US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass (4)

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0090 County: Rutherford Date Received: 10/02/2008
Due Date: 11/20/2008
Protect Description: Proposal to construct the US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton in Rutherford County as a foul-lane
roadway with a 46-ft median TIP No R-2233B
is Project is being reviewe as indicated below
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville ? Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville ? Aquifer Protection Wildlife ? Environmental Health
Raleigh v1 Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington ? Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wihnmgton Land Resources Other
? Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
?'?; Wafei Quality - DOT

Air Quality

Manager Sign-Off/Region Date In-House Reviewer/Agency
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
#i?? R?W#?4
OL[ 08 l00
??4'gpSPTFRU? 8
y r-^?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
SUBJECT
November 19, 2004
Ms Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Departr
Gregor3
Project
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Analysis Branch
Rutherfordton Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1353, Rutherford
County, Federal Aid Project NHF-221(9), State Project 8 1891001,
WBS Element 34400 1 1, TIP Project R-2233B
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed improvements to construct a bypass of Rutherfordton from the US 74 Bypass to
SR 1353 The project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2007 and construction in fiscal year 2009
The proposed protect will construct a bypass of Rutherfordton from the US 74 Bypass to
SR 1353 Currently 3 alternatives are being studied in detail for the proposed project (Alternates
3, 4 and 6) See attached map for locations
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Environmental Assessment This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act It is desirable that your agency respond
by January 21, 2005 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Beverly Robinson,
Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext 254 Please include the
TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments
rrg g&q
GJT/plr D
??? ly
Attachment U L I 0 f 2008 U
Ot- 1,N - I NAI F-N QUALITY
VYETLANt?, ""a STORMWATER BRANCH
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCOOT ORG
LOCATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Project 8 1891001
WBS Element 34400 1 1
TIP Project R-2233B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
N C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
OF t%oRTH
90

y ?

m z
O
OF TR
APPROVED:
0/a4/09
VJ,c???
Date it, Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Additional Information regarding this action may be obtained by contacting
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D ,
Manager
NCDOT-Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]

US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Project 8 1891001
WBS Element 34400 1 1
TIP Project R-2233B
STATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OF NORTIy C,g
??
90

co

m ?
•o

?OF TRANS
AUGUST 2008
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by
???? I C A
\\\
•FESS/0
Trmoject eelah El-Amin, P E Planning Engineer = Q. S A
4-*GIt4S S.
?
/// %ZAH M P
C flllll
J ,*es A McInnis, , P E ?_ a q -vfl
Project Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SUMMARY

S I Contact Information 11

S.2 Description of Proposed Action 11

S3 Purpose of Proposed Action 11

S4 Alternatives Considered 11

S.5 Summary of Impacts 111

S6 Unresolved Issues IV

S7 Actions Required by Other State and Federal Agencies V
v
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................. 1-1
.......
1 1 PROPOSED ACTION ..................
1-1
1 1 1 Project Setting 1-1
1 12 History of Project 1-1
12 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION 1-1
13 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 1-1
13 1 Summary of Need for Proposed Action 1-1
13 2 Traffic Carrying Capacity 1-2
13 2 1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1-3
1 3 2 2 Existing Levels of Service 1-3
1 3 2 3 Future Traffic Volumes 1-3
1 3 2 4 Future Levels of Service ("no-build") 1-3
1 3 3 Accident Data 1-3
1 3 4 Travel Time 1-4
13 5 Roadway Geometry 1-4
1 3 6 NC Strategic Highway Comdors/Intrastate System 1-5
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....................................................... .................2-1
2 1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2-1
2 2 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2 2 1 Transportation Management Alternatives 2-1
2 2 1 1 Transportation System Management (TSM) 2-1
2 2 1 2 Travel Demand Management (TDM) 2-3
2 2 1 3 Alternate Modes of Transportation 2-3
2 2 2 Improve Existing US 221 2-4
2 2 3 Preliminary Bypass Alternatives 2-4
2 3 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES 2-7
2 3 1 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives 2-8
2 3 2 Design Criteria 2-9
2 3 2 1 Design Speed 2-9
2 3 2 2 Typical Sections 2-10
2 3 2 3 Structures 2-10
2 3 2 4 Proposed Right of Way and Access Control 2-11
2 3 3 Traffic Operations 2-11
2 3 3 1 2010/2030 Build Traffic Projections 2-11
2 3 3 2 2010/2030 Build Capacity Analysis 2-11
2 3 4 Safety 2-11
2 3 5 Cost Estimates 2-12
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..... 3
1
......................................................
3 1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS ...................
-
3-1
3 1 1 Population Characteristics 3-1
3 12 Economic Characteristics 3-1
3 13 Employment 3-1
3 14 Community Facilities and Services 3-2
3 15 Community Cohesion 3-2
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 3-2
3 2 1 Land Use Plans 3-2
3 2 1 1 Existing Land Use 3-2
3 2 12 Existing Zoning 3-2
3 2 13 Future Land Use 3-3
3 2 2 Transportation Plans 3-3
3 2 2 1 Highway Plans 3-3
3 2 2 2 Transit Plans 3-4
3.2 2 3 Bicycle/Pedestnan Plans 3-4
3 3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS 3-4
33 1 Noise Characteristics 3-4
332 Air Quality 3-5
3 3 3 Farmlands 3-5
334 Utilities 3-6
335 Hazardous Materials 3-6
336 Floodplams/Floodways . 3-7
337 Protected Lands 3-7
337 1 State/National Forests 3-7
3 3 7 2 Game lands 3-7
3 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-7
3 4 1 Historic Architectural Resources 3-7
3 4 2 Archaeological Resources 3-10
3 5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS 3-11
3 5 1 Soils/Topography 3-11
3 5 2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife 3-11
3 5 2 1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife 3-11
3 5 2 1 1 Terrestrial Communities 3-11
3 5 2 12 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-13
3 5 2 2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife 3-14
3 5 2 2 1 Aquatic Communities 3-14
3 5 2 2 2 Aquatic Wildlife 3-14
3 5 3 Water Resources 3-15
3 5 3 1 Streams 3-15
3 5 3 2 Ponds 3-19
3 5 4 Jurisdictional Issues 3-20
3 5 4 1 Wetlands 3-20
3 5 4 2 Buffer Areas 3-22
3 5 4 3 Protected Species 3-22
3.5 4 3 1 Federally Protected Species ?. 3-22
3 5 4 3 2 Federal Species of Concern 3-24
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................ 4-1
.........
4 1 IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ....................
4-1
4 1 1 Community Impacts 4-1
4 1 1 1 Community Facilities & Services 4-1
4 1 12 Relocation of Homes and Businesses 4-1
4 1 13 Economic Effects 4-1
4 2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORATION PLANNING 4-2
4 2 1 Land Use Plans 4-2
4.2 2 Transportation Plans 4-2
4 2 2 1 Compatibility with Highway Plans 4-2
4 2 2 2 Compatibility with Transit Plans 4-2
4 2 2 3 Compatibility with Bicycle/Pedestnan Plans 4-2
4 3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 4-3
4 3 1 Noise 4-3
4 3 1 1 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours 4-3
4 3 12 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures 4-3
4 3 13 Summary 4-4
432 Air Quality 4-4
433 Farmland 4-6
434 Utilities 4-6
435 Hazardous Materials 4-7
436 Floodplam/Floodway 4-7
437 Protected Lands 4-7
4 3 7 1 State/National Forests 4-7
4 3 7 2 Game Lands and Preservation Areas 4-7
4 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-7
4 4 1 Historic Architecture Resources 4-7
4 4 2 Archeaological Resources 4-9
4 5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4-9
4 5 1 Soils/Topography 4-9
4 5 2 Biotic Community and Wildlife 4-9
4 5 2 1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife 4-9
4 5 2 2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife 4-10
4 5 3 Water Resources 4-10
4 5 4 Jurisdictional Issues 4-11
4 5 4 1 Wetlands 4-11
4 5 4 2 Buffer Areas/Impaired Waters 4-12
4 5 4 3 Protected Species 4-12
4 5 4 3 1 Federally Protected Species 4-12
4 5 4 3 2 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) 4-14
4 6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 4-14
4 7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 4-16

4 7 1 Visual 4-16
4 7 2 Noise 4-17
473 Air 4-17
474 Utilities 4-17
475 Water Quality/Erosion Controls 4-17
476 Geodetic Markers 4-18
477 Borrow and Disposal Sites 4-18
478 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibility 4-19
479 Bridge Demolition 4-19
4 8 IRRETRIEVABLE & IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES 4-19
4 9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG TERM & SHORT TERM
USES/BENEFITS 4-19
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................... ................5-1
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
S-1 R-2233B Detailed Study Alternatives IV
CHAPTER 1
1-1 Accident Rates Comparison Two-Lane Undivided US Routes 1-4
1-2 US 221 Existing Typical Sections . 1-5
CHAPTER 2
2-1 TSM Improvements 2-2
2-2 Preliminary Alternatives Comparison 2-4
2-3 Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison 2-8
2-4 Proposed Structures for Detailed Study Alternatives 2-10
2-5 Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives 2-12
CHAPTER 3
3-1 Project Study Area Prime Farmland Soils 3-6
3-2 Project Study Area Predominant Soils 3-11
3-3 Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area 3-15
3-4 Wetlands in Project Study Area 3-21
3-5 Federally Protected Species Listed for Rutherford County, NC 3-22
3-6 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Rutherford County 3-25
CHAPTER 4
4-1 Anticipated Relocation Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives 4-1
4-2 Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts . 4-3
4-3 Anticipated Prime Farmland Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives 4-6
4-4 Utility Relocation Cost for Detailed Study Alternatives 4-6
4-5 Detailed Study Alternatives Effects on Historic Properties 4-8
4-6 Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Terrestrial Communities 4-9
4-7 Anticipated Stream Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives 4-11
4-8 Anticipated Wetland Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives 4-11
4-9 Federally Protected Species Effects in Project Area 4-12
4-10 Magnitude of Land Use Change, 2000-2020 4-15
4-11 Adjacent Project Effects 4-16
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures for each section follow the text for each section)
SUMMARY
S-1 Detailed Study Alternatives
CHAPTER 1
1-1 Vicinity Map
1-2 2010/2030 No-Build Traffic Volumes
1-3 2010/2030 No-Build Level of Service
CHAPTER 2
2-1 Preliminary Alternatives
2-2 Aerial Mosaic
2-3 Proposed Typical Sections
2-4 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 3
2-5 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 4
2-6 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative 6
2-7 2010/2030 Traffic Volumes for Alternative US 74A
2-8 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 3
2-9 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 4
2-10 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative 6
2-11 2010/2030 Level of Service for Alternative US 74A
CHAPTER 3
3-1 Existing Land Use
3-2 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan
3-3 Predominant Soils in Project Area
3-4 Historic Properties in Project Area
3-5 Wetlands & Streams in Project Area
CHAPTER 4
4-1 Adjacent Projects
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments and Coordination
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 221
Proposed Rutherfordton Bypass
From US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road)
Rutherford County
State Protect 8 1891001
WBS Element 34400 1 1
TIP Project R-2233B
Proiect Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch-Proiect Development
Unit
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the
project's potential effects on the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be
conducted prior to completion the final environmental document for this project
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch-Human Environment
Unit
An archaeological survey to identify significant archaeological resources will be
performed after the selection of the preferred corridor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch/Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT will coordinate with local officials as the proposed project progresses
regarding the status of local greenway plans and proposed walking trails.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required for the project If
required, the Division Resident Engineer will submit sealed as-built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the project was built as shown on
construction plans
State Draft EIS-R-2233B Page 1 of 1
August 2008
SUMMARY
S.1 Contact Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
S.2. Description of Proposed Action
The proposed action involves constructing the US 221 Bypass of Rutherfordton, in
Rutherford County The proposed bypass will be constructed as a four-lane roadway
with a 46-foot median Portions of the bypass will be constructed on new location Full
control of access will be obtained for new location sections of the bypass Partial control
of access (one access per parcel with no other access) will be obtained for sections of the
project along existing roadways The proposed project is approximately eight to ten
miles long, depending on the alternative chosen Currently, four alternatives are being
considered for the project (see Section 2 3)
This project is identified as project number R-2233B in the approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) The initial right of way acquisition and construction for the project are scheduled
for state fiscal years 2011 and 2014 respectively
S.3. Purpose of Proposed Action
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton
11
S.4. Alternatives Considered
Preliminary alternatives considered for the project included the following
• No-Build Alternative
• Alternate Modes of Transportation
• Improve Existing Facility
• Construct Bypass
It was determined the No-Build Alternative and alternate modes of transportation would
not fulfill the purpose and need for the project and improving the existing facility through
downtown Rutherfordton would have excessive impacts to the Downtown Rutherfordton
Historic District Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration Based on the initial evaluation, only the Bypass Alternative was
determined to meet the goals of the proposed project
A total of nine bypass alternatives were investigated for this project Of these, four
alternatives were selected for detailed study by the NEPA/404 merger team (see Section
23)
iii
S.5. Summary of Impacts
A companson table of the four detailed study alternatives is shown below
Table S-1
R-2233B Detailed Studv Alternatives
ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 6 US 74A
ALT.
RESIDENTIAL 99 163 91 88
RELOCATEES
BUSINESS 27 43 26 32
RELOCATEES
WETLANDS
AFFECTED 08 06 13 07
(AC.)
(Nwn
STREAM
IMPACTS 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
DWARF-
FLOWERED
HEARTLEAF 4120 1723 3715 3715
IMPACTS (SQ
FT.
LENGTH NEW
LOCATION 72 43 83 38
(MILES)
TOTAL
LENGTH 85 93 94 87
(MILES)
TOTAL $2230 $2190 $2340 $2000
COST(MIL)
IV
S.6. Unresolved Issues
Field surveys completed in April 2003 indicate the presence of the federally protected
dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the study area The population contained approximately
250 plants
Further coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is required to determine the
effects of the project on the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
5.7. Actions Required by Other State and Federal Agencies
Due to expected project impacts on wetlands and jurisdictional streams, an
individual Section 404 permit will likely be required The Corps of Engineers will
determine final permit requirements
A NC Division of Water Quality Section 401 Mayor Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit
Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the effects of the project on
the federally protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf is required
v
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct the US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass in Rutherford County The proposed project is a multi-lane
roadway, portions of which will be on new location The bypass is approximately nine to
twelve miles long, depending on the alternative chosen
1.1.1 Project Setting
US 221 is the primary north-south corridor east of I-26 serving the mountainous region of
the state Rutherfordton is located northwest of Forest City near the center of Rutherford
County Existing US 221 passes through downtown Rutherfordton The proposed
bypass alignments generally start south of Rutherfordton, and swing to the east of the
downtown crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 221 A (Charlotte Road) and US 64
before tying back into existing US 221 south of SR 1367 (Thompson Road)
1.1.2 History of Project
A US 221 Bypass has been shown on the Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan since at
least 1976 The latest thoroughfare plan, the 1997 Rutherford County Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan, was jointly approved by local governments and NCDOT Project
development studies for the proposed bypass were initiated in 1999
1.2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve
travel time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton
1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1.3.1 Summary of Need for Proposed Action
The proposed project is intended to address the following deficiencies of existing US 221
in the vicinity of Rutherfordton
• Capacity Deficiencies
In 2010, the daily traffic volumes along US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton will
range between 7,000 to 12,700 vehicles per day By the year 2030, traffic volumes
along existing US 221 are projected to range between 11,100 to 18,800 vehicles per
day Portions of existing US 221 will be operating at an unacceptable level of service
(LOS E or F) in the year 2030 (see Figure 1-3)
1-1
• Excessive Travel Time
In the year 2030, the approximately ten mile trip from US 74 south of Rutherfordton
to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) north of Rutherfordton will take approximately 20
minutes, or double what the trip would take at 55 MPH with no stops
• Substandard Roadway Geometry
Portions of US 221 in the project area have narrow lanes and shoulders and vertical
alignments which do not meet a 60 MPH design speed
1.3.2 Traffic Carrying Capacity
US 221 is a two-lane highway Shown below is a photograph of existing US 221
There is no control of access along US 221, numerous residential and commercial
driveways tie into the existing facility There are four signalized intersections along the
subject section of US 221 and numerous unsignalized intersections
1-2
Thunder Road and Existing US 221 Intersection (Looking North)
1.3.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in 2010 for US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton range between 7,000 to 12,700 vehicles per day Figure 1-2 shows 2010
average daily traffic for the subject section of US 221
1.3.2.2 Existing Levels of Service
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level of
service (LOS) Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a
facility to carry traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions It is based on
factors of speed, travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and
safety Levels of Service range from "A" to "F", with "A" representing free flow (ideal
conditions), and "F" representing forced or breakdown flow (undesirable condition)
A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is dust able to
accommodate the traffic demand Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility's capacity
(LOS F), excessive delays occur
Figure 1-3 presents the 2010 levels of service along existing US 221 in the vicinity of
Rutherfordton As Figure 1-3 shows, portions of existing US 221 will operate at levels of
service E or F in the year 2010
1.3.2.3 Future Traffic Volumes
By the year 2030, traffic volumes along existing US 221 are projected to range between
11,100 to 18,800 vehicles per day Projected 2030 traffic volumes along US 221 in the
vicinity of Rutherfordton are shown on Figure 1-2
1.3.2.4 Future Levels of Service ("no-build")
Figure 1-3 presents the anticipated 2030 levels of service along existing US 221 in the
vicinity of Rutherfordton As Figure 1-3 shows, most portions of existing US 221 in the
Rutherfordton area will operate at levels of service E or F in the year 2030
1.3.3 Accident Data
Accident rates for the section of US 221 in the project area have been calculated and
compared with statewide rates for two-lane undivided US routes These rates are
presented in Table 1-1 below
1-3
Table 1-1
Accident Rates Comparison
Two-Lane Undivided US Routes
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM) (ACC/100MVM)
US 221
161 58 0
(2004-2007)
Statewide Average 220 00 2 17
2003-2005)
Critical Rate*
248 74 5 62
(2003-2005)
* Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
The 2004-2007 total and fatal accident rates for US 221 in the vicinity of Rutherfordton
do not exceed the 2003-2005 statewide average or critical rate for similar facilities The
total accident rate for NCDOT Highway Division 13, which includes Rutherford,
Buncombe, McDowell, Burke, Yancey, Mitchell and Madison counties, is 156 71
(ACC/100MVM) The total accident rate for this portion of US 221 is 161 58
(ACC/100MVM) In addition, the US 221truck accident rate of 7 95 (ACC/ 100MVM) is
greater than the statewide truck accident rate of 7 64 (ACC/100MVM)
During the study period, 122 accidents occurred along US 221 in the project area The
most common types of accidents included rear-end accidents (41 %) and frontal impact
accidents (including angle, head-on and turning crashes) (28%)
Rear-end accidents occurring along this section of US 221 were primarily due to traffic
stopped because of congestion and driver failure to reduce speed The frontal impact
accidents, on the other hand, may be related more to roadway characteristics (lane widths,
median, horizontal curvature)
1.3.4 Travel Time
Existing US 221 passes through the center of downtown Rutherfordton Speed limits on
US 221 within Rutherfordton vary between 20 to 45 MPH US 221 through
Rutherfordton is the only portion of US 221 between the South Carolina State Line and
I-40 with a speed limit lower than 55 MPH In the year 2030, the approximately ten mile
trip from US 74 south of Rutherfordton to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) north of
Rutherfordton will take approximately 20 minutes, or roughly double what the trip would
take at 55 MPH with no stops
1.3.5 Roadway Geometry
Lane widths along US 221 in the project area vary from ten feet to twelve feet wide
Shoulder widths also vary American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) guidelines generally recommend that lane widths of twelve feet be
1-4
provided on rural highways The guidelines also state that undesirable conditions
(inadequate vehicle clearances) exist on surfaces less than 22 feet wide carrying even
moderate volumes of traffic Studies have shown that rural highways with lane widths
less than eleven feet wide tend to have higher accident rates than similar facilities with
wider lanes AASHTO guidelines also state that shoulder widths of six to eight feet are
preferable Table 1-2 below presents the existing typical sections along US 221 in the
project area
Table 1-2
US 221 Existing Typical Sections
Section Section Length No Lanes/Width Shoulder Width
US 74 to Rutherfordton 3 4 mi 2/10' 4' grassed
City Limits
City Limits to Lynch St 1 4 mi 2/11' 4'-5' grassed
Lynch St to South of 1 3 mi 2/11'-12' Curb and Gutter
US 64
South of US 64 to
' 8'-12' grassed
Rutherfordton City 0 3 mi 2/12 (2' paved)
Limits
City Limits to SR 1529 4 6 mi 2/12' 12' gravel
The horizontal alignment of existing US 221 is good, and for the most part meets a
60 MPH design speed along sections of the roadway signed 55 MPH
The vertical alignment of existing US 221 south of Rutherfordton does not meet a
60 MPH design speed Many of the vertical curves along the roadway have a 40 or 45
MPH design speed Several areas along US 221 have grades above six percent These
steep grades, however, are fairly short
1.3.6 NC Strategic Highway Corridors/Intrastate System
US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to Linville has been designated part of the
North Carolina Intrastate System The Intrastate System was established by the North
Carolina General Assembly in 1989 The purpose of the Intrastate System is to provide
high-speed, safe travel service throughout the State by connecting major population
centers both inside and outside the State with four-lane highways The System is
designed to support statewide growth and development objectives and to connect to
1-5
mayor highways of adjoining states US 221 connects Rutherfordton with Spartanburg,
South Carolina to the south and Manon to the north
US 221 in the project area is also designated a strategic highway corridor This section of
US 221 is a part of Strategic Corridor 12, which extends from Spartanburg, South
Carolina to Boone using US 221 and NC 105 The strategic highway corridor vision for
US 221 in the project area is that US 221 be improved to a boulevard A boulevard is a
facility with at least four lanes and a median, which may have signalized intersections
and either partial (one driveway per parcel) or limited (access only from side roads)
control of access
US 221 is classified as a minor arterial south of Rutherfordton and a mayor arterial north
of Rutherfordton in the North Carolina Functional Classification System
1-6
64
64
IN CAR
Lam- ???,
Ruti?
I
t \
Rutherfordton
Soindale
C
i I
74
ForestCity?%??
1
i m
J\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
??- - OF TRANSPORTATION
-? / DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEGIN 74 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROJECT -, 74 -,T. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 221
T i_ RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
0 0.5 1 2 ( RUTHERFORD COUNTY
j TIP PROJECT R-22338
Miles _
APRIL 2008 BY. J.TORTORELLA FIGURE 1-1

