County Commissioners
Brent Washburn, County Commissioner
John Condrey, County Manager

2250 US Hwy 221 North Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
Telephone: [phone] , Fax: [phone]Mt
Mr. Joseph Quboin
State of NC
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service center
Raleigh NC 7.7699-1548
Dear Sir,
When I originally went to Raleigh in 2001 and met with Mr. Norris, he said to go ahead with any expansions we
wanted to start, This letter is to let you know of those expansions that we have completed,
Since 2004, we have made additions and changes of $1 million plus in new equipment for the sawmill and have
upgraded all of our optimization systems,
We have added a 41" air drying shed located at the edge of 221, at approximately $150,000.00 for a total of storage
capacity of 3 million feet of air dried lumber as opposed to the 2.3 million we had previously.
We have also added a new dry shed for storage of our dry lumber at an approximate cost of $150,000.00-
We have just completed a new pre -dryer system with an approximate cost of $1.3 million, to boost the production
of our hardwood lumber, This system is located Just east of 221 below the new air shed. It will pre -dry 500,000
feet of lumber at a time.
We have succeeded in Installing new water lines to supply steam for our boiler systern.
We are now producing 20 million plus feet of lumber annually, and our payroll is now approximately $2,9 million
annually.
We still respectfully request that you alter the widening plans to move land acquisitions to the west side of the
highway, so that we may continue to support our county with jobs, taxes and other revenues.
Sincerely,
Mike Parton
Secretary

APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
TIP Project R-204D&E

HOU-12-2003 14:26 USACE WILMINGTON
November 6, 2003
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in
McDowell County, State Project Nos. 6.899002T and 6.879005T, TIP Projects R-2597
and R-204 D&E"
1.
Based on the furnished map and a review of panels 2 and 5 of the September 1978
Rutherford County Flood Hazard Boundary Map (converted to a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or
FIRM, dated 6/1/1987), the roadway crosses Stoney, Catheys, and Hollands Creeks. These
streams have 100-year flood plains shown, but the flood elevations are not precisely known.
From a review of panel 175 of the July 1988 McDowell County North Carolina and Incorporated
Areas FIRM, the road crosses North Muddy Creek, Goose Creek, and Second Broad River,
streams for which the 100-year flood plain is mapped but also for which flood elevations are not
precisely known. We recommend coordination with the respective counties to ensure
compliance with their flood plain and other pertinent ordinances.
2- WATERS AND WETLANDS; POC — Mr. Steve Lund Asheville Field Office, Regulatory
Division at 828 271-7980 Extension 4
Our Regulatory Division has made comments on this project through the NEPA/404 merger
process, and we have no additional comments at this time. Should you have any questions
related to DA permits, please contact Mr. Lund.
TOTAL P.e3

5TA7Ev
ww
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
January 25, 2002
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 02-E-4220-0266; Scoping Proposed Construction of a Multi -Lane Widening from the
US 221-NC 226 Split to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd.) TIP 4R-204D and E, Div. 13
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone]
Attachments
cc: Region C
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppoiiunity / Affirmative Action Employer

Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
4y[i1F
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
02-E-0266 Scoping Widening of US 221, McDowell County
January 24, 2002
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

?��rth Carolina. Departmezzt of
3&3WW1roa2XXeat $.acl Natnz-al Res®urcer�
Disrisioa of l5031 and water Coaser�aiio�
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
_ern
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM: December 13, 2001
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David HarrisonGf
SUBJECT: Proposed Multi -Lane Widening from the US 221-NC 226 Split to SR 1153
(Goose Creek Road) (McDowell County). Project number 02E-0266.
The environmental assessment should include information on adverse 'impacts to Prime
or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
1Esg.466 MMsU Gerstic� Geaz4ar, Rsles�Y�, �i®rt�n max-®Iaaaa 27�a�-163
gan4��+et: zsr�rsar.eanr_�ate_zac_us/�1rTR/D8�4FE✓/
- F N EC��3"Ai. ®P7P®g:2�TNZ�Y \ 1�6P'FIR�TIYE AC'F'ION �11I�Z.pFER
SO % �_ECYCZZ.ES3 / 1¢Aa.6 P®6�` CCDME;XTIffiER X-A.P-Eg2 -

� I 'T a
NCDENR
North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
hlicliael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina
FOREST Division of Forest Resources
SERVICE
N C Stanford N V p ct r
2411 Old �S'1U esi
Clayton, NC 27520
December 18, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs i
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT DOT scoping for the proposed widening of US 221 from the NC 226 to SR 1153
PROJECT #: 02-0266 & TIP # R-204D&E
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document
and offer the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to
woodlands.
Woodlands may be impacted by the project. To evaluate the scope and significance of the
impacts to forest resources we need the total forest land acreage by timber type removed or taken
out of forest production as a result of the project. Age of the stands, height, diameters, and
stocking levels would be helpful. Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts
to woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• .Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
• Urban woodlands
2. To evaluate the permanent loss of potential productivity, a listing of the forest's site quality
index based on the soil series should be provided. This information is provide in the Soil Survey
for McDowell County or can be calculated by on -site measurement.
3. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a
tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped
fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
Typically NCDOT leaves disposal of wood products up to the contractor. We feel this policy
results in needless waste of a valuable natural resource and that specific contract provision
requiring clearing contractors to utilize timber products should be adopted.
1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone- 9) 9 — 733-2162 \ FAX 919 — 733-0139 \ fnternet• www dfr Mate nc us

4. If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of
open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. McDowell County is a
non -high hazard county, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside
the right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy
equipment. Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding
layers of fill, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
6. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the document and look forward to future
correspondence. We encourage efforts that avoid or minimize impacts to forest resources during the
final planning of this project.
cc: Warren Boyette

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES Z22 L 2,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County,
/ = W _W_
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name &L 007-` 5-2 2 1 Type of Project
❑ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
❑ 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 shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
❑ 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.
sep.). 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 contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
❑ For Regional and Central Office comments, seethe reverse side of this form.
j Reviewer Section/Branch ! Date

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
- NATURAL RESOURCES 612- Z
-DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
%5
Project Name AM'! Z)D% J�r , '`� Type of Project
Comments provided by:
❑ Regional Program Person NC Dept. of Envfronmer,t
& Natural resources
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section Asheville Regional Office
❑ Central Office program person DEC 14
2001
Name: V':�c K —'.v 0 Date: _ / 2 Jg
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
56 Public Water Supply
❑ Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
No objection to project as proposed
❑ No comment`
4
❑ Insufficient information to complete review
❑ Comments attached '
ElSee comments below !PPLY.
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
forthe
Division of Environmental Health

ARAState of North Carolina Reviewing Office
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR perm is) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)'..
Ll
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
not discharging into state surface waters.
(90 days)
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface
conference usual.Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
-
90-120 days
waters.
facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
(N/A)
of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
Y
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
N/A
(2Q.0100, 20.0300, 2H.0600)
60 days
LI
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
N/A
60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
(90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
n
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation.
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quaiity Section) at least 30
20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
(30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greaterthan
30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
(60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
❑
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
On -site inspection by N.C.Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five
in coastal N.C..with organic soils.
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
1 day
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
(N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90- 120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
i
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
(60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompanythe application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage orthe total project cost will be required upon completion.

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal PcocessTime
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
10 days
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
(N/A)
to DENR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
10 days
by letter. No standard application form.
(N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
(N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application
60 days
0 30 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Asheville Regional Office ❑ Mooresville Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office
?� 59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Raleigh Regional Office 0 Winston-Salem Regional .Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]

w A 7� Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q . 9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\0 pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Cq Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
1 Acting Director
O Division of Water Quality,,,
November 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
r.r.; I1
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Domey, NC Division of Water Qual `LUG
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NC DOT Coor ator c�Jd,-J
26
Subject: Scoping comments for Widening of US 221 from intersection of US 221-NC 226 to
SR 1153 near Marion, McDowell County, State Project 6.879005T, TIP Project R-
204 D and E.
This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated 29 October 2001, in which you requested
Scoping comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed project will impact North Muddy Creek and Youngs Fork (stream indices 11-32-1 and 11-
32-1-4 respectively, subbasin 030830), and carries a stream classification of "C".
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for
the proposed project:
A. If an environmental document will be prepared for this project, it should provide a detailed and
itemized presentation of the proposed project's impacts to wetlands and streams with
corresponding mapping as well as the cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result
of this project (the road is listed as a rural principle arterial, so development impacts are
reasonably foreseeable).
B. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it should
be countersunk one foot, or to the maximum extent practicable, in order to allow unimpeded
fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing.
C. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will
be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Maryellen Haggard, NCWRC
File Copy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

12/20/2001 04:42
336-527-154B NC WILDLIFE RES COMM
PAGE 02
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comn i.ssion
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Direcrar
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Proje C ! rdinat r
Habitat Conservation Program G
DATE: December 20, 2001
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Deparftnent of Transportation (NCDOT)
regarding fish and wildlife concerns for improvements to US 221, from the US 221-NC 226 split
to- SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd.), McDowell County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-204D and E,
State Project No. 6.879005T, 02E-0266
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the NCDOT
for our Concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject
project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCVVRC) have
reviewed the proposed improvements. Our conunents are provided in accordance with certain
prOvisiOm of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project will potentially impact Muddy Creek. NC WRC fishery biologists
in the area have been working on an initiative for several years to minimize the sediment input
from the Muddy Creek watershed to the Catawba. River tailrace below Lake James. Therefore,
we are particularly concerned with erosion control measures and in -strew structure design in the
project area. Otherwise, tQ help facilitate document preparation and the review process, we
request that the following information be provided::
I . Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. .A.. listing of designated plant Species cast be
developed through consultation with the following programs:
Milling Addt-c6s: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Ccnter - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] exe_ 281 a Fast: [phone]

1212012001 04:42 336-527-1540 NC WILDLIFE RES COMM PAGE 03
and,
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Packs and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N_ C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include
the linear feet of stream -that will be channelized or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland
acreage should include all pro jest -related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction,.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through, coordination with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), If the COE is not consulted, the person
delineating wetland$ should be xtiertti ed axed criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the Mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of highway construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result
from secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal-, or
private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in
the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: LrSFWS, Asheville

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
January 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM
JAN 1 5 2002
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT, Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook r f.'U__
SUBJECT: Widening US 22 from US 221-226 to SR 1153, R-204D&E,
McDowell County, ER 02-8048
Thank you for your letter of October 29, 2001, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Because the architectural survey for the area of potential effect is more than ten years old, we
recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years old and report the findings to us.
There are no known -recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
archaeological resources.
Significant late prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified in the region surrounding the
proposed project. Based on the topographic and hydrological situation of the project area, there is a
high probability for the presence of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in
advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] .715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

Page 2
William D. Gilmore
J anuar- ,, 10, 2002
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, contact Renee Gledhill -Carley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE PROJECT:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
November 2001
6.879005T (R-204 D & E)
McDowell
Widen US-221 From US-221/ NC-226 Interchange to SR-1153
Geotechnical Scoping of Project
Colista S. Freeman - Project Development Engineer
W.D.Frye - Asheville Area Geotechnical Unit
I reviewed this proposed project on November 8 and have the following comments. It
appears from the map provided by you that US-221 will be widened from the interchange
with NC-226 south to SR-1153. It also appears NC-226 will be widened from the same
intersection to some point south of I-40. I looked at both sections concentrating on
US-221.
On existing US-221 south of the NC-226 intersection to I-40 the area can be described as
lightly residential. Probably two-thirds of this section will involve low cuts and fills. Cut
sections are generally less than 20 feet in height, one may approach 40 feet (adjacent to a
cemetery near the beginning of the project), and all appear to be on a 1:1 cut angle in soil.
The existing fills are in good condition. I don't expect any stability problem at the fill
toes if we widen them. I saw hard rock in only two areas in the existing cuts. Quantities
are negligible.
South of the Interstate, beyond the commercially developed interchange, the area is
mostly rural with nothing much along the existing highway. Some of the cut sections are
fairly long and may reach 30 to 50 feet in height. All are on a 1:1 slope angle in soil.
Several areas show badly eroded pockets that may extend 10 feet or more into the face of
the cut. I think these are erosional and not 'pop out' type slides. I also feel this is an
indication these cuts are on a much steeper angle than they should be and future slopes
should be much flatter. A couple of the fill sections in this interval may be 40 to 60 feet
in height. They appear to be in good shape at the existing road grade. However, I didn't
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT BUILDING B
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1589 RALEIGH NC 27610

actually look at the slopes themselves. There should be no problems adding additional
fill for a wider typical section.
I only saw one possible old gas station. This is now a real estate business located at the
southeast quadrant of the existing interchange with I-40, directly beside the acceleration
ramp.
NC-226 is a little more residential than US-221. There are a few more businesses located
near the US-221 interchange and also near the intersection with I-40. Relief is less,
making for low cut and fill sections. I did locate three possible old gas stations that need
to be more closely scrutinized.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 828-
298-3874.