NI-4 0 N
cn
lZ A'' \??j X11 PM 55 A 0
99 Wd L? (5,12)
(L'L) ?! !
99Wd9?
(6'Z) CA?w`f -
NIH? z H?al9
0 as S LLLZ
cn Ica
2!S
as SNIH01m H0a19
?? LLLZ>ds
07
J9 Wd 5?
(4?J SS N ??
AIN !I+ '' m?w ???In iW ?I
21nH0 NVONna as H0 AI? /,, ! I! 3W !i''
L
9W HS - WIN" ab).b3LgL`tis
wt)
)
gg Wd 9L -lLf MISS
/1 ? ? ?7 59? wd
/ `? l p (4,? SS as 3X00
\ \ / Co ANN, goo HS I
?) o ? rnIc V
?4,L7
3° _ \ v RA
/ N
Cb/ab ai! HlIWS NHbf ?-"
co mbs
.. S, > / A/c, 99 Ad U
R1
a° c 1 v ??P/A I
o vD 1 `3 ?IA I
z v 1 -?
A ?r
m m? Q ? ? I
0 CA Ar 1 Z / IV
z -4
_ We)
C>
09 Wd ZL ?v 7Ati? I
v _ a- Ladd ° 1 m
i` id.LsnaNI Ss O
I .\\ ? Lczzas
O II
Z ?? WIN W v ? ?/v
// N! A N/ W
N. J N 1?0 PM 555
I cn j N> 10 P 55 m?N (31)
mrn _
Z ` II !? ay (31) Ni 1 I O °m
Z ` I v
O 11INm ! ??/cn
- - - \\ 111 GREEN ST (NS)
I ! 12 PM 55
O \ F;
o? (1) a'?rn
(A. \ \ !
2-1 m I 1 A ?' ,N?m 99 Wd LL _
1181 Z
? ??? \ 9 Wd LL 1 N liN\a? S
-I- a le \,
-j, y9Wa5
ry A.j? \ ?lln`?
O
N , E

C7 b
?C --I rn -a --I Z
T
Z?
t,)
-'I , o .
o
C> ?0 mG?
?b? Zr DO
.q > > 0
m z
C? Z m
?Z m
N
<
UJZ:? v? D

T_I Ui >
CO ?NC H ?
N
N Z '4
= 0
i
N
?O
Gcen??r? N A N ?,?a a ?
?Im ?A ? Ool
e sn /?? ' V \ ? ? I O/
l3AyhQ`r rmla° ('A?1 JI?? °IN 1??? Eb
(v ??s Rp ye ?' /'? 5900 ??a0
A? wIN
I r tl ? /?
? ??o? ? ? I! ab
v -co
aI N
(pA"9 ?T -I b,???S W ?!
O if !li' ? 59?
59 w ?do? N,!
doo, N
S
01.4 oa 99EL?
!
`''? 3 !Im
EE?3

a a
§ ? ?
g
?\
m
'.

RUTHERFORDTON
J ( 1
,1 1
S "
J q_
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
. INTERCNANDE
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEA
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE S
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
nEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
?, 8g
TIP PROJECT R-22338
NO-BUILD
2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Ll 8
0
V11,
s +
J Poaw ,,,, ( g ri
Po+mRD
RUTHERFORDTON S e?
u, ? ? '1 SS®
J ( ni ii
S l?.!
g
a
a
SWAAL12ED INTERSECTION
? INTERCHIANGE•
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE A
?.. LEVEL OF SERVICE S
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
... LEVEL OF SERVICE E
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE F
8
u+ ?
e9
I SPINDALE \
I /
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TFRMSULS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
NO-BUILD
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 1-3
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would make no improvements to existing US 221 through the
year 2030, with the exception of regular maintenance such as patching, resurfacing,
regrading shoulders and maintaining ditches
The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-way nor construction costs 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 proposed
project Traffic capacity analyses indicate that by design year 2030, US 221 will operate
at LOS E with the exception of near the US 221/US 74 Business-US 221A intersection,
where US 221 will operate at a LOS F This increase in volumes would result in greater
congestion and an increase in the number of accidents The increased congestion would
diminish the potential for economic growth and development within the study area
2.2 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES
2.2.1 Transportation Management Alternatives
In some cases, transportation management alternatives can be used to improve the overall
operation of an existing roadway network The management tools include Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) The following
provides a discussion of these tools and their applicability for this project
2.2.1.1 Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation Systems Management consists of adding low-cost transportation
improvements to increase the capacity of an existing facility TSM strategies typically
involve minor roadway improvements that improve the operational characteristics of a
facility while minimizing capital outlay and inconvenience to motorists There are two
main types of TSM minor roadway improvements operational and physical Examples
of these improvements are shown in Table 2-1 below
2-1
Table 2-1
TSM Im rovements
Operational Improvements Physical Improvements
Traffic law enforcement Addition of turn lanes
Turn prohibitions Intersection realignment
Access control Improved warnings and information
signs
Speed restrictions New signals or stop signs
Signal coordination Intersection geometric and
signalization improvements
Signal phasing or timing
changes
TSM physical and operational roadway improvements typically are effective in solving
site-specific capacity, safety and use problems in urban areas As described below, most
of these measures are not applicable to US 221 because of existing conditions
Turn Prohibitions and Turn Lanes US 221 is a two-lane roadway A median is needed
to prohibit left-turning movements and additional right of way would be required to
construct the median and relocate one lane This improvement, while limrtmg left turns,
would do little to improve the capacity of the existing roadway
Traffic Signals Only four of twenty-one intersections along US 221 are currently
signalized Signalizing other minor street intersections along US 221 would result in
increased delay for US 221 traffic
Intersection Geometric Improvements There are no locations where the existing
pavement can be restnped 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 existing speed limit along most of US 221 is 45 mph With the spacing
between signalized intersections and the essentially straight alignment of the highway,
drivers can achieve running speeds in excess of the speed limit During peak hours,
speed is controlled by the heavy traffic volume Restrictions on speed would not improve
capacity along US 221
Improved Signage New and improved warning or informational signs would not be
effective at solving the problems along existing US 221 Accident patterns for US 221
2-2
are indicative of congested conditions rather than motorist's unfamiliarity with the
highway or prevailing conditions Additional signs are unlikely to address this accident
trend
In summary, intersection realignments, side street improvements, additional turn lanes,
and signal phasing and timing changes are the TSM actions most likely to provide any
measure of congestion relief for US 221 Yet, the amount of relief these improvements
can provide is limited By 2030, all intersections with the exception of one will operate
at an unacceptable LOS E or F Transportation systems management improvements can
provide short-term relief However, a bypass to increase capacity along US 221 is
needed to address long-term needs
2.2.1.2 Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Travel Demand Management (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 the entrances to their
businesses Although the US 221 corridor does contain some large businesses, it is not
expected that such adjustments to work schedules would significantly reduce peak hour
traffic volumes within the study area
Given the predominantly rural nature of the project area, public transportation or
ridesharing are unlikely to result in substantial reductions in the amount of traffic along
US 221 in the project area
2.2.1.3 Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternate modes of transportation would include bus or rail passenger service
Intercity bus service to the Rutherfordton area is provided by Greyhound Lines Inc via a
terminal located in Spmdale
There is no passenger rail service available in Rutherford County The abandoned
railroad that runs from Forest City to Rutherfordton has been put into a rail banking
system and is currently used as a walking trail
The Rutherford County Transit Department provides subscription and dial-a-ride
transportation services for authorized residents of Rutherford County No fixed-route
transit service is currently provided in the county Given the predominantly rural nature
of the project area, bus transit is unlikely to result in substantial reductions in the amount
of traffic along US 221 in the project area
2-3
2.2.2 Improve Existing US 221
The Improve Existing US 221 alternative consists of widening existing US 221 and
constructing a one-way pair within downtown This alternative was eliminated because
of the potential impacts to the historic district in Rutherfordton
2.2.3 Preliminary Bypass Alternatives
Constructing a US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton would meet the purpose and need of the
proposed project A bypass would reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve travel
time for traffic using the US 221 corridor in the vicinity of Rutherfordton
Nine bypass alternatives were initially developed for the proposed project Six of these
alternatives were presented to the public at a citizens informational workshop held on
August 23, 2001 Of these, four alternatives were chosen for detailed study by the
NEPA/404 merger team (see Section 2 3) Table 2-2 presents impacts of all of the
preliminary bypass alternatives The table includes estimates of impacts based on the
total corridor area Impact estimates were refined as studies progressed The preliminary
bypass alternatives are shown on Figure 2-1
Table 2-2
Prelimina Alternatives Com arison

Improve West F

Exist.
Alt. l
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. S
Alt. 6
B B
Residential 108 85 171 151 162 134 149 115 90
Relocatees
Business 49 11 31 23 20 19 21 11 23
Relocatees
National
Register 1 distract 1 1 1 1 1 1 None None
Listed
Properties
Wetlands
Affected (ac.) 1 6 12 22 1 8 21 2 0 13 24 1 5
(NWI)
Stream 2,733 14,270 12,148 5,794 5,906 10,497 13,113 12,692 3,834
Impacts ft.
Length New
Location 02 90 95 91 90 93 86 96 33
miles
Total Length 123 12 8 123 116 12 8 109 94 128 11 6
miles
Impacts listed were based on best available information at time, not actual field surveys
The Preliminary Alternatives are discussed below The alternatives eliminated were
Improve Existing US 221, West Bypass, Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 5
2-4
Western Bypass Alternative
The Western Bypass Alternative would widen existing US 221 to four lanes with a
median from US 74 Bypass to dust south of SR 1191 (Mountain View Cemetery Road),
then construct a bypass on new location around the western side of Rutherfordton,
connecting with existing US 221 near SR 1355 (Mountain Creek Road) north of
Rutherfordton This alternative is approximately 13 miles long and was eliminated
because it will not serve the towns of Spmdale and Ruth as well as a bypass on the
eastern side of Rutherfordton and it would divert the least amount of traffic from existing
US 221 Additionally, this alternative would affect a water supply watershed and other
alternatives would not
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to north of SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road) North of SR 2194, a bypass on new location would be built around the east side
of Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 at SR 1376 (Lane Road), north
of Rutherfordton Alternative 1 would cross SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74
Business/US 221 Alternate, US 74 Alternate (Railroad Avenue), US 64 and SR 1520
(Rock Road) This alternative matches the alignment shown for the proposed
Rutherfordton Bypass on the 1997 Rutherford County Thoroughfare Plan Alternative 1
is approximately 13 miles long and was eliminated because it would impact a proposed
county landfill, would impact the largest amount of streams and would also affect a
property listed on the National Register of Historic Places
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road), south of Rutherfordton A bypass on new location would be built around the east
side of Rutherfordton, connecting back with existing US 221 near SR 1536 (Old US 221)
north of Rutherfordton This alternative would tie into existing US 74 Alternate north of
SR 2201 (Thunder Road) and follow the existing alignment of US 74 Alternate until
north of US 74 Busmess/US 221Altemate North of US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate,
the alternative would continue on new location This alternative is approximately 12
miles long and was eliminated because it would affect the most homes, would affect a
large amount of streams and would potentially impact an industrial complex
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass This
alternative is located on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road) North of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road), a bypass on new location would be built
2-5
around the east side of Rutherfordton, crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74
Business/US 221 Alternate and US 64 before connecting back with existing US 221 at
SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of Rutherfordton US 221 would then be widened from
SR 1536 (Old US 221) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 8 5 miles
Alternative 3 was shown at the citizens informational workshop and was selected by the
NEPA/404 merger team to be studied in detail
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a "shallow"
bypass of downtown Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes
with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2271 (Industrial Park Road), dust south of
downtown Rutherfordton A bypass on new location would be constructed from SR 2271
(Industrial Park Road) extending around the east side of downtown Rutherfordton and
connecting back with existing US 221 near the existing US 64 interchange US 221
would then be widened from US 64 to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is
9 3 miles Alternative 4 was shown at the citizens informational workshop and was
selected by the NEPA/404 merger team to be studied in detail
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 is located on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road) A bypass on new location would be built around the east side of Rutherfordton
connecting back with existing US 221 north of SR 1526 (Edwards Road) This
alternative will cross US 74 Business/US 221Alternate North of US 74 Business/US
221 A, the alternative turns eastward, crossing US 74A (Railroad Avenue) before turning
northward North of US 64, the alternative crosses SR 1520 (Rock Road) passing
between the Broyhill furniture plant and Gilbert Town (a historic district) before tying
back into existing US 221 This alternative was suggested by local officials at the
citizens informational workshop for the project The local officials suggested this
alternative due to concerns Alternative 2 would affect an industrial site NCDOT staff
evaluated the alternative and presented it to the NEPA/404 merger team following the
workshop This alternative is approximately 11 miles long and was eliminated because it
would potentially affect Gilbert Town, a site which is now listed on the National Register
of Historic Places
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass This
alternative is on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) North
of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road), a bypass on new location would be built around the east
side of Rutherfordton, crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road) and US 74 Business/US
221Altemate At US 74 Busmess/US 221Altemate, Alternative 6 continues east of the
Town of Ruth crossing US 64 and SR 1520 (Rock Road) before tying into existing
2-6
US 221 north of SR 1367 (Thompson Road) US 221 would then be widened from north
of SR 1367 (Thompson Road) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 9 4
miles
Alternative 6 is similar to Alternative 5, except near Gilbert Town This alternative was
developed in order to reduce potential impacts to Gilbert Town The merger team agreed
Alternative 6 should be studied in detail
US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative would involve widening existing US 221 to four lanes
with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) North of SR 2194
(Poors Ford Road) a bypass on new location would be constructed connecting existing
US 221 with existing US 74 Alternate at US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate Existing
US 74 Alternate would be widened to multi-lanes from US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate
to north of US 64 North of US 64, the bypass would be extended on new location,
connecting SR 1536 (Old US 221) and existing US 221 Existing US 221 would then be
widened to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 8 7 miles Alternative 74A
was shown at the citizens informational workshop and was selected by the NEPA/404
merger team to be studied in detail
2.3 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Following the citizens informational workshop for the project, the NEPA/404 merger
team selected four of the preliminary bypass alternatives for detailed study
The following preliminary alternatives were retained for detailed study
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 6
US 74A Bypass
A comparison of the detailed study alternatives is presented in Table 2-3 below These
detailed study alternatives are shown on Figure S-1 and described in Section 2 3 1 The
typical sections of the detailed study alternatives are described in Section 2 3 2 2
2-7
Table 2-3
Detailed Stud Alternatives Com arison
ALT.3 ALT.4 ALT.6 US 74A

T.
AL
T.
RESIDENTIAL 99 163 91 88
RELOCATEES
BUSINESS 27 43 26 32
RELOCATEES
WETLANDS
AFFECTED 08 06 13 07
(AC.)
(NWI)
STREAM
IMPACTS 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
(FT-)
DWARF-
FLOWERED
HEARTLEAF 4120 1723 3715 371 5
IMPACTS (SQ
FT.)
LENGTH NEW
LOCATION 72 43 83 3 8
(MILES)
TOTAL
LENGTH 85 93 94 87
(MILES)
TOTAL COST $2230 $2190 $2340 $2000
(MIL)
Impacts based on field surveys
2.3.1 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass This
alternative is located on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be
widened to four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford
Road) North of SR 2194 ( Poors Ford Road), a bypass on new location would be built
around the east side of Rutherfordton, crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road), US 74
Business/US 221 Alternate and US 64 before connecting back with existing US 221 at
SR 1536 (Old US 221) north of Rutherfordton US 221 would then be widened from
SR 1536 (Old US 221) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 8 5 miles
2-8
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a "shallow"
bypass of downtown Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be widened to four lanes
with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2271 (Industrial Park Road), dust south of
downtown Rutherfordton A bypass on new location would be constructed from SR 2271
(Industrial Park Road) extending around the east side of downtown Rutherfordton and
connecting back with existing US 221 near the existing US 64 interchange US 221
would then be widened from US 64 to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is
9 3 miles
Alternative 6
Alternative 6 would involve widening existing US 221 and constructing a bypass This
alternative is on the east side of Rutherfordton Existing US 221 would be widened to
four lanes with a median from US 74 Bypass to near SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) North
of SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road), a bypass on new location would be built around the east
side of Rutherfordton, crossing SR 2201 (Thunder Road) and US 74 Business/US
221AIternate At US 74 Business/US 221Alternate, Alternative 6 continues east of the
Town of Ruth, crossing US 64 and SR 1520 (Rock Road) before tying into existing
US 221 north of SR 1367 (Thompson Road) US 221 would then be widened from north
of SR 1367 (Thompson Road) to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 9 4
miles
US 74A Bypass Alternative
The US 74A bypass alternative would involve widening existing US 221 to four lanes
with a median from US 74 Bypass to SR 2194 (Poors Ford Road) North of SR 2194
(Poors Ford Road), a bypass on new location would be constructed connecting existing
US 221 with existing US 74 Alternate at US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate Existing
US 74 Alternate would be widened to multi-lanes from US 74 Business/US 221 Alternate
to north of US 64 North of US 64, the bypass would be extended on new location,
connecting SR 1536 (Old US 221) and existing US 221 US 221 would then be widened
to SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) The total length is 8 7 miles
2.3.2 Design Criteria
2.3.2.1 Design Speed
A 70 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project on new location A 60
MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the project which involve widening
existing US 221 A 50 MPH design speed is proposed for portions of the US 74A Bypass
Alternative along existing US 74A
2-9
2.3.2.2 Typical Sections
Figure 2-3 shows the proposed typical sections for the bypass alternatives The roadway
typical section will be a four-lane roadway with a 46-foot median, with the exception of
portions of the US 74A Alternative along existing US 74Alternate A 23-foot raised
median and curb and gutter with a ten-foot berm is proposed for portions of the proposed
bypass routed along existing US 74Altemate Twelve-foot lanes are proposed for all of
the alternatives Ten-foot grassed shoulders (four-foot paved) are proposed for portions
of the project with a 46-foot median
2.3.2.3 Structures
Table 2-4 below presents the proposed structures for the detailed study alternatives
Figure 3-5 shows the location of these sites
Table 2-4
Proposed Structures for Detailed Studv Alternatives
Site No. Stream Alternative Proposed Structures Current Flood
Insurance Status
I B 3, 4, 6, & US Retain and Extend Existing

74A
2 5'x 6' RCBC No Involvement
2 IC 3, 6,
d US New 1 @ 72" RCP No Involvement
A
3 2B 3, 6,
d US New 1 @ 6'x 6' RCBC No Involvement
A
4 3-2C Cleghorn 4 Spanning Structure Limited Detail
Creek
2C, 3-2C 3, 6 and US
5 Stonecutter 74A Bridge No Involvement
Creek
6 2-F 4 Retain and Extend Existing Limited Detail
2 6'x 8' RCBC
7 2-G Cleghorn 4 New 2 @ 9'x 9' RCBC Detailed
Creek
8 11 3, 6,
d US New 1 @ 6'x 7' RCBC No Involvement
A
9 2-G Cleghorn 4 New 2 @ 9'x 9' RCBC Detailed
Creek
I 1 3X 6 New 1 @ 6'x 7' RCBC Limited Detail
12 3G Hollands 6 New 2 @ 9'x 10' RCBC Limited Detail
Creek
13 2K 3 & US 74A New 2 8'x 8' RCBC Limited Detail
14 3F Hollands 4 Retain and Extend Existing Limited Detail
Creek 2 @ 79x 7' RCBC
2-10
2.3.2.4 Proposed Right of Way and Access Control
A total right of way width of approximately 300 feet is proposed for new location
portions of the proposed bypass Narrower right of way widths ranging from 115 feet to
250 feet are proposed for portions of the project which involve widening existing roads
Full control of access is proposed for new location portions of the project Partial control
of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other access) is proposed for
portions of the project which involve widening existing roads
2.3.3 Traffic Operations
2.3.3.1 2010/2030 Build Traffic Projections
Projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the years 2010 and 2030 for the
detailed study alternatives and the surrounding roadway network are shown on
Figures 2-4 to 2-7
2.3.3.2 2010/2030 Build Capacity Analysis
All of the detailed study alternatives would operate at an acceptable level of service in
both 2010 and 2030 The levels of service for the different alternatives are shown on
Figures 2-8 to 2-11
2.3.4 Safety
The construction of any of the detailed study alternatives would reduce the amount of
traffic on existing US 221 This reduction in traffic volumes, in turn should reduce the
total number of accidents occurring on the existing roadway Existing US 221 would
continue to have occurrences of accidents However, the anticipated reduction in traffic
volumes would be expected to have a corresponding reduction in the type of accidents
generally associated with traffic congestion
Reduction in traffic volumes and conflicts would reduce the total number of accidents
occurring on both the urban and rural sections of the existing roadway, leading to the
assumption that property damage and injury seventy would be reduced
Severe accidents associated with high-speeds anticipated on the proposed US 221 new
location alternatives are expected to be minimal The new location roadway would be a
four-lane divided facility designed to accommodate high-speed traffic The proposed
46-foot median would provide positive separation between opposing traffic, reducing the
likelihood of head-on collisions Therefore, the new location alternatives would be safer
at higher speeds than existing US 221 and would carry a greater volume of traffic
2-11
2.3.5 Cost Estimates
Preliminary cost estimates for each detailed study alternative are presented in Table 2-5
Table 2-5
Cost Estimates for Detailed Studv Alternatives (millions)
ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 6 US 74A
ALT.
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $49 0 $60 0 $45 0 $460
UTILITY RELOCATION $1 7 $1 6 $20 $25
WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION $60 $43 $70 $50
CONSTRUCTION $166 0 $153 0 $180 0 $1460
TOTAL COST $223 0 $219 0 $234 0 $2000
2-12

s

° v 5
a
go rl
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ALTERNATIVE I
A L T E R N A T I V E 2
Mt. Vemon A L T E R N A T I V E 3
A L T E R N A T I V E 4
i
ALTERNATIVE 5
Q° A L T E R N A T I V E 6
ti
U S 7 4 A B Y P A S S
° J A L T E R N A T I V E
/ - W E S T E R N A L T E R N A T I V E
r
I M P R O V E E X I S T I N G
U S 2 2 1 A L T E R N A T I V E
RUTH _
IERFORDTON
SPINDALE
O

C 74
O KILOME 2RS 3
0 l 2
MILES _
p ALEXANDER
,4 _ o MILLS
e
jowl 0;100
y?' .a ?"'"w a ?'" - ,* ??•k ?._.. -'?, ?_?
Wqw
Rr7
?1p ({}
10
low,
tKI r!
h'
47
AN.
f ;. e
e
VA .
.
y
w S ?.:/? I ??. ::? )4 ???? ?' ?? ??,. ??` .. 'S"'biPyM ?a ?? y'? .q N??'?•?? •.?,; A!1. si
f
400 -4-
r
Z;U 2: -n 0
6 rn y = k a l e r ? ! »s p? m, "'.'? _
b w qr
-n C_ Z:4 z z of
m _n M.
'? • .? a ?; „? ??? - ??',: '? ?? ?„ ??'= ?
o0 m O fn 0 Z < = U0
s
? r r = _ Z , .. ?, ?4 _r'A? r`°;fx? .t ,.• ..?' _.;s p(6 a:,'fi•-"`" ? 1 J r ?5.„'f.? ?'r'r' ,?' .liu
m ;on 0 D???D
1") C
65 >
t_
Z..
U Lr
111 = F• 3 -Vg
e
N J i ''? L - ,fir- a

0' C@
r N d p t7 v v d v ? 5_ - r' ? ,y, ? -
c.
x a a d m m` m m "!k
.. may,` 'u
fCm D Y ay j " "?' AV
<
< N Wk r ur= i '4i.
N CL w
p , - ? .+ry. { 4,1.1 tom.. ?V
a 'i
1 ?h3 NQ
PIK-
!E" Fl
?U II. M
p I It 4 4'?' lr
"
l`,? rrio a ?M a ?, r k. ?` 1v y { y &, Q
?I I
,
JAI
w
e
x
O
O _Il Il
y
x
16
lie -
r
LL i. W cl ti r w y. ql +y?. ti d
„m
T +d - aT4 t '? a ii. •n"W11 n?rY ?. m ?v,.tt!r >?.? +F?(.:+G ? o - --?
v?Y T? ?; LhfaTn ? Y
y ? F 1F' n tk?1; w'V R'Fe rA ? ? ? ? 1:: ., r i l y1N 1' _ ?' ? F7' F •.
r
O ,
' s
n
00
m-0 00z a ;<
co ?C = Zp<TO_
.r
Om0>
?m -n z?zz0
O m0 TI m -n
X? z<x00 ??:_ maws y'?,
D 4 ^ `? •yE " zv a -j,
F- Ati.
,
x
w Z W r z to;. a'
14
I< .i ;'^ , A4. ? ,d` r J a ? : ?4 IN\7 f t d
a
G7 D Fn z
c
,.
N n ter'.., lJi'l}Q?M-. WL?IJU.
77
IV Is one .? _ ! ??-•.? 22 ?"I,
A
W a " ?'
r ? ? '^'+ •?} ,? ?'? ,;?• } ? may, ?I
lqr,
A ..
cb-
i
? • ? . ?? „,fir ?,.4: ?r '
O '
O {
-CIA
0, pt
y. t f N
CD C)
4 4 _ '
?N
tr
?ity A ?a 1?. " +s
.... -e "Aye,, t •1? y.
y?ri''•L„ _"?'i d-' .x CRY. ?.?4 •ti. 'w?t?p"?
T z
A 2
W Z7 = Z?7OZ t??m -n o
pODri
?m -n ZnQZZO 4'
a.
O -n m _n `e
m0
O? yo=tea
n wO Co > Zm a ?o
-n w • n -1 D
00 F vi
G7 D
C Cl) m v m
Cl)
X
Z'
Ill z :xa
N n fi
{
((D O ,?'=
1
co ?I.
X = Z? C O 0
-? _ -
;u 0
?
m
xm -n z0?zzn.
z O? 0 C mm0M?
o m0 z<_0o
Dr?joZ
x
L?j ivO Z z?yom ` y"
oi-
wC Dm?Z?
11 coZ Cl)?N D t??
;u D fA D
C Cl) a) z
y ?E
i7 ? Kp
IK;l
.g.r , J
14.
71 ,` r
w. •.?a _r?i,?? 'fit ? 12'` ? •??.
Y t : a C.
P ~r e ?Ff'?` p O O N D D D D
S
3 3 3 3
N v m m 3
N n '' r' r m uY p n ?. ?. ?. ?.
c
CD CD CD (D (D
CL CL
D
CD r
< CD
n 4 N o ° o

Q.
I ? N

v
N

o
CD
a
1 C
'
° a

r -
Z
a f

?..
i- gip:, • ,
`

' O,
0
TO C
0 ? D D D D i'_ -

a
>
> m
3
O 0
0 m m m m
3>> 3
Z m Z Z

jt
n ?6
n d Z Z'
m m m m ?:.wb
i
N y d• C rn A w • ?.

z
O

v o a !. F

r
'
N
N Y.
'
a l ?r

u

n •
F
d, +10 11 ? n
. A`r
??,t,'dw
d"
-WO
? _
.
i ?Y? ?