�rM
STME
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 28, 2002
Memorandum
To: Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attn: Ms. Colista S. Freeman
From: Arthur H. Petteway, PE, Senior Project Engineer
Rail Division
State Project: 6.879005T(R-0204 D & E)
F/A Project: N/A
County: McDowell
Description: Widening of US 221 from intersection of US 221-NC 226 to SR
1153 near Marion
Subject: Review of Scoping Sheets
Your memorandum dated October 29, 2001 transmitted for our review scoping sheets
for the above -mentioned project. After reviewing the information, our office finds no rail
interaction anticipated on this project.
Thank you for your continued assistance in notifying the Rail Division of these upcoming
projects.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at [phone].
AH P/J KR
Cc: James B. Harris, PE
MAILING ADDRESS:
RAIL DIVISION
ENGINEERING & SAFETY BRANCH
1556 MSC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1556
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: www.bytrain.org
LOCATION:
CAPITAL YARD
862 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH, NC 27603

� «a
- ' R1�1-IT OF Wv , L�rtMANAC
:3C
I.J .I -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR T. OF TRAP WOW ATIDN
MICHEAL F. EASLEY LIP�PE�T`
GOVERNOR
January 15, 2001
COUNTY: McDowell
STATE PROJECT* 6.879005T
I.D. #: R-0204D and E
DESCRIPTION: Proposed Multi -Lane Widening from US 221 — NC 226 Split to SR 1153
(Goose Creek Road)
MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Bailey, Assistant State Right of Way7Clc
FROM: Gladys Lance, Division Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding Above Project
This is to advise that I have reviewed the above property on the ground and found the following:
A gas station is located at the far South end of the project, and it appears that a symmetrical widening
of 150 feet would possibly encompass the pumps and maybe destroy the utility of the business.
At the Southeast quadrant of 1-40, there is a gas station, motel, and steak house entrance, and any
right of way acquisition would acquire several of the parking spaces for each of these businesses.
At the Southwest quadrant of I-40 there is a gas station which is closed and a motel entrance and
parking which would be affected.
Located above the Northwest quadrant of 1-40 is a motel entrance and parking which would be
impacted by the project.
In addition there are a few residences which would be acquired and a claim with a church.
It should be noted that Geotech would need to take samples in the vicinity of the gas stations which would be
involved in this project.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
GFL/cyg
cc: File
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIDN
RlcrrTOF WAY
79 TURTLE CREEK DRIVE
ASFEVILLE, NC 28803
TELEPFK) E: 828-274-8435
FAX: [phone]
ftssrIE: www.DDH.DOT.sTATE.NC.Us

CITY OF MARION
P.O. Drawer 700
Marion, North Carolina 28752
November 2, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental .Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I have attached the comments of the City of Marion related to the project scoping sheets
for the widening of U.S. 221 from the intersection of U.S. 221-N.C. 226 to SR 1153
south of Marion. Our comments involve suggestions for the inclusion of landscaping at
the interchange of U.S. 221 and Interstate 40.
I would be happy to discuss this idea further with you. Please call me at 828-652-3551 if
you have any questions, or if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Bob Boyette
City Manager
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANACE:R
i
i

THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Board of Tran. Member
Roadway
Board of Tran. Member
Structure
Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services
Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical
Chief Engineer-Oper,
Hydraulics
Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys
Construction Branch
Photogrammetry
Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr.
Maintenance Branch
PD&EA
Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way
Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities
Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering
Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management
Program Development
County Manager
FHWA
City/Municipality
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others
Dept. of EH & NR
Others
Others
Scoping 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 BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
�-{„v C,--i1� O�Mar�o/� Wo✓IcI �ro�Us2`+�e Gc�Qcii-i-�aro� %cin�iSG�t��/l�
a--I-he 1 -find
Q���IoiA✓Ice wOti�A IQ �!'Q �l/ en :'lgncp�%..1 S✓c�L_1L! I arld SG��� t1�qS �"l �,s ..-/
�2f1 aD�o 0.'1 o"�:iG✓ 16 Ca�On5114�c rc�-- Lf!!o

CITY OF MARION
P.O. Drawer 700
Marion North Carolina 287S2 OFFICE OF THE
, CITI' MANAGER
December 11, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore; P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
SI 3 E i : i icDoweii County, Proposed Multi -Lane Widening from the US 221-N(.:
226 Split to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road), State Project 6.879005T, TIP
Project No. R-2041) and E, Division 13
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 3, 2001, that asked for assistance in
evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the project listed above. No permits or
approvals will be required by the City of Marion for this project; but I would note that the
City of Marion does have in place water and sewer lines along much of the part of US
221 included in this project. The City of Marion would respectfizll_y request that these
utility lines. be relocated at the expense of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, if such relocation is required, since Marion is a municipality of under
5,000 population.
Please call me at 828-652-3551 if you have any questions, or if you need any additional
information..
Sincerely.
Bob Boyette
City Ntanager

CTI'Y OF MARION
P.O. Drawer 700
OFFICE OF THE
Marion, North Carolina 28752 CITY MANAGER
December 17, 2001
Ms. Colista S. Freeman, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,_ NC 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Comments on Scoping Meeting Minutes for TIP Project No. R-204D and
Dear Ms. Freeman.
I have reviewed the Minutes of Scoping Meeting for TIYr Project Number R-204 D and E
(US 221) and wish to offer the following comments, on behalf of the City of Marion:
The City of Marion has included the widening of i.S 221 Business to a multilane
facility with curb and gutter from the US 221-NC 226 Split to Georgia Avenue in
annual TIP requests for approximately 10 years. This project has not yet made it
to the TIP, but is greatly needed to improve traffic flow along Rutherford Road
(US 221 Business).
2. The City of Marion would recommend the installation of curb and gutter in as
much of the project area as possible. The. area included in TIP Project Number R-
2.04 D and E is well developed, with business and industrial uses, and growth is
expected to continue. Much of this area would seem to be suitable for a curb and
gutter section.
The City of Marion appreciates consideration of our request for landscaping at the
US 221/I-40 Interchange and we look forva►d to discussing this part ofthe
project further with the appropriate NCDOT staff
Please call me at 828-652-3551 if you have any questions, or if you need any additional
information. Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
v Bob Boyettc
City Manage
cc: Mayor/City Council

APPENDIX C
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY

Intersection Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Summary
TIP PROJECT R-2597
Major
North - South
Minor - Stop Controlled
East - West
No -Build
Build
2002
2025
2025
Westbound
Approach LOS
Eastbound
Approach LOS
Westbound
Approach LOS
Eastbound
Approach LOS
Westbound
Approach LOS
Eastbound
Approach LOS
US 221
SR 1366 (Roper Loop Rd.) south intersection
--/--
C/B
--/--
DID
--/--
C/B
US 221
SR 1366 (Roper Loop Rd.) north intersection
--/--
C/B
--/--
DID
--/--
C/B
US 221
SR 1376 (Lane Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
D/C
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
F/F
--/--
C/B
US 221
SR 1532 (Gilboa Church Rd.) north intersection
B/B
--/--
C/C
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1351/SR 1527 (Darlington Rd./Oak Spring Rd.)
C/C
C/C
F/F
F/F
DID
CID
US 221
SR 1362 (Gilkey School Rd.) south intersection
DID
C/B
F/F
F/F
F/F
E/C
US 221
SR 1529 (Lawing Mill Rd.) south intersection
B/B
B/B
CID
C/C
BIC
B/B
US 221
SR 1362 (Gilkey School Rd.) north intersection
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1529 (Lawing Mill Rd.) north intersection
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1508 (Old Union Mills Rd.)
B/B
--/--
C/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1380/1505 (O'Neal Rd./Owens Chapel Rd.)
B/B
B/B
C/C
C/C
B/B
B/B
US 221
SR 1501 (Coney Island Rd.) south intersection
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1325 (Nanne town Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
C/C
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd.)
B/B
--/--
E/D
--/--
C/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1323 (Crutchfield Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1501 (Coney Island Rd.) north intersection
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
C/C
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd.) south intersection
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd.) north intersection
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1786 (Old US 221)
B/B
--/--
C/C
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1150 (Spooky Hollow Rd.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
C/C
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1135 (Mud Cut Rd.)
C/C
C/C
FIE
F/F
C/C
D/F
US 221
SR 1150 (Eplee Ln.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
D/C
--/--
B/B
US 221
SR 1150 (Hunt Ln.)
B/B
--/--
DID
--/--
B/B
--/--
US 221
SR 1152 (Firehouse Way/New Hope Way)
C/C
C/C
F/F
F/F
C/C
C/C
US 221
SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd./Glenwood Baptist Church Rd.)
C/C
C/C
F/F
F/F
D/C
E/F
TIP PROJECT R-204D&E
2002
2030
2030
US 221
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Rd.) north intersection
A/A
A/A
E/B
C/C
D/C
C/C
US 221
SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Rd.) south intersection
C/C
C/C
FIE
E/E
C/C
C/C
US 221
SR 1306 (Rumfelt Dr.)
--/--
B/B
--/--
E/E
--/--
B/B
US 221
I-40 Westbound and Eastbound Ramps
C/C
C/C
E/E
F/F
A*
B*
US 221
SR 1786 (Old US 221) and SR 1318 (Ward Dr.)
B/B
B/B
C/C
E/D
C/C
D/C
US 221
SR 1168 (Ashworth Rd.)
A/A
A/A
BIC
D/C
CID
C/C
Intersection Currently Signalized
US 221 INC 226 C/C E/D C/C
Notes: Analyses assume a median crossover at each unsignalized intersection. The NCDOT-TEB indicated that the use of median left-overs would result in either the same or slightly better levels of service along the US 221 mainline
All level of service results are divided into two parts: AM / PM
Design year build analysis assumes intersection improvements (including additional turn lanes) would occur at various intersections.
--=direction does not exist under given intersection
* =assumed I-40 ramp intersections would be signalized by 2030 or soon thereafter.

APPENDIX D
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
IN THE PROJECT AREA

Soil Associations in the Project Area
The soil associations described below are based on information obtained from the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1995, 2000).
The Evard-Cowee association is comprised of moderately steep or steep, well drained,
micaceous soils located on narrow, winding ridgetops and side slopes. Major soil series
within this association include Evard (59%) and Cowee (11%). These soils are all formed in
material weathered from gneiss and schist. Minor soils (30%) in the association include
Hayesville, Ashe, Chestnut, Edneyville, and Tate.
The Hayesville-Evard association consists of strongly sloping to steep, well -drained soils
that have a predominantly clayey or loamy subsoil. These soils are located on narrow
ridgetops and side slopes and are formed in material weathered from gneiss and schist.
Major soil series within this association include Hayesville (41%) and Evard (38%). Minor
soils (21%) in the association include Iotla, Colvard, Cowee, and Braddock.
The Iotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association consists of nearly level to strongly
sloping, somewhat poorly drained to somewhat excessively drained soils with a
predominantly loamy, clayey, or sandy subsoil, located on nearly level floodplains and
stream terraces. These soils are formed in alluvium. Iotla (31%), Braddock (16%), Rosman
(13%), and Potomac (11%) are the major soils within the association. Minor soils (29%) in
the association include Dillard, Elsinboro, Colvard, Biltmore, and Udifluvents.
The Evard-Cowee-Fannin association is comprised of moderately steep or steep, well
drained soils located on low mountain summits and side slopes. Major soil series within this
association include Evard (58%), Cowee (17%), and Fannin (10%). These soils are all
formed in material weathered from gneiss and schist. Minor soils (15%) in the association
include Greenlee, Tate, Bandana, and Ostin soils.
The Pacolet-Cecil association consists of gently sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well
drained soils that have clayey subsoil, located on summits and side slopes of Piedmont
divides. Major soil series within this association include Pacolet (69%) and Cecil (17%).
Minor soils (14%) in this association include Rion, Chewacla, Appling, and Ashlar soils.
The Madison-Pacolet-Grover association consists of strongly sloping to steep, very deep,
well drained soils that have clayey subsoil, located on summits and side slopes of Piedmont
divides. Major soil series within this association include Madison, (54%), Pacolet (21%) and
Grover (10%). Minor soils (15%) in this association include Cecil, Chewacla, and Hiwassee
soils.

APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CONCURRENCE LETTERS

Federal Aid # TIP # R-2597 County: Rutherford &
McDowell
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford Co. to SR 1153 in McDowell Co.
On Aug. 1, 2006 representatives of
Fq North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
❑ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
M North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
❑ There is an effect on the National Register -listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The prop erty/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative, HPO
LXALYA�A-
State Historic Preservation Officer
I * ZI.IVLP
Date
Date
Date
Date

Federal Aid #
TIP # R-2597 County: Rutherford &
McDowell
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register -listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
G i 16oct-, 0 nifie. W4vJjs� Chvrch tDe) -no e, PCid ftr aJ1
6. 4tASIt hL)Se... (Di) nD C �k& �O r 0.11 oLhYnatives
Vq
&xe illlo^ PAMIL , d Por 5tcHon 65
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
William MbV,+LiM Atose_(DE
- oAvuse- eq-tLf 6r sackbra im. - OU (e_(A I nA pa
a.cUtAse �Of- e,*on 13Z
- Y10
Nbeyi- Wwxtr Fa-rm (De,
- Y%O aAvtruse 644 or OJI aamrabves W 1"rh rht
comyniftwqAt tl-& Wr r-line-
fMPVOVMP_KtS. Lsej:�,zl,)
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
it. MOV14ti4j hL�Se C
DE - Sectior, BZ
betx�� no Y)e-LL) R-ow or ecstme.Afr>
o u-ts i &t bou rx&a b
k4be,Y4 WwoiTarryi (DF,) - odl' &nnolivib- ro a�xftse_
becakrsle,
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA "a
II O f�_

l r, lrr,J Ir.l f ,'I. , IL-'",) - t . ann: I<ulhrr (o ICI)„ -[I
CONCURRENCE FORA FOR PROPERI'il?S NOI' ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Widen US 221 from SR I536 to Interstate 40 CITIZEI, ,
On 02/04/2003, representatives of the RECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) FEB 11 .21U�l
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
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 effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
1- t { 1 (p - 2 7 :1 Z y - 3 5 _ 3T 3 38 is considered not eligible for the National
Register arfd no further evaluation of it fs necessdry.
There are no National Register -listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
Renresentativ _ CD T Date
0
Representative, HPO
State Historic Preservation
a
Ifa survey report is prepared, it linal copy of this form and the attached list will be included

Federal Aid # I # R-204, D, E
County:', _)owell
'URRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Widening of US 221 to multilanes from US 221-NC 226 split to SR 1 153
On February 6, 2002, representatives of the
_2 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
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 effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as (List Attached) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary. 4 It?, 3, L f t 5
There are no National Register -listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project. _
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
R enresentative. NC OT Date
FHWA, for the Division AdminYstrator, or other Federal Agency Date
nn
Representative, HPO Date t
w4
State Historic Preservation Officer Date "
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
April 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
K ,
FROM: David Brook o�
Division of Historical Resources
David J. OLson, Director
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Report, Widen US 221 from the SC
state line to SR 1536 north of Rutherfordton, R=2233 A&B
Rutherford County, ER00-7599
Thank you for your letter of April 2, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P.
Alexander of Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Proposed Boundary Expansion of Main Street Historic District, bounded by North
Main, Carnegie, North Washington, and Fernwood Streets, Rutherfordton, is eligible
for the National Register under Criteria A: Community Planning and Development
and C: Architecture. The district expansion epitomizes a typical pattern of
development for small towns and includes spacious houses and churches designed in
representative architectural styles of the late 19`h to mid 20`h centuries. We concur
with the National Register boundaries for the district expansion as described and
delineated in the survey report.
Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church, east side of U.S. 221 at the junction with SR 2194,
Rutherfordton vicinity, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C.
The property is significant as a religious property that does not represent the
significant patterns of events that shaped the county and is also a rare surviving
example of turn -of -the -twentieth-century, rural church architecture in Rutherford
County. We concur with the National Register boundaries for this property, which
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Servicc Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Scrvice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 7154801

April 25, 2003
Page 2
encompass both the church and contributing cemetery, as described and delineated
in the survey report.
Homer and Berta Sparks House, east side of Railroad Avenue, Rutherfordton, is
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture, as a fine expression
of the twentieth-century Queen Anne style in Rutherfordton. We concur with the
National Register boundaries as for this property as described and delineated in the
survey report.
Robert J. Norris House, Southeast comer of Railroad Avenue and U.S. 64, Ruth, is
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture, as among the finest
late 19" century dwellings in the area and is a well-preserved expression of the
traditional two story, single pile house in Rutherford County. We concur with the
National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the survey report.
Ruth Elementary School, south side of U.S. 64, 0.2 mile east of junction with U.S.
221, Ruth, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A: Education and C:
Architecture. The school is representative of the school consolidation movement
and is fine example of 1920s scholastic architecture in the county. We concur with
the National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the survey report.
Gilboa United Methodist Church, east side of SR 1532, 0.3 mile south of junction
with SR 1533,, Rutherfordton vicinity, is eligible for the National Register under
Criterion C: Architecture. The church is a well-preserved and rare surviving example
of a late nineteenth century, rural church in the county. We concur with the National
Register boundaries, which 'include both the church and cemetery, as described and
delineated in the survey report.
Washington Geer House, north side of U.S. 64 at the junction with SR 1539,
Rutherfordton vicinity is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C:
Architecture. The house is a rare local example of the two-story, single pile house
type with an engaged double piazza, strongly suggesting the low country influence on
architectural design in the region. We concur with the National Register boundaries
as described and delineated in the survey report.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places: I
Nos. 2-6; 8-13; 15-16; 18-37; 39-54; 56-82; 84-119; 121-145.
The Rutherfordton-Spindale Central High School and the Main Street Historic District,
Rutherfordton, are currently fisted in the National Register.

April 25, 2003
Page 3
Please remove the Gilboa Methodist Church (No. 38) *inventory entry from Appendix A.
This can be achieved with a replacement page.
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, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: V / Mary Pope Furr
Frances P. Alexander, Mattson, Alexander and Associates. Inc.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
GEI VFO
JU14 3 2003
V10ryJAYS
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM:, David Brook
SUBJECT: Historic/Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen US 221 from
SR 1536 in Rutherford County to I-40 in McDowell County, R-2597,
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, CH02-10510
Thank you for your letter of April 29, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P.
Alexander of Mattson, Alexander and Associates.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
William Monteith House, Gilkey, Rutherford County
Albert Weaver Farm, Thermal City, Rutherford County
B. G. Hensley House, Glenwood vicinity, McDowell County
The William Monteith House, west side of US 221, 0.1 mile north of SR 1351, Gilkey,
Rutherford County, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture.
The Monteith House is an especially fine expression of the Queen Anne style in Rutherford
County. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and
delineated in the report.
The Albert Weaver Farm, west side of SR 1321, 0.1 mile west of US 221, Thermal City,
Rutherford County, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for agriculture and
Criterion C for architecture. The farmhouse and its collection of intact and in -place
outbuildings and pristine fields neatly illustrates the middling, cash crop farmsteads that
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location flailing Addreas TelephonefFaa
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Sled Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 (919) 7334763 • 733-9653
RESTORATION 515 N. Mount St., Raleigh NC 4613 flail Smicc Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] .7154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St_ Raleigh VC 4618 flail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] . 7154801

May 23, 2003
Page 2
developed along the Second Broad River area during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. In addition, the T-Plan house is a fine example of the nationally popular designs
that gradually characterized larger farmsteads in the area with the arrival of the railroad and
commercial farming. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as
described and delineated in the report.
The B. G. Hensley House, east side of US 2210.3 mile south of SR 1318 and 0.1 mile down
an unpaved lane, Glenwood vicinity, McDowell County, is eligible for the National Register
under Criterion C for architecture. The house is a notable variation of the traditional two-
story single pile form in western North Carolina. We concur with the proposed National
Register boundaries as described and delineated in the survey report.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places:
1-4; 6-22; 24-35; and 37.
We would also like to reiterate that our previous findings still stand in the Historical
Architectural Resources Report, Widen US 221 from South Carolina state line to SR 1536
north of Rutherfordton, R-2233 A&B. In addition, we would like to request an addendum to
the R-2233 A&B report. We request a full evaluation of Gilbert Town, placed on the North
Carolina Study List in 2001, and surveyed by the National Park Service Battlefield Protection
Program. The Gilbert Town study area boundary is in the vicinity of this project area. The
project has the potential to impact this historic landscape.
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, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Frances P. Alexander, Mattson, Alexander and Associates