- ? s Y
?
`
4
'
? ''?• y
?
y[ 'l '? n "
'?y • ?
? `
? `
?
yi
?
x
.
?Vj4.? y?t ? rt t4
? F-
t
,?
7Y _- ' ,?
U
j
p?
e "fir*.' I
r v .• -_ ?.
.r. o.•
X14
7 .-:.Y7.'?' M
?' ?. t --'!I???
.._n t
"'?" `
;ro ,t °r'._.
j.
ITT

0
,!

s
jf
02"
0
:r
Oki
':
:? .?
O O_?D D D D
-- m N m F m m
N 907 d O S. N 3 3 3 3
? O °i
v m m c Z Z<< Z
CD a a c m c m m m
°. 9 g ti
3 0 O- D to
N O, N O N <D
z O O.
d V
O ?.
? n
9) y
N TJ
O CD
0. N `F
--
d m?}`...
b`-? zip
.
.Q?+ Y Ap
?'? y3v
St_. ?u
Fur.
Fy
?.1

1
Ji
?"
P Y

w
F
O

O
O
fi, #
,
I
i
N
CD O i

S A

z
r
N
M
Co C
? C =
00 m

L
? =
m '
T7
N
-n
I O p Cl)
M
-1 0
?n O N
n N O Z
w z W
3 W D

cn
m
N
N
L

Y
C
?Z
" ®m

A ! G!
mar
eo m

X_
? -1/
m -vvOz
Z;U 7m0
50y-iX
pr"O?=
Z:4 z z o
mm -n'u?
z oo .r{
z o
3DZm
<Z? D
z
Z '.
n .d
:F c ? f
¦
a
141
oy . V • R A.. r iew':?
1, OR
may,
O-N
27
7?
TIP PROJECT R-22336
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
ALTS.3 4 6 AND
NEW LOCATION P6R'fIONS OF ALT. US74A)
,
?
?
?
PAVED'
SHOULDER 12'
6'
2' PAVED 2' PAVED
SHOULDER SHOULDER
46' MEDIAN
4' PAVED
SHOULDER
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
(ALT. US74A ALONG RAILROAD AVE.)

FIGURE 2-3
TIP PROJECT R-22336
TYPICAL SECTION ON PROPOSED NEW BRIDGES
FIGURE 2-3
NORTHBOUND
Cfll ITHRM wn

?4
N
?ssJ ,$? N J
(9 1 ( &I ?'IN X11 PM 55
5(? 5 (5,12)
gg Wd gL
as SNIH01nH H01:119
(?'zl NIw? ?Ltz as
0? sw r? Is
as SNIH01nH HOW, cnIw
?? I.LLZaS ggWd ?? ?
HIV ? v
v

v

v

D /
r
l
\- a o o
r
M
_
\ C
? v oD
r
v?
M
=j Cl)
ZZO T
c r n

v_

n
i
O
z
z
0
Cl)
0
m
.w
? ? ?I? $ / /?Iw (v d g?
Z 7?p 09 Yr
O (? MSS ??
?j
AIN +I? ??n sW ??
au HOanHO N`dONna WI-4 JI ! ?m qv_I_OD o -is 1?a?1?W? S ?IJ
96tzHS WIN -? SIN wli£
NIA "o11on ? ?, (Z E)
1? P= ?ggd Z
v ^ O CVOI co as 3X00
p -; % `rS O1 1A g00L HS WIN
N 30
-? 1 0
I J ?N?
Nlm
Z
\ °mz a2! HlIWS NHOP
\ A ZBLLUS
v
i
?? 2I, I
1 n M o I I
1. 09WdZL ? ??
' N Z 9 as ?lavd ? V
9k jvialsnaN1
tt «zzaS C /
?M sS
I _? (3.2)
OIN
10 PM
I i (3'1) °? ?Iw ivl? NIA r AI?m ?? /
We)
?- 8g Wd OL
N ?i V
I j o wI? ?I? nit
U.'£) mIN /
?r AC 99 t AN /
--I 0
O N
C ;u ;j
I r ?fgo 0 ?v
I p (E'8)
41
g $'I I s s N°I- ? A
V
AID ?? r ?
? CD gI" NIV NI?
\ m (I 61
\ gg W rid 'c? rnl cn \o
j O1?A ?? ss
its QA ` 1 NI w
AAA
r l ti{
i ;
....•
Z N
= oIV
n ?5 Z -a -j Z
-? ?X1?? <OZ0
C 2 N m CA
I?'1=mow ZQ0
w mom ?my0
0 ;o
Z
nZ0 Zm v
>Z m
L,j wZ-0r0 HY
LA C: 3:
C N
m m
m N Z -+
O
N
jb.
Oco N olA C!? OS?
pw

J
cnO
??

'
is?
nilm (@M$$
3'D ml ? ol?

M
F N ps s° o? ?a0i

59 0a ANN
g? toss
N
J

N
i ?V w
rs??
?? VIA I
(ED'S) A O v
5
::1v
? v
o
\A ?
m
zO
C r
X
v_
m
O
z

wt)
0
°a SNIHOI-nH HOal9
?L?t as
w1w
A
CD
15 P1165
(1,1) r
I? 4a SNIHO1nH HOHIS
UL Z aS
rs9Mss
nH HO2lnHO NVONnO
olo
2
=?
m
z
v?
ti
_n
n
Eli
A?
1*4is r.' X11 PM 5-
(5,12)
v,
A?
rsJ ? :?:
?nlw?
N
i I
T
O
OU)
N A
T
1
O
v
w ? NIA
AIOD 14e
5s wd ??
W'ac) 1W
981J. ZaS - wlN
(5,4)
7 59? W
p rs3 SS ???'?? _ Oa 3X00
soon
ti as
N N AV?w
? (p
Cft
I
\ ? ! 3102110 ?'/c?
Cal" W83N3J ?N N m
\ T
\ C We) ON HlIWS NHOr ?---
09 Wd 6 "??' ??? zSLL aS
Wz)
-..: sew 59 Wd £l
\ ;0 ^??o
0 Rig
r4??ss A? 1 z wIOD I
J _
I OIN gI0)
I NI? ?I. CA IA ,AI??IW rl° °'o/VIA ?10PM55 /
I OPM80 ?wi,lb' 1 wI'? ca 1- I"'?a' -4I? aoly' (t'E) co?cNi,
(3'1) j0 Im ° gSW Od I I O oc /
108-PM 55
l ?? ay lq
\ Z ? ? 2 GN 00 i
cn -10
o ? /
PM 55
---g 3 - OI N
d
\ ? ??olrn _ ?Irn?
A
CD
m _ (w
r
-4
T
m
M N
Z
O m -u -4 Z
7<?vrO?riZ?
m -0 fri , °z ? o
om-n°
C- o --4 Z a m
C-) b?-n ?Oz
?nZZ F"
rz
NCI
0 -0
wZ?o yY
C7 CD?N?
m N z
= O
N
I
In
R c -I- I
- q
XX
gig otiG z Sl
c ?NIN+I' f o co
A co
N NIS
203 IN \ I+
mlorn 8 08
?8RI-4IN `?2l o? y
? ? ? ?NIo ?,a pa
ss AI, ej
81-4
M O ?J/\?S?
E; O CA
81°°
n _ w ,? ° dp00 ri
'go q?
V_ ?
59 aad0a
doo, N
i
M I?
\\N
(S? SS N
wr NI? ::ICA
-11 PM 55
? Nlo (512)
9(
99 Wd 9L NI- 0
as SNIH01f?H H01119 ?-
-Tv
Oa SNIH01nv4 HOal9 O
.0- LLLZ aS 9S Wd L?
-- ?Ig

v _

O
/
I
\A ? O p
CA >
\ Z M
e =
m
z
oa
M m?

? °
A O

c
X
P
X

9
O
z
O
O
r
m
r

rn
Z N
D o

m -0 N
m
-0
LA
o rri 0
X
-n O
?
°
o
>
O
nzn
?
b

CC)
C
w ? > O

N K

m N
N
i
(i)
rn-0 -1Z
<o5? 0
7v my=
z?0?
3 on,
Z??p
>OZZ
3 Y
DZ rn
N Z
m
Z Z
n
= O
/I
sit ?Wd 9?
Z SAM
O r? ss
Aiw ?I? 7J ml? D ?)n yW ??
SR 2196 C'Slm T19- , le ,Is
DUNCAN CHURCH RD --I &IN"' -,IF r6?v S
(L'Z) ?? ?A-? ? ?I ?I
Ste- 11
?= SS Wd ZL
o (?, 1) ??/,off ?` alb Oa 3X00
c ca % SS \ rnIA 500L aS
y A SIN
`^=$o u 0 SIN
S ° m `?4laq,? ?mlo
-Is
\ C 2 z Nim
°m g Oa HlIWS NHOf ?-
;o zq?? us
\ m o (L'z)
-. 99r Wd
O !
v /SIN ? J'?
0? I
cf)
Z aa?lavd , ??lo r, NI; I
7 ?tl121LlZnZ ds
y
m -1 V tty ? J ?tisJ I
a )
/
ws) " v Otis
`b'Iw 95' W ° '?' °IN
161,4 W1,°- jSIgt I'M' -- Aim ?m ?? 10 PM s
_ (3,1)
ND ?o0 10 PM 80 ?''Iw J-' SIN
AC
T ?? AN O fA
m SE:I? AI? N
1 m --w- /
15?a?? (n olo? ? cn
I (L'Z)
A? 99 WdZL 1 ) ?_ rn
11 PM 55, ?o N
(3j) N ??IA J N N
(£'9) -VV .91 rn -- ? 09 d `?I? u vi?
AI° AIm IN 0- - O oi° ;3Z
r N ?.o O
CX ?l?js New \?Im
J tS 1 `
G o?oo V'ol??
>> p 1 I 7 Sd
AID rso I 1 ?I r?,?'ss
old ?I? CIA
NI
?? AINW V
11 PMB55
(4, ?
'ol"
??i;, /A??, 99 d0 O
c> = vi dl ??
?iw„ ?Wd?b A?w
o v l? o?i ` ?
99
ml?' p? d?LaS ??
N
J

?Jjv
1 .I ( Alm `??I`' X11 PM 55 O
5(?Wd .p ' ` JIB; (5'12) (L'L) ? ?
99 W- 5
?- o
as SNIH0104 HOa11,
-' O
(L'Z) Nlw? Laz US
as SNIHOlf 1H H01119 N? W
5g Wd ?`
?cLZ as old
w SI tLL?gL
Z 09 W9 d
ci ?? ass
AIN
r MI-4 I? W D
SR 2196 -?? ?- ?!J STI:aalo v rn ?? ?? g CIS
DUNCAN CHURCH RD - wIN -? ?I mIV ?0
T-) r8i
I I.
mlm? ? ? (Z'E)
5
... .. ......... ........... n lip
(L'Z) Oa 3XOD ??
1 N
l
55d 1 M-4 (L'E) W %??S mla 500E ds
c;nG ? mIV VIN ?Ia 5' s w X fo
cf)
X C, :u
• cn I 1 v ti O
.-, J `i\ boa ?i /
wz) L,
lL'Z) l? 09 Wd EL w _ C C
0I?9 Wd D• NIN ?? M
w? ?I, wlN o m
Nlm
3 NIA ILZdZ? D ; C O m Oa HlIWS NHOP f-
vyi 3 g9`N? ?- : -gy Z%L NS
w Alw \ c y = (?
mI V z;0 m 99 wd EL
X :4
?v
NIA ;I l` bate - - - -n
_ Z;Io 1 ?I? ???Iw J
I? mil, 'Icom 1
r
cn + Ito Z O l I
AIO ?
O co • z 5s wd 0 -0 ?Mss `^ 5 o
O Z I?
N
Z pp? y 11 PIN 55 'I0 T'9" •?lm I
...... ........ ........ v Oi N MICA r N N (3_ "
D I _ {o s N I/ ??A?,R?Po I
r C .-. N> v ti v ! ss'
m SIN i ?l N - mIN ml? "s? I)
ae a a
Z; gig Wo
Q C? N ?- 99WdOL ON
\A o IN 55 Wd ONI? ?m 10 PM 55 /
0
S 10 PM 55 NI' >Iw ?AIwiQINw SIN mIN 3m /
Emil
a =O _v; mm N v to
o a - y=
m• 80 /
o ?r1 /
I?T1 I O ?. o Fn X
D N
S Z
O D 0 ale I?+ Qz
11PM60
? r
C r 1
• Alm (g-
.3) . ?-
0 0 AID NIo r I/7 mIc, J SIN
r?
o °Im r- '
0 rn wlm v ?i
Z ?? cLi? Cca `9) m
09 mIN
AI , J? VIN Io s
Wd L L
0 ' wl?? ? `6 1
.ola AIw TIN ;z
11
111///.r T ....?t?t?, •? + 4
Z O rn-0 ?Z
-a -'?cd <o?! o
?C2--q 0 N 56 my2
rn -0 :r m
;0 M
C
N m n ?A?:j 0
C-) 0
X?> F- 0ZZ
a ?,, >? >
M C7Zn Zm 0
NC CO ?rZ m
Z v, >
CC)?DO HZ
'n ANC W
N m
m
N Z '4
m = O
N
I
09 1 t use BO AQ°Q
1 I Gs °s
?? FO
;0NNN 1
n- ` mIA
3 ?l\?
;a"
'50- ;W0
w
a ? ledaLL
gg W
'90
mIN
H\WO
??ti?aoav
50 .o5i
0-01
?.i
tf mI?
60
?a ao as NIl.
N
J
E
231
5
a 2 E
I 108
RUTHERFORDTON
SR ]te. ` iRUxoex ao.
PoVRS FORD Rp
Dszz, ?. J `v i
v 84
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
. INTERCHANGE'
LEVEL OF SERVICEA
?• LEVEL OF SERVICE B
-41-? LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
SPINDALE
IXISnNo
US Y11
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE 3
NOT TO SCALE 2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE
m g
¢°? \ \ IX
usisnRp
\ \ ? ?d 108
? J u
V RUTHERFORDTON o
SR?tp, \ tuUxpER ap.
AOORS FORA Ro
wStxo o,vE I
IXISTNO `1? S It
Vaa, v. J `v
P a,
22,
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEA
?? LEVEL OF SERVICES
.?.? LEVEL OF SERVICEC
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
-•.?. LEVEL OF SERVICE F
SPINDALE
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE 3
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 2-8
0
e
n ? z< gy\

90
sa zlw
POORSFQRO RD
u?
1 RUTHERFORDTON eq

^ ? I ' f;y / ea
C
(
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION I SPINDALE
\
INTERCHANGE' I \
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE A /
I
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE B /
?* LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
' - LEVEL OF SERVICE E 'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
ISLOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
??. LEVEL OF SERVICE F ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
IS
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE 4
2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE
E
8
' _ YI\
> QO \
4P??
p$ I ? / '108 1
azl& ? t,
P°°as Faao Ro ,?
1 RUTHERFORDTON
f 21'
?, s ti V
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
? INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEA
.411.? LEVEL OF SERVICE B
'?? LEVEL OF SERVICEC
LEVEL OF SERVICE O
`??}- LEVEL OF SERVICEE
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE F
I SPINDALE \
I
I /
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
E
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE 4
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 2-9
J
L ??
v ??r
RUTHERFORDTON
SR 21w 1 TMuxOEl, xo.
POORS FpRp Rp
c r s I xR??R.?
E%IS ?1 F? J
us- ul
221 I ).
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE A
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE B
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
r. - LEVEL OF SERVICE E
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEF
0I
1
/ SPINDALE
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-22338
ALTERNATIVE 6
2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE
D
p ?
I 4?
v ?r
RUTHERFORDTON
3R 21p? \ rlxxoEA RO.
FOpR3 FORA Rp
221
4
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
? INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE A
?.? LEVEL OF SERMCEB
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE 0
LEVEL OF SERVICEE
?* LEVEL OF SERVICEF
22, I
/ SPINDALE
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ONFREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE 6
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 2-10

ea
ah \
1oB UTHERFOR
\I V °snNo
SR
ROCKR
RD.
iXUN\
me
C I
r _f ? 1
xlsnNO ? r? J
D9 ]3, ? J `? ,
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEA
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE B
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE 0
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
-?? LEVEL OF SERVICE F
I
SPINDALE S LT
ea
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-22338
ALTERNATIVE US74A
2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE
g? ??' ea
ekes \ \
\I roe UTHERFOR
V EY?snMa

is
I
%ISiINO 1 r? J
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
INTERCHANGE'
?? LEVEL OF SERVICEA
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE B
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICEE
?? LEVEL OF SERVICE F
I ' ` I
I
SPINDALE
ed
'LEVEL OF SERVICE REPORTED FOR INTERCHANGES
IS LOWEST LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RAMP TERMINALS
ON FREEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
zz,
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
ALTERNATIVE US74A
2030 LEVEL OF SERVICE
FIGURE 2-11
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The demographic area encompasses the towns of Ruth, Rutherfordton, and Spindale The
proposed project study area includes portions of all three towns
3.1.1 Population Characteristics
Rutherford County's population grew at a relatively slow pace (10 5%) between 1990
and 2000 The demographic area grew somewhat more rapidly than the County (12 9%)
The Town of Rutherfordton experienced 14 2% growth, while the Town of Spmdale lost
population (0 4%) According to the 2000 census, Rutherford County had a population of
62,899 in the year 2000 The Town of Rutherfordton had a population of 4,131 in 2000
In comparison to North Carolina, Rutherford County and the project study area have
much higher percentages of Whites and lower percentages of other racial groups The
demographic area is 82 9% White, 14 9% African American, 1 1% Hispanic and less than
I% other races (American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc ) Rutherfordton and
Rutherford County have similar racial distributions The Town of Spmdale, on the other
hand, is much more similar to the State's racial distribution, with a higher minority
population
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics
In 1999, the median household income for the demographic area was $32,926 This is
lower than the median household incomes for Rutherfordton ($37,941) and North
Carolina ($39,184), but higher than the median household incomes for Spindale
($23,365) and Rutherford County ($31,122)
The median household income in the demographic area increased by 42 9% from 1989 to
1999 The median household income for Rutherfordton increased 52 5%, while
Rutherford County's median household income increased 30 6% The median household
income for the Town of Spindale was lower than all other areas, increasing only 17%
3.1.3 Employment
The services industry added the most fobs in Rutherford County during the last decade,
with a total of nearly 1,800 more fobs in 2000 than in 1990 Much of this growth was
driven by the health services industry A total of nearly 2,000 fobs were lost in the
manufacturing sector during the same timeframe, mainly due to the textile industry,
which declined from 5,894 fobs in 1990 to 3,468 fobs in 2000
3-1
3.1.4 Community Facilities and Services
There are a number of noteworthy public facilities within the demographic area,
including
• A Spindale sewer pump station on US 221 across from the Ultimate Textile
plant
• A Rutherford County waste water treatment facility at Thunder Road and
US 221
• An existing and proposed landfill at the end of Laurel Hill Drive between
US 221 and the US 74 Bypass (north of Thunder Road)
• RS Middle School at Charlotte Road and Railroad Avenue
• Tnmty School at US 64 and Deter Court
• RS Central High School at US 221 and Old US 221
• A walking path along the abandoned railroad parallel to Railroad
Avenue/Rock Road/US 221
• Several churches are located throughout the demographic area
3.1.5 Community Cohesion
Other than the main streets of Rutherfordton and Spindale, land use throughout the
demographic area is predominantly single family with some scattered retarl and industrial
facilities located along mayor thoroughfares Outside of the towns, land is mostly rural,
with only sparse residential development and small commercial businesses at mayor
intersections
3.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
3.2.1 Land Use Plans
3.2.1.1 Existing Land Use
Rutherford County is predominantly rural The towns of Rutherfordton and Spindale are
two of the largest towns in the county Existing land use in the project study area vanes
from undeveloped forested or agricultural land to intensively developed commercial or
industrial uses Most of the land in the study area is residential Figure 3-1 presents the
existing land use in Rutherford County
3.2.1.2 Existing Zoning
Existing zoning for Rutherfordton designates the area surrounding the proposed project
as R-2, (7,000 square-foot minimum residential lots), C-2, (highway-related commercial
(along Railroad Avenue), and CIA, industrial-related commercial (mainly along
Industrial Park Road)
3-2
Existing zoning for Spindale designates the land along US 74 Bypass between Thunder
Road and US 74 Business as R-10 and R-20 (numbers indicate minimum residential lot
size) Land along Oak Street (which is Thunder Road on the west side of US 74 Bypass)
and along US 74 Business is designated as G-C (General Commercial) A swath of land
along Railroad Avenue is designated as HC-1 (Heavy Commercial/Industrial)
Rutherford County does not currently have countywide zoning
3.2.1.3 Future Land Use
Rutherford County revised their Draft Land Use Plan 1993-2003 in 2001 The plan is
designed to be a practical guide for organized growth and development, and for the
provision of community needs
The Town of Rutherfordton approved a master plan for the Town in 2006 Some of the
goals of the plan were to create sidewalks and trails that connect neighborhoods and
public spaces, encourage a creative and artistic downtown that encompasses shops and
restaurants, and preserving the significant history and heritage unique to the area This
plan made several recommendations for improving downtown Rutherfordton and for
proposed land uses within the Town
The Town of Rutherfordton also hired a consultant to prepare a corridor study for the
proposed US 221 Bypass in 2006 The purpose of that study was to identify
opportunities for development along existing roadway corridors leading from the bypass
into downtown, determine appropriate future land uses and identify the Town's preferred
alternative for the bypass The land use recommendations from the Corridor Study were
made a part of the Town's master plan Rutherfordton's Corridor Study recommended
the US 74A Alternative (called Alternative 1 in the Town's study) for the proposed
bypass
The Town of Spindale does not have a formal plan to date but there are several funded
projects that involve paving walking trails, rebuilding sidewalks, and landscaping that
will enhance the surrounding communities
3.2.2 Transportation Plans
3.2.2.1 Highway Plans
The 1997 Rutherfordton Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan was adopted by the Town of
Rutherfordton and the NCDOT on September 9, 1997 and November 7, 1997,
respectively
The approved 2009-2015 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
identifies the proposed project as TIP Project R-2233B This project is one of three
transportation improvement projects within the study area TIP Project R-2233A
involves widening existing US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to US 74 Bypass
3-3
TIP Project R-2597 involves widening US 221 north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) in
Rutherford County to SR 1153 in McDowell County
3.2.2.2 Transit Plans
There are currently no approved transit plans for the project area
3.2.2.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans
There are currently no approved bicycle/pedestnan plans for the project area, but one of
the goals of the Rutherford County Comprehensive Arts, Parks and Recreation Plan is to
promote biking on nature trails and in municipalities through the use of bike lanes
Rutherfordton's master plan shows several potential walking trails in the vicinity of
downtown, including one trail which would be utilized for the Overmountam Victory
Historic Trail (OVHT) The OVHT follows the route of Revolutionary War soldiers
through Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina It is managed by the
National Park Service
The Rutherford County Comprehensive Arts, Parks and Recreation Plan provides a guide
for the county to properly oversee
• Future arts, parks and recreation programs and facilities
• Renovation of existing parks and/or facilities
• Cooperative efforts in providing recreation needs
• Possible land acquisitions
• Provide assistance in obtaining grants
The plan is designed to be implemented over a number of years
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Noise Characteristics
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound It is emitted from many sources, including
airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles Highway
noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train,
and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is typically described by its sound pressure Sound pressures
described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of
frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C and D) The A-weighted scale is used almost
exclusively in traffic noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the
frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive Sound levels measured using
A-weighted decibel scales are often expressed as dBA
3-4
Noise measurement sites were selected to represent sensitive land uses within the study
area The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from the edge of
pavement, ranged from 60 dBA to 67 dBA A background noise level of 49 dBA was
determined for the project, to be used in areas where traffic noise was not the
predominant source
3.3.2 Air Quality
Air quality is defined according to criteria established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), these criteria, designated
as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), have been established for six
air pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) , sulfur dioxide
(S02) , particulate matter (PM,o), and ozone (03) North Carolina has adopted these
air quality standards USEPA also regulates Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), which
are a subset of air toxics defined by the CAA MSATs are compounds emitted from
highway vehicles and non-road equipment
All areas within North Carolina are designated as either attainment, non-attainment, or
unclassifiable with respect to each of the six pollutants under the NAAQS Areas that
have pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are designated as attainment
Conversely, areas where the NAAQS are exceeded are designated as non-attainment In
non-attainment areas, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is developed to bring the area
into compliance with the NAAQS Areas where available data are insufficient for
classification are designated as unclassifiable The proposed project is located in an
attainment area
Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), sulfur dioxide (S02) , particulate matter (PM,o), and lead (Pb),
listed in decreasing order of emission
3.3.3 Farmlands
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U S Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) These soils are determined based on criteria
such as crop yield and level of input of economic resources
Table 3-1 presents prime farmland soils in the project area Figure 3-3 shows the location
of the six most common soils within the project area
3-5
Table 3-1
Project Studv Area Prime Farmland Soils
Soil Name Soil Symbol Crop Yield
Cecil Sandy Clay Loam CaB2 Cotton, corn, small grain,
soybeans
Madison Clay Loam MaC2 Corn, small grain, soybeans
Pacolet Sandy Clay Loam PaC2 Cotton, corn, small grain,
soybeans
3.3.4 Utilities
Electric power is supplied throughout Rutherford County by Duke Power, Rutherford
Electric Membership Corporation and Forest City
The two mayor water sources in the county are the Broad River (Class IV) and the Second
Broad River (Class IV) There are two mayor water systems in Rutherford County, both
of which rely on surface water treatment plants for water supply and production The
water treatment plants that serve the area are the Broad River Water Authority Plant and
the Forest City Water Treatment Plant
There are three mayor municipal sewer systems in Rutherford County The systems serve
Forest City, Spindale and Rutherfordton The Rutherfordton Wastewater Treatment
Facility is located near the intersection of US 221 and Oak Street The Spindale
Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in the northeast section of town off Ecology
Drive
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous material sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Hazardous materials are generally defined as material or a combination
of materials that present a potential hazard to human health or the environment
The Geographic Information System (GIS) was consulted for the project corridors to
provide a rough idea of how many sites with the potential for contamination would be
impacted by the different alternative study corridors, a field reconnaissance survey was
not performed The GIS information covers registered landfills, superfund sites,
registered underground storage tank (UST) facilities and groundwater incidents The
research shows five to six known groundwater incidents could be impacted by the current
study corridors GIS also identified one landfill within the project corridor, the
Rutherford County Landfill, located south of Rutherfordton between US 221 and US 74A
on the north side of SR 2201 (Thunder Road)
3-6
GIS also identified one Superf ind site within the project corridor The Superf ind site is
listed as Reeves Brothers and is west of Railroad Avenue, between Oak Street and
Reeves Street Reeves Brothers is an inactive Superfund site (ID# NC-D08367616) In
1974, a tanker truck overturned on the property, spilling 5,000 gallons of toluene In
1979, 100 gallons of toluene were spilled on Oak Street No documentation could be
found from the NC Superfund Section indicating either of these spills was cleaned up A
ground water incident was also recorded with the NC Division of Water Quality for this
site in January 2006 (Incident # 87678) No details regarding this incident were
available Based on the information available, it appears the soil and groundwater are
likely contaminated with solvents
A detailed field reconnaissance survey will be performed following selection of the
preferred corridor
3.3.6 Floodplains/Floodways
Rutherford County and the Town of Rutherfordton are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required for the
project If required, the Division Resident Engineer will submit sealed as-built
construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the project
was built as shown on construction plans
3.3.7 Protected Lands
3.3.7.1 State/National Forests
No State or National Forest lands exist within the project area
3.3.7.2 Game lands
No game lands exist in the project study area
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) Although
no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed project, the project will
require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to federal permit areas along the
project Surveys for historic architectural resources were conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
3-7
A preliminary survey for Historic Architectural Resources was conducted by NCDOT in
1999 The survey consisted of a cursory field survey and limited historical background
research USGS maps were used as guides in the field to identify historic resources and
evaluate their potential for National Register of Historic Places eligibility
During the survey, a total of 145 resources at least 50 years old were identified within the
Area of Potemal Effects (APE) Of these resources, three are listed on the National
Register and eight were evaluated and determined to be eligible for the National Register
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with these findings in a letter
dated April 25, 2003 (see Appendix A) These resources are shown on Figure 3-4
After the detailed study alternatives were identified, a more intensive survey of historic
architectural resources was conducted for these alternatives
Properties Listed on the National Register
Rutherfordton-Spindale Central High School - This property is located at the
northwest corner of US 74A Business and US 74 Bypass in Rutherfordton
Constructed in 1924-1925, the Rutherfordton-Spindale Central High School ranks among
the state's notable schools erected during the consolidation era of the 1920s Architect,
Hugh White, designed this handsome, red brick, Classical Revival building on a dramatic
hilltop site The prominent landscape architect, Earle Summer Draper, of Charlotte
designed the grounds to emphasize the building's public presence According to the 1992
National Register Nomination, the school is significant in the areas of education and
architecture
Main Street Historic District (Rutherfordton) - This site is bounded by Third street
(north), Washington street (west), Taylor street (east), and Court street (south)
The well-preserved historic district encompasses Rutherfordton's commercial core The
blocks of contiguous, red brick, commercial buildings reflect the town's rapid growth
with the arrival of the railroad during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
According to the 1995 National Register Nomination, the historic district is eligible for
commerce, politics and government and architecture
Gilbert Town - This site is located on both sides of SR 1520 (Rock Road) approximately
250 yards north of the SR 1539 (Gilbert Town Road) intersection Gilbert Town was the
first county seat in the 16 western counties of North Carolina It is also associated with
the Battle of Kings Mountain during the American Revolution Both the British and
American armies camped at this location within days of each other prior to the battle
Gilbert Town was added to the National Register of Historic Places in August 2006
3-8
Properties Eligible for the National Register
Proposed Boundary Expansion of Main Street Historic District (Rutherfordton) -
This site is bounded by North Main, Carnegie, North Washington, and Fernwood streets
It is recommended that the boundaries of the existing historic district be expanded to
encompass nearby churches and residences that were built during the same period as the
Main Street business district The boundary expansion contains a notable collection of
churches along the east side of North Main Street Just north of the existing historic
district, within the 400 block, the First Baptist and the First Methodist churches were
built in the 1920s with handsome, red brick, Colonial Revival designs St John's
Episcopal Church (ca 1848) is located on the 600 block on North Main This remarkably
well-preseved frame, gable front church has bold Greek Revival elements Farther north,
in the 900 block, stands St Francis Episcopal Church (1898), an impressive, stone,
Gothic Revival building
Both North Main and North Washington streets feature a variety of nineteenth and early
twentieth centurty domestic architecture One example is the Queen Anne Greek Revival
Carrier-McBrayer House located on the west side of the 400 block of North Main The
house is updated with picturesque trim and was listed in the 1992 National Register
Other Queen Anne houses are present throughout the proposed expanded historic district
The neighborhood north of the business district also contains notable Colonial Revival
and Tudor Revival houses and bungalows The Proposed Expansion of Main Street
Historic District was recommended as eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A for community planning and development and Criterion C for architecture
Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church - This church is located on the east side of US 221
near SR 2194 Constructed ca 1900, Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church is a well-
preserved one story, weatherboard church A small cemetery associated with the church
stands in a grove of trees dust east of the church This cemetery contains both marked and
unmarked headstones that date primarily from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries The Dunkard's Creek Baptist Church is recommended eligible for the National
Register under Criterion C for architecture and Criterion A for religious properties
Homer and Bertha Sparks House - This house is located on the east side of Railroad
Avenue facing the railroad corridor The Homer and Bertha Sparks House ranks among
the town's finest remaining early twentieth century residences The house blends Queen
Anne and classically inspired elements In addition to the house, the property also
includes a 1907 brick smokehouse and a later, frame garage/storage shed This property
is recommended as eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture
Robert J. Norris House - This house is located on the southeast corner of Railroad
Avenue and US 64 in Ruth Built around the 1880s, the Robert J Norris House is a
traditional, two story, single pile dwelling which has a well-preserved main block
decorated with late nineteenth century sawnwork The property also includes two frame
sheds that appear to be contemporary with the construction of the house The Robert J
3-9
Noms House is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for
architecture
Ruth Elementary School - This property is located on the south side of US 64, 0 2 mile
east of US 221 This well-preserved school was constructed in 1929 The main facility is
a one story, red brick building with Colonial Revival details The tree-shaded grounds
also include a 1951 gymnasium and a ca 1960 classroom building The Ruth Elementary
School is recommended eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for
education
Washington Geer House - This house is located on the north side of US 64 at SR 1539
Although now vacant and in disrepair, the house retains notable original features as well
as elements added in the 1920s The dwelling's traditional two story, single pile form is
distinguished by the two tiered, engaged porch which appears to be original The site
also contains a frame corncrib that appears to be contemporary with the house and a
twentieh-century frame shed The Washington Geer House is recommended eligible for
the National Register under Criterion C for architecture
Gilboa United Methodist Church - This church is located on the east side of SR 1532,
0 3 mile south of SR 1533 Constructed in 1886 and expanded in 1925, Gilboa United
Methodist Church is a substantially intact, one story, frame church A small cemetery
stands to the north of the church, dust beyond the abandoned railroad bed The cemetery
includes approximately 200 headstones including many that date from the 1890s into the
early twentieth century The Gilboa United Methodist Church is recommended eligible
for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture and Cntenon A for religious
properties
This property was evaluated in the suvery but is no longer within the project's APE
Yelton's Flour Mill - This property is located on West Main Street in Spmdale, dust east
of US 74 A The Mill was built in 1915 and experienced several expansions up into the
1950's The core of the complex is comprised of a four-story gable-roof structure which
houses milling and ventilation equipment It also includes wooden grain bins, grain silos,
offices, shipping and storage rooms Historic signage is also evident on the building's
corrugated metal exterior sheathing Three warehouse buildings with gable roofs,
corrugated metal exterior sheathing and open brick pier foundations are also situated on
the site Yelton's Flour Mill is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion
A for the development of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century milling production
methods and Criterion C for architecture
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources
Due to the number of detailed study alternatives and the recent inclusion of Gilbert Town
on the National Register of Historic Places, an intensive archaeological survey has not
been initiated A thorough archaeological investigation will be conducted after the
selection of the preferred corridor
3-10
3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
3.5.1 Soils/Topography
The predominant soils within the project area are shown on Table 3-2 below
Table 3-2
Project Study Area Predominant Soils
Soil Development Prime
Soil Name Symbol Suitabili Cro Yield Sloe Farmland?
Well suited for
Cecil urban development Cotton, corn, All areas are
Sandy Clay CaB2 and local small grain, 2-8% prime
Loam roads/streets soybeans farmland
Corn,
Chewacla Unsuited for urban soybeans, No
prone to
Loam ChA development and small grain, 0"2% ,
flooding
local roads/streets vegetables
Suited for urban Corn, g" Farmland of
Madison MaC2 development and small grain, 15% statewide
Clay Loam local roads/streets soybeans importance
Unsuited for urban Poorly suited, 15-
Madison MaD2 development and because of 25% slope
No,