07/10/2007 14:41 FAX
16002/004
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation office
Peter B. Sandbeek, Adminieteator
Michael F. fiH51cy, C+OV=Or
Liebeth C. Evans, secrewy
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy secretary
June 26, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Division of FLghways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
OMOC of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, I)irettor
FROM: Peter Sandbeck PQ,�4
SUBJECT: US 221, SR 1536 to SR 1153, R-2597, McDowell and Rutherford Coundes, CH 02-10510
Thank you for your letter transmitting the archaeological survey report by Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
for the above project ' We apologize for the delay in our response. The report meets our guidelines and those
of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific concerns, which need to be addressed, are attached for the author's
use.
During the course of the survey, six archaeological sites were located within the project area and two
cemeteries were recorded adjacent to the APE. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the
National Idistorie Preservation Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Iiistoxic Places under criterion D:
31RF171/171** This prehistoric and historic site at the Albert Weaver Farm has intact
subsurface cultural features, a structural foundation, and associated
archaeological remains.
Archaeological work condixcted during the survey by Legacy Research Associates indicates that the pardon of
31RP171/171** within dhe current projecr area has been previously disturbed, and therefore the sire will not
be adversely affected. If there are any changes to the design plans in this area, additional archaeological work
will be necessary.
We concur that the following properties are ineligible for listing in the National Register;
31RF99, 31RF168, 31RF169, 31RF170, and 31MC330
None of these sites retains sufficient integrity to yield information important to history or prehistory, and no
further work is recommended.
manna A4drae --
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Sueet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Smice Center, Raleigh NC 276994017
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mall $-lice Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617
SURVEY & ➢LANNTNO 515 N. 9laant svmat Auleigh. Nc 4617 Mail Smic, Center, Raleigh NC 276994617

07/10/2007 14:42 FAX
(a 003/004
The significance of 31Rrl67** was not assessed during the survey because of denial of access to the property,
Additional testing will be necessary to determine the presence of significant cultural deposits if Ibis site is to
be affected by the proposed 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,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, ar 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number,
cc: Deborah Joy, Legacy Research Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT
RATING FORMS (FORM AD-1006)

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Or Land Evaluation Request 3/30/11
Name Of Project Improvements to US 221 (R-2597, R-204D&E)
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Roadway (Segments A and B)
County And State Rutherford and McDowell Counties
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/30/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ - 93 acres
Major Crop(s)
Hay, Soybeans
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 329,807 % 90
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 54,557 % 15
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Rutherford CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
4/15/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
12.7
24.5
25.9
29.8
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
12.7
24.5
25.9
29.8
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A
B1
B2
B3
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
3.6
4.4
4.4
6.5
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
7.5
15.7
15.4
17.3
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
<. 01
<. 01
<. 01
<. 01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction Wth Same Or Higher Relative Value
18.0
42.0
47.0
42.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
67
65
60
66
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
7
7
7
7
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3
3
3
3
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
0
0
1
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
0
0
0
0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
0
0
0
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
3
3
3
4
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
25
25
25
25
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
3
3
3
10. On -Farm Investments
3
3
3
3
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
25
25
25
25
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
89
89
89
91
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
67
65
60
66
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
sde assessment)
160
89
89
89
91
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
156
154
149
157
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No 0
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Or Land Evaluation Request 3/30/11
Name Of Project Improvements to US 221 (R-2597, R-204D&E)
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Roadway (Segment C)
County And State Rutherford and McDowell Counties
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/30/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ - 93 acres
Major Crop(s)
Hay, Soybeans
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 329,807 % 90
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 54,557 % 15
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Rutherford CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
4/15/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
55.0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
55.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
C
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
6.2
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
23.9
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
<. 01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction Wth Same Or Higher Relative Value
47.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
61
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
7
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
3
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
25
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
10. On -Farm Investments
3
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
25
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
89
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
61
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
sde assessment)
160
89
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
150
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Or Land Evaluation Request 3/30/11
Name Of Project Improvements to US 221 (R-2597, R-204D&E)
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Roadway (Segment D)
County And State Rutherford and McDowell Counties
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/30/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ - 93(R) 60(M)
Major Crop(s)
Hay, Soybeans (R) Hay (M)
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 329,807(R) 205,326(M) % 90 72
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 54,557R 50,093M %15 1£
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Rutherford, McDowell CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
4/15/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
128.9
118.7
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
0.0
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
128.9
118.7
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
D
D1
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1.3
1.6
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
9.5
6.1
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
<. 01
<. 01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction Wth Same Or Higher Relative Value
80.0
79.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
47
48
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
7
7
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3
3
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
0
0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
0
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
3
3
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
25
25
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
3
10. On -Farm Investments
3
3
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
25
25
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
89
89
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
47
48
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
sde assessment)
160
89
89
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
136
137
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Or Land Evaluation Request 3/30/11
Name Of Project Improvements to US 221 (R-2597, R-204D&E)
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Roadway (Segments E and F)
County And State Rutherford and McDowell Counties
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/30/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ - 60 acres
Major Crop(s)
Hay
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 205,326 % 72
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 50,093 % 18
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
McDowell CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
4/15/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
34.8
21.4
20.0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
0.0
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
34.8
21.4
20.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
El
F1
F2
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
7.6
1.8
1.8
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
20.8
15.8
14.4
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
<. 01
<. 01
<. 01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction Wth Same Or Higher Relative Value
21.0
20.9
20.9
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
66
67
67
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
8
7
7
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3
3
3
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
0
0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
0
0
0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
0
0
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
3
3
3
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
25
25
25
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
3
3
10. On -Farm Investments
3
3
3
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
25
25
25
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
90
89
89
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
66
67
67
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
sde assessment)
160
90
89
89
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
156
156
156
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Or Land Evaluation Request 3/30/11
Name Of Project Improvements to US 221 (R-2597, R-204D&E)
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Roadway (Segments G and H)
County And State Rutherford and McDowell Counties
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 3/30/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ❑ - 60 acres
Major Crop(s)
Hay
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 205,326 % 72
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 50,093 % 18
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
McDowell CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
4/15/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
7.4
8.1
21.8
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
0.0
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
7.4
8.1
21.8
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
G1
G2
H
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
0.0
0.0
1.7
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
2.4
3.2
16.9
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
<. 01
<. 01
<. 01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction Wth Same Or Higher Relative Value
37.0
36.0
36.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
53
54
58
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
6
6
6
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
2
2
2
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
0
0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
0
0
0
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
0
0
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
1
1
1
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
25
25
25
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
3
3
10. On -Farm Investments
2
2
1
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
25
25
25
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
84
84
83
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
53
54
58
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
sde assessment)
160
84
84
83
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
137
138
141
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

APPENDIX G
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program
NCDOT has determined that there is comparable replacement housing within the study area for
displaced homeowners and tenants. It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing is available for relocatees prior to construction of state and/or federally -
assisted projects. Furthermore, NCDOT has three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation: relocation assistance, relocation moving payments, and relocation replacement
housing payments or rent supplements.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff would 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 Payment
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation.
Where displacement would force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property at higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program would 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 US 221 Improvements project would be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). This program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocation 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 would determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. NCDOT would schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiation and possession of replacement housing that meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The relocatees are given a 90-day written notice to vacate after NCDOT purchases
the property. Relocation of displaced persons would be offered in areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of
replacement housing would be within the financial budget of the families and individuals
displaced and would be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation
officer also would 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 would receive an explanation
regarding all available options, such as: 1) purchases of replacement housing; 2) rental of
replacement housing, either private or public; and 3) moving existing owner -occupied housing to
another site (if practicable). The relocation officer would also supply information concerning
other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and would provide other
advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a
new location.

Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available,
or is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds
the federal and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitude in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing
can be provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the
demographic study area, it is not anticipated that the Last Resort Housing Program would be
necessary for the proposed project. However, this program would still be considered as
mandated by state law.

APPENDIX H
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS

TABLE 1
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FH WA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
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
(Exterior)
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B
67
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior)
parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C
72
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior)
AorBabove.
D
--
Undeveloped lands.
E
52
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior)
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration
TIP PROJECT R-2597
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
inLeq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<=50 >=15
51 >= 14
52 >= 13
53 >= 12
54 >= 11
>=55 >=10
Source: NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04)
TIP PROJECT R-204D&E
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS dBA
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
inLeq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>=55 >=10
Source: NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy

TABLE 2
AMBIENT AND MODELED NOISE MEASUREMENTS
TIP PROJECT R-2597
Site
Number
Location
Surface
Leq
Measured
(in dBA)
Leq
Modeled
(in dBA)
1
US 221, North of SR 1367 (Thompson Rd.)
Grassy
68.6
69.0
2
US 221, North of SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd.)
Grassy
66.8
68.0
3
US 221 at SR 1362 (Gilkey School Rd.) (45 mph)
Grassy
66.1
65.4
4
"New Location" at SR 1362 (Gilkey School Rd.)
Grassy
56.3
52.0
5
"New Location" in field
Grassy
55.2
N/A
6
US 221 at SR 1362 (Gilkey School Rd.) (55 mph)
Grassy
68.3
66.6
7
US 221 at Vein Mountain Baptist Church
Paved
65.3
65
8
Spooky Hollow Crafts
Grassy
65.3
65.4
9
South of SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd.)
Grassy
69.4
68.8
Note: N/A - No traffic passed by Site Number 5, therefore, no TNM 2.5 value could be generated.
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
TIP PROJECT R-204D&E
Site
Leq Measured
Number
Location
Surface
(in dBA)
1
US 221 at Unnamed Business
Paved
67.3
2
US 221 @ Redeemed Freewill Baptist Church
Paved
67.5
3
US 221, approximately 400 feet north of
Gravel
65.3
SR 1786 (Old US 221)

TABLE 3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
1Y1>>KIa1ore rItWi A
DESCRIPTION
Leq NOISE LEVELS
(dBA)
MAXIMUM
CONTOUR
DISTANCES
APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
50ft
100ft
200ft
72 dBA
67 dBA
A
B
C
D
E
1. SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) to SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd)
71.1
67.5
60.8
87.8
152.3
0
8
0
0
0
2. SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd) to SR 1362 N (Gilkey School Rd)
Segment B 1 (West Side Widening)
Segment 132 (East Side Widening)
SegmentB3
66.7
66.7
66.7
61.1
61.1
61.1
55.7
55.7
55.7
60.5
60.5
60.5
104.2
104.2
104.2
0
0
0
6
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3. SR 1362 N (Gilkey School Rd) to SR 1508 (Old US 221)
69.5
65.8
59.4
74.9
126.2
0
4
0
0
0
4. SR 1508 (Old US 221) to SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd)
69.3
65.7
59.3
74.3
124.7
0
3
0
0
0
5. SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd)
68.7
65.1
58.7
72
116.3
0
1
0
0
0
6. SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd)
67.4
61.8
56.3
73.1
121.8
0
1 1
0
1 0
1 0
7. SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd) to SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd)
69.4
65.8
59.2
74.4
126.2
0
2
0
0
0
8. SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd)
71.4
65.7
60
56.3
97.2
0
2
0
0
0
Section 2- Segment Bl
TOTALS ---> Section 2 - Segment 132
Section 2- Segment 133
0
0
0
27
24
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1. 50ft, 100ft, and 200ft distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.

TABLE 3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
TIP PROJECT R-204D and E
MAXIMUM
APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS
CONTOUR
RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION
(dBA)
DISTANCES
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
50ft
100ft
200ft
72 dBA
67 dBA
A
B
C
D
E
1. US 221-NC 226 to SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Road)
68.9
64.3
58.9
63.3
99.5
0
0
0
0
0
2. SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Road) to SR 1318 (Ward Drive)
Segment GI (West Side Widening)
69.0
64.4
59.0
63.8
100.5
0
6
0
0
0
Segment G2 (East Side Widening)
69.0
64.4
59.0
63.8
100.5
0
1
0
0
0
3. SR 1318 (Ward Drive) to SR 1168 (Ashworth Road)
Segment Fl (West Side Widening)
67.4
62.8
57.4
<58.0
86.1
0
0
0
0
0
Segment F2 (East Side Widening)
67.4
62.8
57.4
<58.0
86.1
0
0
0
0
0
4. SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road)
Segment EI (West Side Widening)
68.2
63.6
58.2
60.1
92.9
0
0
0
0
0
West Side Widening
0
6
0
0
0
TOTALS ---> East Side Widening
0
1
0
0
0
1. 50ft, 100ft, and 200ft distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.

TABLE 4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
TIP PROJECT R-2597
DESCRIPTION
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL
INCREASE
"1"
IMPACTS DUE
TO BOTH
CRITERIA
"2"
<_0
1-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
>=25
1. SR 1532/1367 (Thompson Rd) to SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd)
0
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Rd.) to SR 1362 N (Gilkey School Rd)
Segment Bl (West Side Widening)
Segment B2 (East Side Widening)
Segment B3
0
3
5
25
21
0
5
4
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3. SR 1362 N (Gilkey School Rd) to SR 1508 (Old US 221)
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. SR 1508 Old US 221 to SR 1510 Hudlow Rd
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5. SR 1510 (Hudlow Rd) to SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd)
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. SR 1321 (Thermal City Rd) to SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd)
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7. SR 1781 (Polly Spouts Rd) to SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd)
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
8. SR 1785/1135 (Mud Cut Rd) to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Rd)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Segment Bl (West Side Widening)
TOTALS ---> Segment B2 (East Side Widening)
Segment B3
0 64 10 0 1 0 0
3 60 9 0 1 0 0
5 39 20 0 2 0 0
1
1
2
1
1
1
"1" As defined by only a substantial increase (see bottom of TABLE 1).
"2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE 1.

TABLE 4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
TIP PROJECT R-204D and E
SUBSTANTIAL
IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
NOISE LEVEL
TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION
INCREASE
CRITERIA
<_0
1-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
>=25
"1"
"2"
1. US 221-NC 226 to SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Road)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. SR 1165 (Chapel Hill Church Road) to SR 1318 (Ward Drive)
Segment G I(West Side Widening)
0
12
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Segment G2 (East Side Widening)
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
3. SR 1318 (Ward Drive) to SR 1168 (Ashworth Road)
Segment Fl (West Side Widening)
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Segment F2 (East Side Widening)
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. SR 1168 (Ashworth Road) to SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road)
Segment El West Side Widening)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
West Side Widening
2 17 4 0 0 0 0
0
0
TOTALS ---> East Side Widening
4 8 5 0 0 0 0
0
0
"1" As defined by only a substantial increase (see bottom of TABLE 1).
"2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE 1.

APPENDIX I
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
(MSATs)

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
Background
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The
EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26,
2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in
their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). In
addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources
that are among the national and regional -scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/). These are acrolein,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM),
formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the
priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in
consideration of future EPA rules.
The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT
emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using
EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle miles traveled, VMT) increases by
145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for
the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Figure 1.
Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess
the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools
and techniques for assessing project -specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT
exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential
health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project -level decision -making
within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA
process. Even as the science emerges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to
address MSAT impacts in our environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects
Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define
potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will
continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field.

Figural NATIONAL MSAT EMISSION TRENDS 1999-2050
FOR VEHICLES OPERATINGON ROADWAYS
USING EPA's MOBILE6.2 MODEL
itimi
iaauuo
wB Final
23m 2011 2011 21130 2Ma 20M
Cal moat Year
o4M-0Iesel
4M
FORM
-Formaldehyde
BAN
Naphthalene
BENZ-Benzene
BIITA-1C
Butapene
ACRO-Aerolan
--
- -- VMT-
Vehicle MllesTaveled
Note
(1) Anom en saovs of poly quit organic matter we Bud meo to be561 ton saw for 1999, oe¢®anato 373
tovayr. for 2050.
(2) Trends for spea6c locations maybe Nffa®4 warning on locally oaiveoivformwov repres®uvg
veNtle-miles trav0led, veNtle speeds, veNtlemi r PoOs, mission control proposes, meteorology, and
other factors
Source U.S. Envimnmmtzl Protection Agmry. MOB ILEb2 Model rw 20 Angirsi.
AREA Context
The NEPA requires, to the fullest extent possible, that the policies, regulations, and laws of the
Federal Oovemmmt be interpreted and administered in accordance with its environmental
protection goals. The on ma also requires Federal agencies el use pa interdisciplinary approach
Nplanning and decisionmakingfor any action that adversely impacts the environment The
NEPA requires and FFIEFEThuman
is committed t0 the examering a and avoidance posed trans impacts
projects
the s In and human environment when considering approval of proposed transportation
projects. In addition t0 evaluating the potential environmental effects, we must also fake into
account the need for safe and efficient transportation in reaching e decision that is N the best

overall public interest. The FHWA policies and procedures for implementing NEPA is
prescribed by regulation in 23 CFR § 771.
Analysis of MSAT in NEPA Documents
The FHWA developed a tiered approach for analyzing MSAT in NEPA documents, depending
on specific project circumstances. The FHWA has identified three levels of analysis:
1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects;
2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or
3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT
effects.
For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the seven priority MSAT should be analyzed. This
project is included in level 2 above.
Qualitative MSAT Analysis
For each alternative in this EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Segment Alternatives is the same as that
for the No -Build Alternative. Without an increase in the design year (2025/2030) build traffic
volumes, the MSAT emissions are not anticipated to increase for the action alternative along the
highway corridor. Additionally, the emissions may decrease somewhat by lower MSAT
emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's emissions model, emissions of all of
the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent
to which these speed -related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases
cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
The minor realignments of the roadway contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have
the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, there
may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under certain
Segment Alternatives than the No -Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT
concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the roadway sections that would be built
near Gilkey and Vein Mountain, as well as south of Glenwood. However, as discussed above,
the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No -Build Alternative
cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when
a highway is relocated and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT
emissions for the Segment Alternatives could be higher relative to the No -Build Alternative, but
this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated
with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts
away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will
cause region -wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
The McDowell Assisted Living Facility, a 54-bed facility, is located at 114 Fairview Road in
Marion. This facility located at the intersection of Fairview Road and NC 226 is approximately
a half mile from the northern project terminus. The NCDOT is not aware of any additional

sensitive receptors (e.g., nursing homes, child care centers, hospitals, etc.) located along the
proposed alignments for the Segment Alternatives. The northern project terminus is located
along Segment H, which includes a best -fit alignment. Therefore, the MSAT effects would be
equivalent in Segment H.
Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project -Specific MSAT Health Impacts
Analysis
In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project -
specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of
highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced
more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather
than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure
associated with a proposed action.
The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or
anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air
Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air
pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects,
exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the
environment and their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA,
www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). Each report contains assessments of non -cancerous and
cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from
lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of
MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in
Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in
NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high
exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the
respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health
effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI,
http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id-282) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially
decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id-306).
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion
modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the
process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by
technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the
MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for
lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have
to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions
rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. The results produced by the
EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the California EPA's Emfac2007 model, and the EPA's MOVES
model in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent. Indications from the
development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly underestimates diesel
particulate matter (PM) emissions and significantly overestimates benzene emissions.

Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline CAL3QHC
model was conducted in an NCHRP study (www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_alt.htm#hyroad),
which documents poor model performance at ten sites across the country - three where intensive
monitoring was conducted plus an additional seven with less intensive monitoring. The study
indicates a bias of the CAL3QHC model to overestimate concentrations near highly congested
intersections and underestimate concentrations near uncongested intersections. The consequence
of this is a tendency to overstate the air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections.
Such poor model performance is less difficult to manage for demonstrating compliance with
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for relatively short time frames than it is for forecasting
individual exposure over an entire lifetime, especially given that some information needed for
estimating 70-year lifetime exposure is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast
MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the portion of time that people are actually
exposed at a specific location.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the
various MSAT, because of factors such as low -dose extrapolation and translation of occupational
exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id-282). As a result, there is no national consensus on
air dose -response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds,
and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#g) and
the HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u-395) have not established a basis for
quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context
is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more
stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the
maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries.
The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "safe"
or "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than
approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of
which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions
from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks
from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk
determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately
100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework.
Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects
would result in levels of risk greater than safe or acceptable. Because of the limitations in the
methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health
impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with
predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to
decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as
reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency
response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

MSAT Conclusion
What we know about mobile source air toxics is still evolving. As the science progresses,
FHWA will continue to revise and update this guidance. To that end, we expect a number of
significant improvements in model forecasting and air pollution analysis guidance with the
MOVES model and the issuance of the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Modeling Guidance released by EPA.

APPENDIX J
KNOWN AND POTENTIAL
GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES

Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites
11 Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facilitv ID #
Hendrens Racing Engines William & Betty Hendren
1310 US 221 N 1530 Painters Gap Road N/A N/A
Rutherfordton, NC 28139 Union Mills, NC 28167
This active engine building garage is set well back from the US 221 N highway. The owner indicated
that this Butler style building had a heating oil tank. This UST was removed from the rear of the
structure. There is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to
this project.
221 Office Center
1364-70 US 221 N
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
William & Betty Hendren
1530 Painters Gap Road
Union Mills, NC 28167
William & Betty Hendren
N/A
This active office building was both a former restaurant and a gas station and convenience store
according to the owner. USTs are reported to still be present on site. Two rectangular concrete patches
are located in the parking lot and are 55 feet from the US 221 N median. The UST section's registry
does not list this property. There is no other evidence of monitoring wells, USTs, UST removal or pump
islands. This site will have a low impact to this project.
Pritchard Heat & Cooling
1953 US 221 N
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Ernestine Easley
1923 Holland Ave
Burlington, NC 27215
N/A
N/A
This closed heating and cooling office appears to be a former gas station and is 80 feet from the US 221
N centerline. This property does not appear on the NCDENR incident database. There is no other
evidence of USTs, vents, or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this project.
McKay's Appliance Service
1192 Gilboa Church Road
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
George & Marilyn Conner
221 Rucker Road
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
N/A
N/A
This closed appliance repair business appears to be a former gas station and is 80 feet from the US 221
centerline. The building may have been moved on site, as it is straddling a drainage ditch and cuts a
retaining wall. This property does not appear on the NCDENR UST section database. There is no other
evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this project.
Gilkey General Store
2310US221N
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
JJM Properties, Inc.
PO Box 187
Forest Citv, NC 28043
Ray Thomas Petroleum Co.
1629 S. Lafayette St.
Shelbv, NC 28151
0-009059
This active Sunoco gas station and convenience story (aka Sam's General Store) is located on the east
side of US 221 S and 85 feet north of Gilkey School Road. Five USTs are located north of the store and
80 feet from the US 221 median. A kerosene dispenser and UST are located adjacent to the south end of
the building. The canopied pump island is set back 55 feet from the highway centerline. There are no
monitoring wells or other evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this
project.