Clay Loam
local roads/streets
erodability issues
issues
Pacolet Suited for urban Cotton, corn, g" Farmland of
Sandy Clay PaC2 development and small grain, 15% statewide
Loam local roads/streets soybeans importance
Pacolet Unsuited for urban Poorly suited, 15- slope
No
Sand Cla

y
PaD2
development and
because of
25% ,
issues
issues
Loam local roads/streets erodability
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities
Five plant communities occur within the study area Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
(Piedmont Subtype), Dry-Mesic Oak-History Forest, Disturbed-Maintained
Communities, Wetland Communities, and Pine Forest Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
3-11
(Piedmont Subtype) and Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest can be classified as natural
communities
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Under natural conditions, these forests are uneven-aged, with old trees present Rare
severe natural disturbances allow less shade-tolerant species to become established and
remain in the community Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and "weedy"
hardwood species
Scattered throughout the study area, this plant community occurs in many of the wooded
areas along the drainageways Most of these areas remain wooded due to their steep
topography However, some locations have historically been used as refuse dump sites,
which creates some disturbance in growth of the herbaceous layer The canopy of this
forest type is dominated by species such as beech, red oak, tulip poplar, red maple and
other mesophytic species American sycamore and green ash are less-dominant canopy
species that are found in this community
Dry-Mesic Oak-History Forest
These forests typically occur on mid-slopes, low ridges, upland flats and other dry-mesic
upland areas, especially on acidic soils Under natural conditions, these forests are
uneven-aged, with old trees present Rare severe natural disturbances, such as wind
storms, open canopy gaps and allow increased regeneration of less shade-tolerant species
Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and "weedy" hardwood species
Dominance of these species will depend on the amount of disturbance
Within the study area, this plant community generally dominates the uplands This forest
can be found on side slopes, upland flats, and some lower slopes where natural vegetation
remains This forest type is dominated by oaks and hickories, with white oak being the
most prevelant Other dominant species include red oak, black oak, mockernut hickory,
pignut hickory and sweet pignut hickory Virginia pine, tulip poplar and sweetgum are
also common in disturbed areas
Disturbed-Maintained Communities
This community includes five types of habitat that have recently been or are currently
impacted by human disturbance, including regularly maintained roadside and railroad
shoulders, pastures, utility rights of way, clearcuts and residential and commercial areas
The majonty of these habitats are kept in a low-growing, early successional state
The regularly maintained roadside and railroad shoulder is mowed frequently and is
dominated by herbaceous vegetation The pastures within the project area are dominated
by tall fesuce,red fescue and red clover The edges of the pastures are dominated by
Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, goldenrods, spottedj oe-pye weed and an assortment
of other mixed herbaceous species
3-12
The clearcuts within the project area were created in the recent past Young red maple,
Virginia pine and sweetgum are the most common woody species present Vines such as
greenbrier and poison ivy may also be prominent
Wetland Communities
In general, there are three kinds of wetlands present within the study area forested
wetlands, shrub-dominated wetlands and wetlands dominated by herbaceous vegetation
In nearly every case, there has been some form of disturbance within the wetlands, either
through clearing of vegetaion, mowing, grazing, or dumping of solid waste This
disturbance may cause some wetlands to grade from one type into another
The forested wetlands are located in seepage areas along dramageways The dominant
tree species include river birch, American sycamore, tulip poplar, sweetgum and red
maple Invasive exotics such as Chinese privet, multiflora rose and Japanese
honeysuckle are frequently found in these wetland areas
The two shrub-dominated wetlands within the study area are typically located along pond
margins These wetlands will more than likely become forested wetlands, if the
vegetation is allowed to mature These wetlands are dominated by black willow, tulip
poplar, red maple, sweet gum and Chinese privet
The wetlands dominated by emergent, or herbaceous vegetation are typically created by
the clearing of wetlands that would otherwise be domintated by woody vegetation These
are the most common type of wetlands near pastures and other agricultural areas, and are
maintained through grazing or mowing They are dominated by orange jewelweed, soft
rush, Nepal grass and sedges
Pine Forest
Pine forests are located in many locations within the study area, including areas of
planted pine and areas of naturally occurring pine The plantations are generally
dominated by white pine or Virginia pine and are generally greater than five years old
The stands of natural pine are typically dominated by white pine, and are more than ten
years in age The pine creates a dense overstory, blocking sunlight and allowing a sparse
or absent understory and herbaceous layer Understory species may inclue red maple,
tulip poplar and sweetgum
3.5.2.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Species that prefer open areas for feeding and nesting can be found in the disturbed
communities of the study area The faunal species present in these disturbed habitats are
mostly opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources The European
starling and American robin are common birds that use these habitats to find insects,
3-13
seeds, or worms Migratory birds that travel in large flocks like the bobolink, common
grackle and red-wing blackbird commonly stop to feed or rest in agricultural areas
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types The Eastern cottontail prefers a mix of herbaceous and
woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the roadside
and residential areas White-tailed deer will utilize the forested areas as well as the
adjacent open areas The black rat snake will come out of forested habitat to forage on
rodents in open areas Indigo bunting and common yellowthroat inhabit dense, shrubby
vegetation along transitional areas The blue day, song sparrow, eastern towhee and
Eastern bluebird can be seen utilizing edge habitat all year round
Forested areas are important habitat for many wildlife species, providing crucial foraging,
nesting, and/or demmng areas Neotropical migratory birds, in particular, are dependent
on these areas Species such as the Acadian flycatcher and the Louisiana waterthrush
thrive in wooded riparian areas, while the black-and-white warbler, black-throated green
warbler and the red-eyed vireo prefer the upland woods Species such as the downy
woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, Carolina chickadee and the tufted titmouse are
found in wooded areas throughout the year
In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the Northern short-tailed shrew and the white-
footed mouse may be found The gray squirrel is often observed foraging in wooded
areas, both on the ground and in trees The spring peeper and the five-lined skink can be
found under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth The Eastern box turtle is a terrestrial
turtle but will often be found near streams in hot, dry weather
3.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
3.5.2.2.1 Aquatic Communities
One hundred and three streams and eleven ponds are located within the study area No
distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the
channels or ponds during the field assessment A visual survey of the ponds and stream
banks within the project study area was conducted to document the aquatic community
3.5.2.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife
Fish species expected to occur in drainages within the project vicinity include rosyside
dace, bluehead chub, fieryblack shiner, spottail shiner, yellowfin shiner and creek chub
Largemouth bass, bluegill and channel catfish are typical pond species in the area
Forested wetlands are especially appealing to mud salamanders, northern cricket frogs,
and the four-toed salamander Northern water snakes, snapping turtles and bullfrogs may
be plentiful near larger waterways, while nothern dusky salamanders are in smaller
drainages
3-14
Suitable aquatic habitat exists in the project vicinity to support several bird species,
including wood duck, mallard, great blue heron, belted kingfisher and Canada goose
3.5.3 Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin (03-08-02) of the Broad River Basin,
(NCDWQ 2002a) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit for the Upper Broad River
(HUC No 03050105) (USGS 1987) A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters
of North Carolina based on existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or
segments of streams in the basin The unnamed tributaries (UT) present within the
project area have not been individually classified, therefore they carry the same
classification as their receiving streams
3.5.3.1 Streams
One hundred and three streams are located within the project study area, all of which are
jurisdictional These streams range from intermittent to perennial and are listed in Table
3-3 and shown on Figure 3-5
Table 3-3
Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area
Stream ID and Bank Channel Water Stream
Map Code* Height Width (feet) Stability Sinuosity Substrate Clarity** Determination
feet
B 6-8 2-4 Stable Moderate Sand Slightly Perennial
turbid
1B 1-4 3-4 Stable Weak Sand Clear Perennial
UTIB 2-6 1-3 Stable Weak Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
A 1-5 2-5 Moderately Moderate Cobble, Clear Perennial
Stable gravel, sand
2ZZ 1-10 1-3 Unstable Weak Cobble
sand Slightly Perennial
, turbid
IC 1-2 6-10 Stable Strong Bedrock, sand Slightly Perennial
turbid
UTiC 1-2 14 Stable Strong Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
2UTIC 1-3 1-4 Stable Strong Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
3UT1C 14 <1 Unstable Weak Sand, silt Turbid Perennial
UT2UTIC 14 1-2 Stable Moderate Sand Slightly
turbid Perennial
2A 6-12 0 5-3 Stable Strong Bedrock, Clear Perennial
cobble, gravel
4UT2A 0 5 1 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
U72A 24 0 5-1 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3-15
Table 3-3 Continued
Stream ID and Bank Channel
Water
tream
*
Map Code Height Width Stability Sinuosity Substrate Clarity
S Determination
feet feet
2UT2A 34 05 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3UT2A 24 1-2 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
5UnA 2-3 1 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
2B upstream 4-5 05 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
2B downstream 6-10 1-3 Stable Strong Cobble, Clear Perennial
gravel, sand
UT2B 4-6 2-3 Moderately Moderate Cobble, Clear Perennial
Stable gravel, sand
2UT2B 3-5 05-1 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
UTIUnB 2-3 1-2 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Slightly Perennial
turbid
1D 2-10 2-4 Unstable Weak Bedrock, clay Slightly Perennial
turbid
UT1D 6-20 4-6 Unstable Weak Bedrock, clay Clear Perennial
lE 1-3 4-6 Stable Moderate Rock, cobble Clear Perennial
UTIE 1 4 Stable Weak Sand, gravel Clear Perennial
2C (Stonecutter

Creek) 10-25 14 Stable Strong Boulder, rock Clear Perennial
UT2C 2-3 05-3 Stable Weak Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
UTUT2C 1 5 05 Stable Weak Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
3A 0-1 14 Stable Weak Sand Clear Perennial
2F 1-10 3-6 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
2G downstream 2-10 6-8 Stable Weak Gravel/sand Clear Perennial
2UT2G 4-9 3-5 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3-2C upstream
(Stonecutter 24 8-20 Stable Moderate Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
Creek)
1J 1-6 8-15 Stable Strong Bedrock, Clear Perennial
gravel, sand
UT1J 1-3 2-6 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
3-2C downstream
(Stonecutter 2-8 20-30 Stable Weak Bedrock,sand Clear Perennial
Creek
2UT3-2C 0-1 12-16 Stable Moderate Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
3UT3-2C 0-2 0-3 Stable Weak Sand Clear Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3UT3-2C 6-14 2-16 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
4UT3-2C 6-20 34 Stable Weak Cobble, Clear Perennial
gravel, sand
UT4UT3-2C 1-4 1-3 Stable Weak Cobble, Clear Perennial
gravel, sand
3E 12 1-8 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3-16
Table 3-3 Continued
Stream ID and Bank Channel Water Stream
Map Code* Height Width (feet) Stability Sinuosity Substrate Clarity** Determination
feet
UT3E 1-9 3-6 Stable Strong Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3D (North of US Bedrock
0-8 4-12 Stable Moderate , Clear Perennial
74) gravel, sand
Intermittent
3C upstream 0-2 14 Stable Moderate Sand Clear becoming
Perennial
3C downstream 2-6 4-10 Stable Moderate Bedro
ck, Clear Perennial
d
san
3UT3C 0-2 I-3 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
4UT3C 0-1 1-3 Stable Moderate Sand Clear Intermittent
3B 0-6 1-4 Stable Moderate Sand Clear Perennial
3D (South of US
3-4
6-10
Stable
Moderate
Sand
Clear Intermittent
74 becoming Perennial
UT3D 0-6 1-8 Stable Moderate Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
l y 2-4 4-6 Stable Moderate Clay, gravel Clear Perennial
UTiY 1-2 1-2 Stable Moderate Cobble, sand Clear Perennial
2UT1Y 0-6 1-10 Stable Weak Silt Clear Perennial
3UT1Y 1-2 2-6 Stable Strong Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
2J 1-2 3 Stable Weak Silt Clear Perennial
1G 3-15 3 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand, Clear Perennial
silt
UTIG 4 3-5 Moderately Weak Cobble, Clear Perennial
Stable gravel, sand
2H 20 3 4 Moderately Weak Sand Clear Perennial
stable
UT21-1 20 4-6 Moderately Weak Sand Clear Perennial
Stable
2G upstream 3-10 20-35 Stable Moderate Rip rap, Clear Intermittent
Cle horn Creek) gravel, sand becoming Perennial
3UT2G 8-12 4 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
4UT2G 4-20 3-4 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
5UT2G 15 2-3 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
6UT2G 1-18 3-8 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
UT6UT2G 1-3 3 Unstable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3-2UT6UT2G 2-6 14 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3-3UT6UT2G 24 14 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
34UT6UT2G 14 2-4 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3-5UT6UT2G 1-2 1-2 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3UTUT3F 2-3 4-8 Stable Weak Clay, silt Turbid Perennial
2UTUT3F 2-8 1-6 Stable Weak Silt Clear Perennial
3F (Hollands 6 6-15 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
Creek
3-17
Table 3-3 Cnntinnerl
Stream ID
and Map
Code* Bank
Height
feet Channel
Width
(feet)
Stability
Sinuosity
Substrate Water

Clarity** Stream

Determination
UTUT3F 2 3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UT3F 34 3-5 Moderately
Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
2UTU12K 05 1 Stable Moderate Sand Clear Perennial
UTUT2K 1-5 1-5 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UT2K 1-5 1-3 Stable Weak Sand Clear Perennial
UTIHC 140 2-20 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
UT3X 2-12 3-6 Stable Strong Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
UTUT3X 1-9 3-6 Moderately
Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3X 3-12 8-20 Stable Weak Mud Clear Perennial
3G (Hollands
Creek 5-10 10-15 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
UT3G 3-6 34 Stable Weak Gravel, sand Clear Perennial
3UTUT3G 2-8 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UTUT3G 1-3 1-2 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Clear Perennial
2UTUT3G 1-4 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UT2UTUT3G 1-3 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
2UT1HC 1-2 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UT3UTIHC 1-2 1-2 Stable Weak Sand Clear Perennial
3UT1HC 1-3 1-5 Stable Weak Sand Clear Perennial
31 2-10 6-40 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UTUTIHC 2 3 Stable Low Sand, silt Slightly
turbid Perennial
UTIHC 2-25 2-10 Stable Moderate Sand, cobble Clear Perennial
IHC
(Hollands
Creek
12
4-6 Moderately
Stable
Moderate Cobble, gravel,
sand Slightly
turbid
Perennial
2K (Hollands
Creek) 24 12-18 Stable Weak Silt Clear Perennial
2UT2K 34 5 Stable None Sand, silt Slightly
turbid Perennial
3UT2K 3 6 Unstable Low Gravel sand Clear Perennial
1K 1-2 4-6 Stable Moderate Sand, silt Clear Perennial
UT1K 0-3 0-1 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3H 1-8 2-20 Stable Weak Clay, silt Clear Perennial
2UT1K 0-1 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Intermittent
3UT1K 0-1 1-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Intermittent
4UT1K 0-3 2-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
5UT1K 0-2 2-3 Stable Weak Sand, silt Clear Perennial
3-18
Table 3-3 Continued
Stream ID Bank

and Map
Height Channel
Stability
Sinuosity
Substrate Water Stream

Code*
feet Width (feet) Clarity** Determination
UT3J 24 24 Moderately Low Cobble, Clear Perennial
Stable gray 1, clay
3J 1-5 24 Stable Moderate Bedrock, sand Clear Perennial
UT1N 2-8 1-6 Stable Moderate Sand Clear Perennial
IN 2-8 3-8 Stable Low Sand Clear Intermittent becoming
Perennial
1M 1-3 24 Stable Low Sand Clear Intermittent becoming
Perennial
3M 24 2-3 Unstable Low Sand, clay Clear Perennial
UT3M 14 34 Stable Low Sand Clear Perennial
2UT3K 3-20 24 Unstable Moderate Clay, silt Clear Perennial
*UT = Unnamed tributary,
All streams in the study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C or
WS-V Stonecutter Creek, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek are the mayor streams in
the study area which have a Best Usage Classification of C, C and WS-V respectively A
Best Usage Classification of C indicates fresh waters designated for secondary recreation,
fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, wildlife, and agriculture (15A NCAC 02B
01011(l)) Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with
water on an infrequent or incidental basis A Best Usage Classification of WS-V
indicates waters protected as water supplies which generally drain to Class WS-IV waters
or waters used by industry to supply employees with drinking water or waters formerly
used as water supply These waters are also protected for Class C uses
3.5.3.2 Ponds
There are eleven isolated ponds throughout the study area, eight of which are
jurisdictional In most cases, the ponds are associated with agricultural or residential
areas, and are surrounded by grazed or mowed vegetation These ponds are shown on
Figure 3-5
All of the ponds within the study area are lacustrine in nature, with bottoms of
unconsolidated material (LUB) The substrate of the ponds in the study area is
dominated by small sediment particles, or mud (LUB3) The water regime in these ponds
is classified as permanently flooded (LUB31-1) Most of the ponds are either excavated
(LUB3Hx) or impounded (LUB314h)
There are two exceptions Pond 1B was historically created as a millpond, however this
mill is no longer operational One isolated, non -junsdictional pond acts as a sediment
basin for an adjacent industrial facility Forested areas adjoin some ponds, however,
most of these areas contain only canopy trees, as the understory has been removed by
grazing livestock Grazing livestock contribute to bank erosion and increased
sedimentation in many ponds Most ponds have a substrate of thick silt and sand, with
3-19
some gravel present The depths of the ponds in the study area are estimated to be 3 to 15
feet
3.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues
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
USEPA, the U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has mayor responsibility for
implementing, permitting and enforcement of provisions of the Act The USACE
regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330
3.5.4.1 Wetlands
The field assessment of the project study area identified 45 areas meeting the federal
criteria for wetlands The wetland areas comprise approximately 5 2 acres of the study
area The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figure 3-5 Table 3-4 lists
information about the jursidictional wetlands within the study area, including the
Cowardm classification, DWQ Wetland Rating score and the overall wetland quality of
each wetland within each alternative study corridor
3-20
Table 3-4
Wetlands in Proiect Studv Area

Wetland
Cowardin
Classification* DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Score Overall
Wetland
Quality
BA PFOIE 61 MEDIUM
B PFO 1 E 9 LOW
AA PFO1 E 34 MEDIUM
A PFO 1 E 44 MEDIUM
2UT1C PEM1E 24 LOW
2A PFOIE 47 MEDIUM
2A-C PFOIE 245 LOW
2A-D PFOIE 22 LOW
2A-E PFOIE 34 MEDIUM
2A-F PFOIE 42 MEDIUM
2A-G PFOIE 38 MEDIUM
2A-H PFOIE 42 MEDIUM
2A-I PFOIE 21 LOW
UTUT2C PFOIE 38 MEDIUM
UT2C PFOIE 38 MEDIUM
UT1E PFOIE 19 LOW
1E PFO 1 E 43 MEDIUM
I E-13 PFO 1 E 43 MEDIUM
IEC PFOIE 39 MEDIUM
ID PFO 1 E 37 MEDIUM
2B PEM1E 30 LOW
2B-B PFOIE 36 MEDIUM
3A PEM 1 E 47 MEDIUM
2UT3-2C PFOIE 45 MEDIUM
3B PFOIE 36 MEDIUM
2UT 1 YB PFOI E 37 MEDIUM
2UT1Y PFOIE 43 MEDIUM
3D PFOIE 64 MEDIUM
UT31) PFOIE 64 MEDIUM
2J PEM1E 36 MEDIUM
3F PSS1E 22 LOW
UTUT 1 HC PFO I E 10 LOW
I HC PFO 1 E 45 MEDIUM
1HCX*** PEM1E 10 LOW
UT2K PFOIE 43 MEDIUM
IF PFO 1 E 43 MEDIUM
lI PFOIE 45 MEDIUM
3UTIHC PEM1E 13 LOW
1HC-B PEM1E 37 MEDIUM
UT2KX PEM1E 30 LOW
1KA PFOIE 15 LOW
2UT1K PFOIE 14 LOW
1KB PFOIE 15 LOW
I KC PFO 1 E 25 LOW
3M PSS1E 19 LOW
3-21
Jursidictional wetlands in the project study area are primarily palustrine in nature, as
defined in Cowardin et al (1979), and as identified on NWI mapping Palustrine systems
inculde all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persisitent emergents, emergent
mosses, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal area where salinity due to ocean-denved
salts is below 0 5% (Cowardin et al 1979)
3.5.4.2 Buffer Areas
There are no buffer regulations within the project limits
3.5.4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq )
3.5.4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
As of January 31, 2008, the following federally protected species are listed for
Rutherford County
Table 3-5
Federally Protected Species Listed for Rutherford County. NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status* Habitat
Indiana bat Myous sodalis E Yes (roosting)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastyhs namflora T Yes
Small whorled ogoma Isotria medeoloides T Yes
White insette Sisynnchium dichotomum E No
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma hneare E No
*E (Endangered) - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "
T (Threatened) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
sigmficant portion of its range "
Indiana Bat - The Indiana bat closely resembles several other bat species including the
little brown bat, gray bat, small-footed bat and northern long-earned bat The Indiana bat
is a migratory species of the eastern central portion of the United States Small
populations are known to occur in North Carolina
During the winter months, Indiana bat occupy suitable hibernacula (caves and mines) that
are primarily located in karst areas of the east central United States Hibernacula have
been designated as critical habitat for this species
The presence of Indiana bat in a particular area within its geographic range appears to be
at least partially related to availability of natural roost structures, primarily dead trees
with loose, exfoliating bark
3-22
Floodplain and riparian forests are considered primary, or optimal, roosting habitat
Upland forests, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees are considered secondary
habitat
No hibernacula for Indiana bat are present within the project study area, however,
appropriate roosting habitat is present The closest hibernaculum for a small colony of
Indiana bat was discovered in 1999 in the Cheoah Range District of Nantahala National
Forest in Graham County (USFWS 1999) This location is more than 100 miles west of
the study area No known occurrence of Indiana bat has been reported within the project
vicinity
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf - Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing, spicy-smelling,
evergreen perennial herb that spreads via rhizomes Leaves are heart-shaped, alternate,
leathery, entire, and 16 to 2 4 inches long and wide (USFWS 2002a) Each leaf is
supported by a long, thin petiole that uses directly from the subsurface rhizome The
solitary flowers are fleshy, firm, grow at the end of short stalks, and often under forest
litter and leaves near the base of the leaf petioles
Dwarf-flowered heartleafs grow in acidic, sandy loam soils and along bluffs and nearby
slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creek-heads and streams, and along the slopes of
hillsides and ravines The species is usually found on Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy
loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils
This species is endemic to a nine-county area in the western upper Piedmont of the
Carolinas In North Carolina, occurrences have been recorded in Cleveland, Polk,
Rutherford, McDowell, Lincoln, Catawba, Burke, Caldwell and Alexander counties The
species appears to be more common than originally thought, although most populations
occur on private lands
Field surveys conducted found that suitable habitat is present within the study area and
one previously undocumented population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf was also identified
within the project study area
Small whorled pogonia - The Small whorled pogoma is a perennial orchid with a stout,
hollow stem The leaves are elliptical in shape and measure up to 3 inches by 5 inches
The habitat of the small whorled pogoma vanes widely throughout its range, although
there are a few common characteristics among the majority of sites These include sparse
to moderate ground cover, a relatively open understory, and proximity to features that
create extensive, stable breaks in canopy, such as logging roads or streams The pogonia
can be found in mature forests as well as stands as young as 30 years old
Field surveys conducted in 2003 found appropriate habitat for this species in several
areas within the study area, however, no individuals of this species was located No
known recent occurrence of small whorled pogoma has been reported by the NC Natural
Heritage Program in the project vicinity
3-23
White Irisette - White insette is a perennial herb with dichotomously branching stems 4
to 8 inches tall Leaves at the base of the plant are pale to bluish green and grow to one-
third to one-half the height of the plant
This species prefers rich, basic soils weathered from amphibolite in clearings and along
the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin, and often where downslope runoff
has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites White insette
is endemic to the upper Piedmont of the Carolinas, and is known to occur in Rutherford
County (NCNHP 1992)
No habitat for this species is located within the study area, since no basic soils are
present No known recent occurrence of white insette has been reported by the NC
Natural Heritage Program in the project vicmty
Rock gnome lichen - The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss
family The lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies, which are borne singly or in
clusters, are black in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules
The rock gnome lichen is restricted to areas of high humidity Theses high-humidity
environments occur on high-elevation (4,000 feet) mountaintops and cliff faces that are
frequently bathed in fog, or lower elevation (2,500 feet) deep gorges in the southern
Appalachians The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times
There is no suitable habitat present within the study area for the rock gnome lichen
Elevations within the study area only reach a maximum 1,100 feet, which does not
provide suitable environmental conditions for this species No known occurrence of the
rock gnome lichen has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program within the
project vicmty
3.5.4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species that may or may not
be listed in the future These species 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 3-6 below presents the Federal Species of Concern listed for Rutherford County
3-24
Table 3-6
Federal Species of Concern (FSCI Listed for Rutherford County
Common Name Scientific Name
State
Status
Potential
Habitat
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulean SR No
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibu Sc Yes (roosting)
Green salamander Aneides aeneus E No
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus
SC^
No
Southern Appalachian eastern
woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreta
SC
No
Blue Ridge Ragwort** Packera millefolium T
Butternut Juglans cinerea * Yes
Granite dome goldenrod Sohdago simulans S1# No
Gray's saxifrage** Saxifraga carohniana SR-T
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata SR-T- No
Mountain heartleaf** Hexastyhs contracta E
Sweet pmesap Monotropsis odorata SR-T Yes
E - Endangered
T --Threatened
SR- Significantly Rare
SC- Special Concern
SR-T - These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) (Plants only)
S 1 - Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the
state
* - No longer tracked by NCNHP
** - Occurs on NCNHP list but not on USFWS list
# - Not listed as a FSC on NCNHP list
^ - Obscure record
- Historic record (last observed over 20 years ago)
** These species are currently listed as a FSC in Rutherford County 2008, they were not listed at the time of the
report
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, however, one is recorded by the NC
Natural Heritage Program as occurring within three miles of the project area
3-25
C
w
c
m
M
m
O
0
O
c
z
ammz o
'
t ? 1 0 n m
;Dpm
r =O
VDSy < 0O T O O= D D rn
r= Do = m n O m m m m
-? ;u x
m; Q D m
O -DI ~+
?? m Z r
p° m c° 0
m m m m Z N
s c D D D N
z w `
z -4 00 00 0
A 2A N CO
W
0 my
1
?a
v
Z Z T??cc cn
?C`' r- m 'n n _ 111
g m D -?
z z m - D
D

as NaNn
"Ot
Oro
1 1 °•
4ro
?/OS sip
qrsy F.
Los
22,
-41
n p
'
• -Mv _ j
Z _ >r?
/ _08 of
is,
1 ,, \
z
01, d'
er
o• G(+
,/ • - ti
memo I
?, G,t s I1j1 v_ ?. ..
-- { l ou/11N .-
', ?4tD ?? f
? G
us MOlono
-/ ,,,` V Cult. ' / t}, •? .? i
% I L%% /Itlt` l •.6 {.. ?. .l ..
_ ry L .t tV M"- - 1`S I X11, , • Q? - NOW /Of/OM 10. `` • ' -IC'._ --_-?
i'
,1 w ?utw-
r ,
1 1 1 uI Irlp NI,O / ' • 1
Oil
^ i \1 1111 { I f 'J ^ i}.• ?. ,Y? ' `.'?? 1 ? ? `..\\ / ?`y- l? ?` 1
N
? O p
LO;
r ?y
.= b 3 p o
10 C s
v
I)
o i CI V I`. (o I? 3 i3 Y 9 (3 r3 C •G' ?`
..0 ?o o a o [?
?:° _ = a rn