Property Location
Property Owner
UST Owner
Facili ID #
Bailey's Market
Loretta Bailey
Royster Oil Co.
3620 US 221 N
192 Uptons Landing
720 S. Lafayette St.
0-008898
Union Mills, NC 28167
Marion, NC 28752
Shelby, NC 28150
This active BP gas station, convenience store, and other businesses are located on the east side of
US 221. Four USTs are located northwest of the store and are 55 feet from the US 221 median. The
edge of the canopied pump island is set back 60 feet from the highway centerline. There are no
monitoring wells or other evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this
project.
Hodge's Used Cars
James and Larry Hodge
Petroleum World
4064 US 221 N
4061 US 221 N
681 NC 120
0-008757
Union Mills, NC 28167
Union Mills, NC 28167
Mooresboro, NC 28114
This former gas station (Union Mills 66) and garage is presently a used car sales and repair business.
The owner stated that the USTs on site were removed over 15 years ago. The UST section database
shows four USTs removed and closed in December 1990. The NCDENR incident database records that
groundwater contamination was present as of June 1989. One monitoring well was noted on site. There
is no other evidence of hydraulic lifts, USTs, or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to
this project.
Glenwood Grocery & Video
Kaustubh Patel
Kaustubh Patel DBA
6259 US 221 S
6259 US 221 S
Glenwood GE
0-027363
Marion, NC 28752
Marion, NC 28752
This active Exxon gas station and convenience store is located on the east side of US 221 N. Five USTs
are located both northwest and southwest of the main building. There are five monitoring wells on site;
however, this station does not appear on the NCDENR incident database. The UST section database
shows that three older USTs were removed in March 1989. There is no evidence of USTs or UST
removal. This site will have a low impact to this project.
West Court Food Center
Petroleum World
#10100
NSA
681 NC 120
0-014330
6050 US 221 S
Mooresboro, NC 28114
Marion, NC 28752
This active gas station and convenience store is located on the west side of US 221 just north of SR 1153
(Goose Creek Road). Four USTs are located north of the building and pump island. The closest is
50 feet from the US 221 median while the pump island is set back 65 feet. The UST section database
shows that one older UST was removed in August 1993. Five vent pipes are located behind the store.
There is no other evidence of USTs or UST removal. This site will have a low impact to this
project.

Property Location
Property Owner
UST Owner
Facili ID #
LD Dollar, Inc.
LD Dollar, Inc.
DBA Dollar Mart #10
N/A
PO Box 7
0-031521
4323 US 221 S
West Jefferson, NC 28694
Marion, NC 28752
This active Shell gas station and convenience store is located on the east side of US 221 and 0.1 mile
south of I-40. Five USTs are located east of and behind the building. The UST pit is 300 feet from the
US 221 median. The pump islands are located north and south of the store. The storefront is set back
105 feet from the highway median. There is no other evidence of USTs, UST removal, or monitoring
wells. This site will have a low impact to this project.
Vacant Lot
Royster Oil Co.
(former A&R BP Station)
N/A
720 S. Lafayette St.
0-014597
4222 US 221 S
Shelby, NC 28150
Marion, NC 28752
This vacant lot was the former site of the A&R BP gas station and is situated just south of the I-40
eastbound off ramp and west of US 221. The UST section database shows that four USTs each, were
removed on two separate occasions: May 2004 and January 1988. The tank pit was on the north side of
this parcel and 110 feet from the US 221 median. The buildings and pump islands have all been
removed and the lot is overgrown. This site will have a low impact to this project.
Former gas station
Boyd & Donna Kose
4201 US 221 S
1640 SE 91 st Place
N/A
N/A
Marion, NC 28752
Ocala, Fl 34480
This parcel was the site of a gas station and convenience store. The property is just south of the l-
eas oun on ramp and east of US 221. The facility does not appear on the UST section database. Three
vents are on a retaining wall at the north side of this lot. The former UST pit may be northwest of the
building and 70 to 125 feet from the US 221 median. There is no other evidence of USTs, UST removal,
or monitoring wells. This site will have a low impact to this project.

APPENDIX K
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
- Press Releases
- Citizens Informational Workshop Handouts
- Newsletters

APPENDIX K
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Press Releases

0
0
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE WIDENING OF US 221 TO A MULTI -LANE FACILITY
FROM SR 1153 (GOOSE CREEK ROAD) TO THE US 221-NC 226 SPLIT
Project 6.879005T R-204 D &E McDowell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
Citizens Informational Workshop on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 between the
hours of 4.00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Auditorium of McDowell Technical
Community College located at 54 College Drive, Marion.
Interested individuals may attend this informal workshop at their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments
relative to the proposed project.
The purpose of this workshop is to present information, answer questions,
and receive comments regarding this project. This project proposes to widen US
221 to a multi -lane facility from SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) to the US 221-NC
226 split in McDowell County.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Colista Freeman,
by mail at 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, phone (919) 733-
7844 ext. 224 or e-mail at csfreeman@)dot.state.nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop to comply with the American Disabilities Act.
To receive special services, please contact Ms. Freeman at the above;Address,
phone number or fax [phone] as early as possible so that arrangements
can be made.

a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Release: Immediate Date: Sept.16, 2003
Contact: Linda Hilton -Cain, [phone] or email: [e-mail] Distribution: 56 & 81
Release No:
NCDOT to Hold Workshops on Proposed Improvements
to U.S. 221 in Rutherford and McDowell Counties
RALEIGH --- The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold two citizens
informational workshops on the proposed improvements to U.S. 221 in Rutherford and
McDowell Counties.
Workshop Dates and Times
• The first workshop will be held on Mon., September 29, 2003, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in
the City Hall Community Building at 194 N. Main Street in Marion.
• The second workshop will be held on Tues., September 30, 2003, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. in the Rutherfordton-Spindale High School Cafeteria at 641 U.S. 221 Highway North in
Rutherfordton.
NCDOT proposes to widen U.S. 221 to a multi -lane roadway from S.R. 1536 (Old U.S. 221) in
Rutherford County to the U.S. 221-N.C. 226 split in McDowell County.
Representatives from NCDOT will be available to answer questions and receive comments from
the public about the proposed project.
For more information, contact John Wadsworth at [phone], Ext. 209, email
[e-mail]. or write to and reference TIP project number R-25971R-204 D&E:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1548
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with Disabilities Act for
disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone requiring special services
should contact John Wadsworth at the above address or phone number or fax [phone] as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.
***NCDOT***
For other transportation questions, call the department's Customer Service Office toll free
at:
1-877-DOT-4YOU

APPENDIX K
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Citizens Informational Workshop Handouts

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
164
r11PRTJ.J_
OF TR
US 221
FROM SR 1153 (GOOSE CREEK ROAD)
TO US 221 BYPASS -NC 226 INTERSECTION IN MARION
MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-204 D AND E
MARCH 20, 2002
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
US 221
FROM SR 1153 (GOOSE CREEK ROAD)
TO US 221 BYPASS -NC 226 INTERSECTION IN MARION
MCDOWELL COUNTY
STATE PROJECT No. 6.879005T
TIP No. R-204 D AND E
PURPOSE OF THE CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. This workshop will outline the alternatives being considered for the
widening of US 221 from SR 1153 (Goose Creek Road) to the US 221 Bypass -NC 226
intersection in Marion. Please refer to Figure 1 for a map showing the project location. The
length of the proposed project is approximately 4 miles. If you have questions, comments, or
suggestions about the proposed improvements described in this handout, please inform a
representative of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). We have provided
a comment sheet upon which you may write your questions or concerns. We will keep a record
of your comments, both oral and written, and we will fully consider your ideas, comments, and
suggestions concerning the proposed US 221 widening during the project study. We will also
place you on our mailing list so that you will be notified of any future workshops or hearings.
NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed of the
possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not
available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right of way limits can be established. More detailed information will be available at a
later date. The purpose of this workshop is to gather your input before final design decisions are
made.
Written comments on this project may be left with NCDOT representatives at the
Citizens Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information is
needed or you would like to submit comments after the Workshop, please address your requests
and comments to:
Mr. William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

A summary of NCDOT's public involvement and project planning process is attached for
your information.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to widen US 221 to a multi -lane facility from SR 1153
(Goose Creek Road) to the US 221 Bypass -NC 226 intersection in Marion. The purpose of
project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and provide a safer route along US 221.
Sections of US 221 within the project limits are estimated to currently serve close to
7,400 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on traffic projections, the average daily traffic will increase
to more than 15,000 vpd by the year 2025.
Over the last three years, the accident rate along US 221 within the project limits has
been 51% higher and the fatality rate has been 175% higher than the statewide average for
similar routes. During this same period, rear -end and left -turn collisions accounted for more than
half the total accidents along this same section.
The proposed multi -lane widening will improve safety, reduce congestion, and increase
the traffic carrying capacity along US 221.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST
The schedule for right of way acquisition and construction of this project, as well as
preliminary cost estimates, are summarized below:
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
PROJECT STAGE
PROJECT
TIP SCHEDULE
CURRENT COST
R-204 D
*FFY 2006
$ 3,000,000
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
R-204 E
*FFY 2007
$ 2,200,000
$ 5,200,000
R-204 D
*FFY 2008
$ 10,500,000
CONSTRUCTION
R-204 E
Post Year
$ 9,800,000
$ 20,300,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 25,500,000
*FFY designates 1~ ederal r iscal Year
Note: These estimates of schedule and cost are preliminary and subject to change as
further planning and design studies are completed.

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
Several proposed typical sections have been identified for further study. Two of the
sections include a four -lane divided roadway with a 16-foot median. One section includes curb
and gutter, and the other section includes a shoulder. The other typical sections are based on a
five -lane roadway, one with curb and gutter, the other with a shoulder.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will study several ways to perform the
road widening, including symmetrical, northside, and southside widening. An option that
transitions between asymmetrical and symmetrical widening will also be studied. The proposed
project will be planned so as to minimize impacts to the social and natural environment.
CURRENT STATUS
Currently, planning and environmental studies for the proposed improvements are in
progress. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will address impacts the proposed widening may
have on the human and natural environment. Input received from the public will be included in
the decision -making process for a recommendation.
After completion of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing will be held at
which the alternatives will be presented to the public. At that time, individuals living close to the
project will see how the proposed projects would affect their properties and again have the
opportunity to comment and make suggestions. NCDOT will take into account comments and
suggestions received at the public hearing while making final decisions on the project.
In the coming months NCDOT environmental specialists and survey crews will be
studying the project area. During this period, these NCDOT personnel may be on citizens'
properties in order to complete their studies. The purpose of these studies is to gather
background information that will be used in making recommendations on the proposed project.
No decisions on the final design of this project have been made.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional information concerning this project, please contact Ms. Colista Freeman,
Project Development Engineer, at [phone] (Ext. 224).
email: [e-mail]

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
PROJECT PLANNING
Planning and environmental studies for this highway project will comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The type of document published will be an
Environmental Assessment (EA). This document will fully discuss the purpose and need for the
proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and analyze the project's impacts on both the
human and natural environment. Some topics the document will address include:
- Efficiency and safety of travel
- Neighborhoods and communities
- Relocation of homes and businesses
- Economy of project area
- Historic properties and sites
- Wetlands
- Endangered species
- Wildlife and plant communities
- Water quality
- Floodplains
- Farmland and land use plans of project area
- Hazardous materials involvement
- Traffic noise and air quality
If no significant impacts to the human or natural environment are expected after field
studies have been completed, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will follow the EA.
The current schedule calls for the EA to be completed in 2003 and the FONSI to be completed in
2004.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT PLANNING
Public involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project planning process. The
concerns of citizens and interest groups are always considered during project planning studies.
Often, additional project alternatives are studied, or recommended alternatives are changed,
based on comments received from the public.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation
during project planning. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
SCOPING LETTER Published in N.C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
CITIZENS Informal meeting with the public. NCDOT staff conduct these
INFORMATIONAL workshops to speak one-on-one with citizens about projects.
WORKSHOP Comment sheets are provided for citizens to write down their
questions, comments, and concerns. The number of workshops
scheduled for a project depends on the scope and anticipated
impact of the project.
DOCUMENT Copies of environmental documents are submitted to the State
DISTRIBUTION Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide
copies of the document to the public. Copies are available for
public viewing at NCDOT Raleigh and Division offices; the State
Clearinghouse office; local government offices, including the local
council of government office; and local public libraries.
PUBLIC HEARING One or more formal public hearings for the public record are held.
Format typically involves a short presentation followed by an
opportunity for citizens to comment.
CITIZEN LETTER Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT and provide information
and express concerns regarding proposed improvements.
Correspondence from citizens and interest groups is considered
during the course of the planning study and is included in the
project file.

Engineer: Freeman
COMMENT SHEET
US 221
FROM SR 1153 (GOOSE CREEK ROAD) TO US 221-NC 226 SPLIT
MCDOWELL COUNTY
NAME:
(Please Print)
ADDRESS:
CITY
EMAIL:
l�i�[���►•IIZu.��l1�
STATE ZIP
Comments, concerns and/or questions regarding TIP Project R-204 D and E
(Please continue on back if you need additional space.)
Send comments to Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1548

Citizens Informational Workshop
Comment Sheet (Continued)
TIP R-204 D and E
Was the project adequately explained to you? Yes ❑ No
Were NCDOT representatives understandable and clear in their explanations? Yes No ❑
Please explain
Were NCDOT representatives courteous and helpful? Yes ❑ No ❑
Please explain
Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? Yes
Please explain
No ❑
How might we better present proposed projects and address citizen's concerns in future
informational workshops?
How did you hear about this meeting today?
Do you feel that the workshop was adequately advertised? Yes No ❑
Please explain
Based on the information provided, were all substantial questions answered? Yes No ❑
Please explain
What was the most helpful aspect about the workshop today? What was the least helpful aspect
about it?
Please indicate any additional comments or suggestions regarding our public involvement
process:
Thank you for attending the workshop.
Your comments are very important in the planning process.

--------------------
N.
ror
BEGIN PROJECT
R-204 D
/' ■C3
�
r
GWwiwd
i
,1
f ,
■ i
■ END PROJEC
■
MILES
0 0.5 1
O 0.5 1 1.5 2
KILOMETERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
G a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
PROPOSED WIDENING
US 221
FROM US 221-NC 226 TO SR 1153
MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-204 D & E
Project Length: FIGURE 1
6.4 km (4 ml)

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Improvements to US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to US 221-NC 226
Rutherford and MCDoweu Counties
TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS
September 29, 2003 and September 30, 2003
WELCOME
Welcome to the citizens informational workshop for the proposed widening of US 221
from Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell
County. Comments and suggestions concerning the proposed widening are appreciated
and will be considered during the project study. If you have any questions about the
material included in this handout or the project, please notify a representative from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) project team.
Please...
➢ Sign in at the table
➢ Readthishandout
➢ Review the project maps and displays
➢ Discuss the project with representatives from the project team
➢ Write your conunerds on the comment sheet provided with this handout so we
can keep a record of and fully consider your ideas, comments, and suggestions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the
proposed improvements as two projects. TIP Project R-2597 extends from Old US 221
(SR 1536) in Rutherford County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County.
TIP Project R-204 D&E extends from Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) to US 221-NC 226.
The purpose of these projects is to improve safety and traffic service along this 19-mile
portion of US 221.

The proposed improvements consist of widening US 221 from a two-lane roadway to a
four or five -lane roadway. The study will evaluate widening to the east side and west
side of the existing highway and straightening the curves on US 221 between Thermal
City and Glenwood and near I-40. The project study area is shown on the attached map.
Several proposed typical sections have been identified for further study. The typical
section shows what the roadway should look like after it is constructed. These include a
combination of four -lane divided and five -lane segments utilizing shoulder, curb and
gutter, or expressway gutter. The improvements are described as follows:
LOCATION
TYPICAL SECTION
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Old US 221 (SR 1536) near
4-lane divided highway
East side and west side widening
Rutherfordton to Darlington
(46-foot median)
are being considered
Road (SR 1351) near Gilkey
Darlington Road (SR 1351) to
4-lane divided highway
East side widening is being
north of Gilkey School Road
(17.5-foot raised median)
considered
(SR 1362) (Gilkey area)
North of Gilkey School Road
4-lane divided highway
East side and west side widening
(SR 1362) through Thermal City
(46-foot median)
are being considered with some
and Vein Mountain to Ashworth
curves being realigned in the
Road (SR 1168) near Glenwood
vicinity of Vein Mountain and the
Second Broad River
Ashworth Road (SR 1168) to
5-lane section
Symmetrical widening is being
north of I-40 near Marion
considered and east side
realignment at the I-40 interchange
North of I-40 to US 221-NC 226
4-lane divided highway
West side widening is being
in Marion
(17.5-foot raised median)
considered
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The NCDOT is currently conducting planning, environmental, and design studies for the
US 221 improvements. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being conducted. The EA will evaluate
the project alternatives based on engineering merit, costs, and potential impacts to the
human and natural environments.
CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS
The NCDOT is currently collecting information within the study area to identify
preliminary alternatives. With input from local governments, state and federal agencies,
and the public, detailed study alternatives will be selected from among the preliminary
alternatives. Early next year, environmental studies will be conducted for the detailed

study alternatives and documented in an EA. The EA will describe the beneficial and
harmful effects on the human and natural environments of each detailed study alternative
and will identify ways to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects.
The EA will be distributed for public comment and a public hearing will be held. At the
hearing, individuals living close to the projects will see how the proposed improvements
would affect their properties and will have the opportunity to comment and make
suggestions. The NCDOT will take into account comments and suggestions received at
the public hearing while making final decisions on the projects. These will be included in
a final environmental document such as a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST
The schedule for the EA, the final environmental document, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction is summarized below:
PROJECT STAGE
PROJECT
SCHEDULE
COST INCLUDED IN TIP
Completion of EA
R-2597
Summer 2004
N/A
R-204 D&E
Completion of Final
R-2597
Summer 2005
N/A
Environmental Document
R-204 D&E
Right -of -Way Acquisition
R-204 D&E
* FY 2006
$ 5,200,000
R-2597
* FY 2007
$ 4,900,000
$ 10,100,000
Construction
R-204 D&E
* FY 2008
$ 21,000,000
R-2597
* FY 2009
$ 52,900,000
$ 73,900,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$ 84,000,000
Notes: * FY designates Fiscal Year
These estimates of schedule and cost are preliminary and subject to change as
further planning and design studies are completed.
ANTICIPATED RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS
The NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed
of the possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact
information is not available at this stage of the planning process. Until both
environmental studies and the preliminary design have been completed, final details
regarding right-of-way impacts to individual properties cannot be determined. If you
have questions regarding right-of-way for this project, please contact a representative
from NCDOT. More detailed information will be available at a later date.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the planning process for the proposed
widening of US 221. A comment sheet is provided for you to write down questions or
concerns so that the NCDOT can fully consider your ideas, comments, or suggestions.
You may leave the completed comment sheet with us this evening in the box marked
"COMMENTS." If you need additional information or if you wish to comment further
on this project, please contact either:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT - Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center or
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] ext. 209
email: jadsworth@dot. state. nc.us
Mr. Mark Reep, PE
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
[phone] (toll -free)
email: [e-mail]

Name:
Address:
Comment Sheet
Improvements to US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to US 221-NC 226
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
September 29, 2003 and September 30, 2003
(full postal address —please print clearly)
My comments pertain to the following topic(s). Check all that apply
O
Cost/ Funding
O
Project Schedule
O
Community Impacts
O
Property Impacts
O
Cultural Resource Impacts
O
Public Involvement Activities
O
Minority/ Low Income Community Impacts
O
Road Access
O
Natural Resource Impacts
O
Safety
O
New Information
O
Other:
Comments and/or Questions: (please print)
Please place this form in the Comment Box or mail to:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT — Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

r'
fA
Looking North at Broyhill Road - - Looking South at Vein Mountain Looking North toward 1-40
Rr2597
__k�_f R-204 08E '
Vr �J �� � lem.ee
RuthertorUton II _ _ - _ . _ ; , - arion
End Project R-2597
Begin Project R-2597 P Begin Project R-204 D&E
End Project R-204 D&E
FWTHERF RE) CO- 4 MOPO LL---
!
North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Brands
-
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
US 22144C 226 m MoDoweii County
TEP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
Me60WELL 06 -� Vytlro-lawn �brms titeravm r�nemnas
® eye�.uwle.gm� u8 -gk5 rv.e. I-..mese oc�+=e.re s:.E-.
- vinmae Taatsnes .+C I'l
Tr°W SYrrams ---- Gunly Bountlary GII Tvw.r
Project Location { Ream • s,.�. * a...kv Weear s++aaEr weeersnevs
�—� Rewwee
® RelRICa- WS IV � R.Z59T Pmjed Mwf/ A—
D D 45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.iles
IGilom-tam
4 0 0.450.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4 6-3

APPENDIX K
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Newsletters

N EW.SLETTER
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
July 2003 TIP Projects R-2597 & R-204 D&E Issue No.1
Project Description
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform
citizens about a study to improve US 221 from Old
US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford County to
US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County. The proposed
improvements are included as two projects in the
2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). TIP Project R-2597 is from SR 1536 in
Rutherford County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in
McDowell County. TIP Project R-204 D&E is from
SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226. This newsletter describes
the proposed improvements to US 221 and discusses the
project planning process.
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and traffic
service along US 221. The proposed improvements
consist of widening US 221 from a two lane roadway to a
four or five lane roadway. The study will evaluate
widening to the east side and west side of the existing
highway and straightening the curves on US 221 between
Thermal City and Glenwood and near I-40. The project
study area extends approximately 500 feet on each side of
the existing roadway.
Project Planning Process
The project planning process begins by collecting
information about the existing highway and the human
and natural enviromnents in the project study area. This
information is used to identify preliminary alternatives
for improving safety and traffic service on the highway.
With input from local governments, state and federal
agencies, and the public, detailed study alternatives are
selected from among the preliminary alternatives.
Environmental studies are conducted for the detailed
study alternatives and documented in an Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA describes the beneficial and
harmful effects on the human and natural environments
of each detailed study alternative, and identifies ways to
reduce or eliminate the harmful effects.
The EA is distributed for public comment and a public
hearing is held. A final environmental document is
prepared which responds to all the comments received on
the project and provides more detail about the preferred
alternative. Then, final design plans are prepared and
right-of-way acquisition begins.
Citizens Informational Workshops
The NCDOT will hold citizens informational
workshops to discuss the proposed US 221
improvements.
September 29, 2003 September 30, 2003
anytime between anytime between
4:30 — 7:00 PM 4:30 — 7:00 PM
Marion City Hall R-S Central High School
194 N. Main Street 641 US 221 North
Marion Rutherfordton
Toll Free Project Information Line
1-888-858-7042
The open house workshops are held to provide citizens an
opportunity to participate in the project planning process.
Maps of the project area will be on display and the
project study team will be available to answer questions
and receive comments. Comment sheets will also be
provided.
Next Steps in the Process
Currently, the NCDOT is collecting information within
the study area to identify preliminary project alternatives.
Early next year, detailed study alternatives will be
selected and described in an EA. The project schedule is
summarized below.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Summer 2004
Completion of
Environmental Assessment
Spring 2005
Completion of FONSI
2006 (TIP No. R-204 D&E)
2007 (TIP No. R-2597)
Right-of-way acquisition
2008 (TIP No. R-204 D&E)
2009 (TIP No. R-2597)
Construction

Contacts for Questions and Comments
Public participation is important to the success of the planning process. The NCDOT is committed to ensuring
that citizens' concerns are addressed and considered before any recommendations or decisions are made. Your
opinions are important to us! Send comments to:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT - Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center or
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] ext. 209
email: [e-mail]
Mr. Mark Reep, PE
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
[phone] (toll -free)
email: [e-mail]
If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer Service Office toll -free at
(877) DOT-4YOU or visit our website at http://www.ncdot.org.
�c
Improvements to US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to
US 221-NC 226 (TIP Projects R-2597 & R-204 D&E)
Rutherford and McDowell Counties
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS
September 29, 2003
anytime between
4:30 — 7:00 PM
Marion City Hall
194 N. Main Street
Marion
September 30, 2003
anytime between
4:30 — 7:00 PM
R-S Central High School
641 US 221 North
Rutherfordton
Members of the project study team will be present with maps of the
project area. The public will have an opportunity to comment at this
meeting.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

r'
fA
Looking North at Broyhill Road - - Looking South at Vein Mountain Looking North toward 1-40
Rr2597
__k�_f R-204 08E '
Vr �J �� � lem.ee
RuthertorUton II _ _ - _ . _ ; , - arion
End Project R-2597
Begin Project R-2597 P Begin Project R-204 D&E
End Project R-204 D&E
FWTHERF RE) CO- 4 MOPO LL---
!
North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Brands
-
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
US 22144C 226 m MoDoweii County
TEP Projects R-2597 and R-204 ME
Me60WELL 06 -� Vytlro-lawn �brms titeravm r�nemnas
® eye�.uwle.gm� u8 -gk5 rv.e. I-..mese oc�+=e.re s:.E-.
- vinmae Taatsnes .+C I'l
Tr°W SYrrams ---- Gunly Bountlary GII Tvw.r
Project Location { Ream • s,.�. * a...kv Weear s++aaEr weeersnevs
�—� Rewwee
® RelRICa- WS IV � R.Z59T Pmjed Mwf/ A—
D D 45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.iles
IGilom-tam
4 0 0.450.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4 6-3

O NORTH
N E W S L E T T E R
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
November 2004 TIP Projects R-2597 & R-204 D&E Issue No. 2
Project Description
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform citizens about a study to
improve US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) in Rutherford
County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County. The
proposed improvements are included as two projects in the
2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). TIP Project R-2597 is from SR 1536 in Rutherford
County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County.
TIP Project R 204 D&E is from SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226.
This newsletter describes the proposed improvements to US
221 with these projects, and discusses the design options and
project planning process.
200+ Voice Opinions at Workshops
On September 29 and 30, 2003, NCDOT held workshops in
Marion and Rutherfordton to discuss the proposed US 221
improvements. A total of 225 people attended the meetings,
including residents, local officials, and representatives from
state and federal environmental agencies. Residents asked
about project costs, safety, property acquisition, road access,
and impacts to area resources. Additional alternatives were
suggested for evaluation, and participants asked that public
involvement activities continue. In February and March 2004,
additional small group meetings were held in the Glenwood
and Gilkey Communities.
New Ideas Under Consideration
Previously, area residents had requested the construction of a
five -lane roadway along US 221. However, recent NCDOT
research shows that median -divided, four -lane facilities
improve travel speeds, reduce congestion, and lower crash
rates. For this reason, NCDOT has decided not to construct
five -lane, undivided sections in this area.
The project area within the Gilkey Community provides design
challenges. The Gilkey Lumber Company lies on the east side
of US 221, opposite the William Monteith historic property on
the west side. NCDOT is examining ways to minimize impacts
to these important resources. This includes evaluating a new
alternative that relocates part of US 221 to the west of the
Monteith house (Alternative B-3).
Completion of NCDOT Evaluations
NCDOT has prepared various design options for the proposed
US 221 widening and is estimating the impact these options
will have on homes, businesses, and sensitive environmental
resources. NCDOT is also preparing a Community
Characteristics Report of the US 221 area. This report
documents the demographics of the area, including income,
employment, age, race, and education.
Project Team Decides on Widening Options
On August 17, 2004, the NCDOT met with representatives
from state and federal environmental agencies to decide which
design options to study in detail in the US 221 Environmental
Assessment (EA). The team decided to study the following
design options in detail: West side widening in Segments Al,
B1, El, Fl, and G1 (see map for locations); and East side
widening in Segments B2, F2, and G2. Best fit widening will
be studied in Segments C, D, and H. Realignment of Segment
B3, west of US 221, is proposed to avoid both Gilkey Lumber
Company and the William Monteith historic property.
Citizen's Informational Workshops
In early 2005, the NCDOT will hold Citizen's Informational
Workshops to provide further details on the US 221 widening
options. Workshops provide citizens with the opportunity to
participate in the development of the design for these options.
Maps of the project area and the proposed design alternatives
will be on display and the project study team will be available
to answer questions and receive public comments.
Next Steps in the Process
NCDOT is in the process of preparing the EA. After the EA is
approved and distributed for public comment, a public hearing
will be held. A final environmental document will be prepared
that responds to all the comments received on the project. The
project schedule is summarized on the enclosed comment
sheet.

Contacts for Questions and Comments
Public participation is important to the success of the planning process. The NCDOT is committed to ensuring
that citizens' concerns are addressed and considered before any recommendations or decisions are made. Your
opinions are important to us! A comment sheet is included with this newsletter. Please send comments to:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT - Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
.1548 Mail Service Center or
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
-[phone] ext. 209
email: [e-mail]
Mr. Mark Reep, PE
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
[phone] (toll free)
email: [e-mail]
If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer Service Office toll flee at
(877) DOT-4YOU or visit our website at http://www.ncdot.org.
�oF NORTl/ Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 to US 221-NC 226
o�� (TIP Projects R-2597 & R-204 D&E)
�
Rutherford and McDowell Counties
r
TOLL FREE PROJECT INFOR
1-888-858-7042
Additional Citizen's Informational Workshops will be held in Early
2005. Members of the project study team will be present with maps of
the project area. The public will have an opportunity to comment at this
meeting.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Project Schedule,
to
CA
Completion of Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing
Completion of WNSI
Right -of -Way Acquisition (TIP No. R-104 ME)
Right -of -Way Acquisition (TIP No. R-2597)
Construction (TIP No. R-204 D&E)
Construction (TIP No. R-2597)
Comment Sheet
Please fill out this form and send your comments to Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
Improvements to US 221 from Old US 221 (SR 1536) to US 221-NC 226
Rutherford and McDowell Counties, TIP Projects R-2597 and R-204 D&E
Name:
Address:
(full postal address — please print clearly)
Comments pertain to the following topic(s). Check
all that apply.
O
Cost/ Funding
O
Project Schedule
O
Community Impacts
O
Property Impacts
O
Cultural Resource Impacts
O
Public Involvement Activities
O
Minority/ Low Income Community Impacts
O
Road Access
O
Natural Resource Impacts
O
Safety
O
New Information
O
Other:
Comments and/or Questions: (please print)
Mail Completed form to:
Mr. John Wadsworth, PE
NCDOT — Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Wimmlard.nn I
Hy ;
"eementW
d a mn a enr q R Z
rsrei°bo/�/
eeglnP ll
IITXERFORO CO. }j MCOOWELL CO.
I
Ena Pmlee R-2
eegln PlectR2M DIE $�
' w
l Sediment Ell
Thermal / (y/
slry Doss H S49Tan 1SF2 C" -
CG% I n aaE He
4yy0a I / End Pled
R as E
IITXERFORO CO. `MCOOWELL CO. Vein MounU
}ems
rvonh camind an men ofTanapoaauon
Pr Jee EaddloPment B Environmental Analysis 9mnch
j
US=1 from SR 1636 in RutheaoN County to
US=1 PC 2261n MCOOWeII County
TIP Pmfeds R-26W and R-2. USE
2 3
Miles

/_1„=1LlII]/AI
MERGER TEAM
CONCURRENCE FORMS

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1— PURPOSE AND NEED

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA Document
Proiect No./TIP No./ Name/Descrintion:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
NC 226 in McDowell County
Alternative(s) Selected for Detailed Study:
1. West side widening along the Segments Al, B1, El, Fl, and Gl.
2. East side widening along the Segments B2, F2, and G2
3. Best fit widening with minor relocations in the Vein Mountain area to address
substandard horizontal curvature in Segments C, D, and H
4. Avoidance of Montieth House Historic Property in Segment B3.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of August 17, 2004 with the selection of the
above noted Alternative(s) to be evaluated in detail for TIP Nos. R-2597 and R-204 D&E.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. DENR — DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
REVISED Concurrence Point No. 2
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
WBS Element: 35608.1.1 & 34329.1.1
State Project No.: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: Improvements to US 221 from North of SR 1366 (Roper
Loop Road) in Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in
McDowell County
Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study that were Concurred with on August 17, 2004:
1. West side widening along the Segments Al, B1, El, F1, and G1.
2. East side widening along the Segments B2, F2, and G2.
3. Best fit widening with minor relocations in the Vein Mountain area to address
substandard horizontal curvatures in Segments C, D, and H.
4. Avoidance of Monteith House Historic Property in Segment B3.
Since that meeting, an additional alternative has been developed in Segment D:
5. Replace the bridge over the Second Broad River, located north of Vein Mountain, on its
existing alignment (Segment D1).
On this date of June 9, 2011, the Project Team
Segment D1, to the Alternatives to be Studied h
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources (HPO)
N. C. DENR — DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation
concurred to add the above alternative,
Lail for TIP Nosy R-2597 & R-204 D&E.
r

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2a — Bridging Decisions
Proiect No./TIP No./Name/Descriution:
Federal Aid Project Number: N/A
WBS Element: 35608.1.1 & 34329.1.1
State Project No.: 6.899002T & 6.879005T
TIP Number: R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TIP Description: US 221 from North of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in
Rutherford County to US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
BridLyini! Decisions:
After review of the project area and the existing drainage structures, the following hydraulic
structures are recommended for the subject project:
Site 1: Replace existing RCBC with new bridge, bridge length 172 ft., along existing crossing.
Site 2: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 3 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.
Site 3: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 3 @ 6 ft. x 6 ft.
Site 4: Retain and extend existing 72-inch CMP
Site 4a: Retain and extend existing 72-inch CMP
Site 5: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 3 @ 6 ft. x 6 ft.
Site 6: -D- Replace Bridge No. 17 with new bridge, bridge length 450 ft., west of existing crossing.
Site 6: -D1- Replace Bridge No. 17 with new bridge, bridge length 232 ft., along existing crossing.
Site 7: -D- Retain and extend existing RCBC, 1 @ 10 ft. x 6 ft., or extend bridge from Site 6 (TBD in CP3)
Site 7: -D 1- Retain and extend existing RCBC, 1 @ 8 ft. x 9 ft.
Site 7a: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 1 @ 6 ft. x 5 ft.
Site 8: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 3 @ 9 ft. x 8 ft.
Site 9: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 3 @ 11 ft. x 12 ft.
Site 10: Retain and extend existing RCBC, 1 @ 6 ft. x 6 ft.
On this date of June 9, 2011, the Project Team has concurred with the bridging decisions as
stated above. Reference Recommended Major Drainage Structures table as shown in CP2a
handout dated June 9, 2011 and is attached.
0
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources (HPO)
N. C. DENR — DWQ
Federal Highway Administration
N. C. Department of Transportation