V
A
a
A
n We

r

Oil
c
w
I
X
C
m
X
n
O
0
n
O
c
z
o?I" Ag
xmz=m
ATzo
?p3DA
rpzOm
CT
5 z..
Sa t
Z C N D
?=ym
Dp
A 3
c N
m m
m ?O
O n -?
z i
0 -10
3 mD
v+ m
w O
N Z
z
w cn
O

r
z cn
o : ® N
ZW
ni a?i v D_ D D- W
? (7 p C7 D oo ?
N N N N N D -I -I -? -?
p= m m m m
U) cn
:b O Z ;u ;u x ;u Z Z Z 0?
Z can -i C- m
M? m m m m n0
N 0) ? W ?_
0) 4W6 W ? Z
m>
ni
V ? I, rF u -
N I I
r --I ,g _X gl r a
0 ;u 355 ?j,?J,?.a .s _?.,.-?+?r..•..-- ,i: . yt ,.+r `.,?.•",#r"??'I tt.- O CD CD D (D 11 O ?'+rI a , of l' ?V . ,'l,} L w.?'?j , ib ! ?'? .,. ? 7 7 7 ?
O V' .\?-, ' r° r%'r? . - ` roc;, - ,4 a (7' 9 R 9 a
-CI m?vOZ ?" r z <. ?. Z Z.
? ,
?2 'O pmOD2 yi' ,r , t 1. 1. --A c c r
CD
--I ;p m TI m z S Z z o .y b: yr ,1 ti o ?y m t: °9s .'-' I-l co D Q a 0-1 O O O N Z OM O •f;' ?1?` it ,- --, - 't -" 74 N , ... -'! . r m cn O O O
/r d 1
C?? m<=?0 Z p ; - - Q.
D G7 n -
-gyp v N N rr=yZ , a s
m X C7 O O 1 D SR 221 f ' f ?' ° °
;" C
D D•p>00 -... 3 B
r`' p z Z E> f * 0- M ,?„ E7 qNY RU' ; p O I /
W C co D m z -mp - Fl .? -CHU C' "Tr, C- ' ' \ N
_w
R -
C fn 11 ? p m ? .? .
W > n = -.. ,E t /y®,
' '?, '
1 / 7
/ yt t[ ! a
?j mgr' A I
t ,}
\ S ,?.
, rV
v
y '{t..:.-+ f .:tom ?? I? r... _* 4. {f' -
C1- .1 a "'?-+' _ 171- 1
• , ` J -
N ,' r „ w
° FA
s
t •Y' ... .7 .'•
r
C> N, ir "
. f .... _
.
1 C N-1 : i u
Y}ff /."^ [r•` "^ ~/r k ?1 f J N ??+lGj. _ M1 %5- n
SS `?TS7
.-
_ ?
,,?? 1 s
? y4x r r _ r f?
r
1
"17.1 I
.x , _"
?f nyp
0 '',O
., } : LXJr
f ,
C
, fi
5'ca°" ?: <..?-` 4 j, ._ .? , J , .l r 'f? , f? " ' . Z Z : , r +.' ,-r•?. ,-, i a J .v f ,
Z 4 ja } , b
., rA
. Y
y' , , k .. 4. 59y ,,.
Jv m k 1
-. t 5
r I
•
,. r . -
17 1 1. ', 1}.
.
- , '. , i
4
?rt .. m r
!Jp !. e_ 1 w I 7
Q
- .` ! - .--w r -r•':' ..-._ m a pa._ " I - 4f ` it
T .. '." I i o 4 t "i
J
! .. S. y l n b, r .
,1t 6 t.' r
k?
r F, - r ,.y,i,l+'?'y.,{ +'V'Ty,y"} J -s ' r' - 0,j - .b. _ 1'. t y1 : .} I+ + rt z[?.; r r
ie 5 ]
. -.vM r I ., - •, M
,
?. •• t t
f
`p
_-
Y .. "" ,
. /`,` J I
_, ?.
=; * .
"\?
?'
? - --??, . -4 > ? , , I , . - , I 11.1. - - I , T I - . ., ' ' , ? ?? , -.-- -. :,- . . ?zr?*.l *- I
'ti ti . S
as
„ : i r ? `::
1 ?r ?r
.
` >- c '-- , tl•r' +r•? `• 4'? J wok 4 ?/O9`? ?? yt r-'''.? .. S?. -`;
c .T:. Jc?... +' 1'rf-. a , 11 [ O l - 1e,2o ,, pf/r i 'r r
.1 I l
IV ?' r. ,? r, N?'•N ®? O {, J y
n era rrly Y.
f?
r o ,4 Z
• u
I
l 1 i f 1?1 /
S
1 • n J r? J '`? ,4 f V } Cry., C r;'
a 5 4 -, 1
5 i? 1 A .!(1 1 f :r r
f ?f ta'. y
tia
5
• , '*.
,; .,„ .. -
, .
>2 t ,!' C ! "
..,.- "77 s..... - p kw .5
T . '?' J , -_
. +i E `+4 a? •s'?t a??l? '? 'rod F?? err _
_ fr T ' .y. i.. ??_; _ .,": r ?',''LV.T'_JI ?•'`, I. , f / •w"
{ / r
«, 4 2 9 L '; r I
- 'y
z r' 1
i a, M t ,.,; L_ • 47 = C 8 v , l" , !rF `` r ;4% 4
i a? ` r ill r - m jaZ;Z r ! s r, , F
I m j= bb v r + "?,
.' 'V1 -n'?" - r ray ,,f r
' =s? ^s
, ,?, .,P, : I I '- . "'? .- ? .?-- A/
' V r.
ti 'r ¦ii¦?¦r'r¦¦¦.¦ =¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ •,!¦,,K¦¦.-i. .,y. r:a ¦-i'K.. 'r ?'r-r•¦ i ?a.?? --0¦¦¦t'" ri[- m¦i N?¦ ¦ra ¦4f¦Ar¦
_,
1,71 g ?;;, rJ 3NI?H3 1?!W
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 Community Impacts
4.1.1.1 Community Facilities & Services
All four alternatives are in close proximity to a public school at some point There is an
existing and proposed landfill located at the end of Laurel Hill Drive between US 221
and the US 74 Bypass (north of Thunder Road) None of the alternatives will impact
these facilities
4.1.1.2 Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The number of homes and businesses which would be relocated by the detailed study
alternatives are presented in Table 4-1 below Information regarding the NCDOT
Relocation Assistance Program and relocation reports are included in Appendix B
Table 4-1
Anticipated Relocations
For Detailed Study Alternatives

Alternative Residential
Relocatees Business
Relocatees
3 99 27
4 163 43
6 91 26
US 74A 88 32
4.1.1.3 Economic Effects
The new and improved access and mobility to be provided by this project are viewed as a
potential positive economic effect Rutherford County economic developers are
promoting the project to industries throughout the region Travel time savings for
distributors traveling to and from I-85 in South Carolina and I-40 in North Carolina are
expected with the completion of the proposed project and other tranpsortation projects in
the area
The effect of the proposed project on the value of properties near the project will vary,
depending on the type of land use and zoning in the area In residential areas, the value
of properties adjacent to the bypass may decrease, while values of property adjacent to
the bypass in commercial or undeveloped areas may increase Additionally, the type of
access provided to the properties will also affect their values
4-1
4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORATION PLANNING
4.2.1 Land Use Plans
TIP R-2233B is included in the Revised 2001 Draft Rutherford County Land Use Plan
The proposed project is compatible with the Land Use Plans of Rutherford County Two
objectives of the Plan are to work with the NCDOT to upgrade and expand the current
road systems to provide safe and efficient transportation, and to require all new public
roads to meet NCDOT standards One of the recommendations in the Plan is to insure
the transporation plan coordinates with the land use plan and future land use regulations
to enhance economic development and protect the character of the county
4.2.2 Transportation Plans
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass is included in the 1999 Rutherford County
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan as a proposed mayor thoroughfare The primary objective
of this plan is to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety by eliminating both
existing and projected deficiencies in the thoroughfare system
4.2.2.1 Compatibility with Highway Plans
The proposed project is compatible with the state and local transportation plans for the
area The project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as Project Number R-2233B and was first included in the
1987-1995 TIP
4.2.2.2 Compatibility with Transit Plans
No passenger rail service is available in Rutherford County, however freight rail service
is available through CSX Transportation Currently there are no transit plans in the
project area
4.2.2.3 Compatibility with Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans
As discussed in Section 3 2 2 3, no bicycle/pedestrian plans have been approved for the
project area Several possible walking trails were presented in Rutherfordton's Master
Plan, however NCDOT will coordinate further with local officials regarding
implementation of these walking trails in order to insure the proposed bypass is
compatible
4-2
4.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Noise
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of
highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also
includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures When traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be
considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts A copy of the unabridged version
of the full technical report can be viewed in Room 451 of the Transportation Building, 1
South Wilmington Street, Raleigh
4.3.1.1 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to be impacted
by future traffic noise are shown in the table below The table includes those receptors
expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels
Table 4-2
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Al
i Traffic Noise Im acts
ve
ternat Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total
3 9 0 0 9
4 0 0 0 0
6 4 0 0 4
US74A 2 0 0 2
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours measured from the
center of the proposed roadway are 104 feet and 160 feet, respectively
4.3.1.2 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative The primary noise abatement measures evaluated
for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management
measures, buffer acquisition and noise barriers For each of these measures, benefits
versus costs, engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and
other factors were included in the noise abatement considerations
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental
factors Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise
abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of
service of the proposed roadway Acquiring buffer zones for impacted receptors is not
4-3
considered reasonable because the cost would exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of
$25,000 per benefited receptor
Noise barriers include three basic types vegetative barriers, earthen berms and noise
walls These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise For this
project, the cost of either of these three types of noise barriers is expected to exceed the
NCDOT abatement cost threshold of $25,000 per benefited receptor Therefore, noise
barriers are not considered reasonable
4.3.1.3 Summary
Based on the traffic noise analysis, traffic noise abatement is not recommended for this
project because the cost of providing abatement exceeds the NCDOT abatement
threshold No noise abatement measures are proposed This evaluation completes the
highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772 No additional noise
analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the
project scope, vehicle capacity or alignment
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge
The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date
of the State Record of Decision (SROD) For development occurring after this date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility
4.3.2 Air Quality
Carbon Monoxide
Automobiles are considered the mayor source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the project
area This project is located in a CO attainment area, therefore, no CO microscale
analysis was performed
Ozone & Nitrogen Oxide
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides
Particulate Matter and Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide
4-4
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean
Air Act MSATs are compounds emitted by highway vehicles and non-road equipment
This EIS includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project
However, project specific health effects of the emission changes associated with the
project alternatives cannot be predicted with available technical tools
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway
project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion
modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated
emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated
concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated
exposure Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcmomgs or uncertain
science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of the
proposed project Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing
For each detailed study alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted is 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 detailed study alternatives
will likely be higher than that for the no-build alternative, because the additional capacity
increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the
transportation network The increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for
the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in
MSAT emissions along the parallel routes The emissions increase is offset somewhat by
lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds, according to EPA's MOBILE6
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
Because the estimated VMT under each of the alternatives are nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternatives Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions in the design
year will likely be lower than present levels as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000
and 2020 Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet
mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures However, the
magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT
growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases
Vehicles are a mayor contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of
pollutants into the air Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining
4-5
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
The project is located in Rutherford County, which is in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
4.3.3 Farmland
All of the proposed alternatives for the project will impact prime farmland Alternatives
A3, A6 and US 74A may affect a farm Table 4-3 presents anticipated effects of the
detailed study alternatives on prime farmland
Table 4-3
Anticipated Prime Farmland Effects
of Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative Prime Farmland Soils Affected (Acres)
3 362 16
4 205 34
6 363 01
US74A 226 76
4.3.4 Utilities
The proposed project will require the relocation, adjustment, or modification to power
lines, water lines, sewer lines, telephone poles and cable lines NCDOT will coordinate
with the utility companies and municipalities regarding utility relocations
Table 4-4 below shows the cost associated with the relocation, adjustment or
modification to these utilities for each detailed study alternative
Table 4-4
Utility Relocation Costs
for Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative Cost
3 $1,687,850
4 $1,575,330
6 $2,025,775
US74A $2,466,730
4-6
4.3.5 Hazardous Materials
Five to six known groundwater incidents could be impacted by the current alternative
study corridors None of the alternative study corridors will impact the Rutherford
County landfill Alternative 3 will affect the Reeves Brothers property, which is an
inactive superfund site If property is required from this site, a site assessment will be
performed to determine the actual levels of contamination
4.3.6 Floodplain/Floodway
The floodplam areas in the vicmty of the stream crossings are rural All of the alternatives
will cross floodplams The Hydraulics Umt will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are required for the
project If required, the Division Resident Engineer will submit sealed as-built
construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the project
was built as shown on construction plans
4.3.7 Protected Lands
4.3.7.1 State/National Forests
As discussed in Section 3 3 7 1, no State or National Forests are located in the project
study area
4.3.7.2 Game Lands and Preservation Areas
As discussed in Section 3 3 7 2, no game lands are present in the study area
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Historic Architecture Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) This State
law requires state agencies to take into account the effect of an agency undertaking on
any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP)
Although no federal funds will be used for the construction of the proposed project, the
project will require a permit from the U S Army Corps of Engineers Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, applies to federal permit areas
along the project Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of
their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportumty to comment on such undertakings
4-7
As described in Section 3 4 1, there are three properties within the Area of Potential
Effects listed on the National Register of Historic Places and eight properties eligible for
listing The potential effect of the proposed project on historic architectural resources
was evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and is shown in Table 4-5 below
Table 4-5
Detailed Stud Alternatives Effects on Historic Pro erties
US 74A
Historic Property ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 6 ALT.

T.
A
Rutherfordton- No No No
Spindale Central Adverse No Effect Adverse Adverse
High School Effect Effect Effect
Main Street Historic No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
District
No
Gilbert Town No Effect No Effect Adverse No Effect
Effect
No
Main Street Historic No Effect Adverse No Effect No Effect
District Expansion Effect a
No
Dunkard's Creek No Effect Adverse No Effect No Effect
Baptist Church Effect
No
Homer and Bertha No Effect No Effect No Effect Adverse
Sparks House Effect
No No
Robert J. Norris Adverse No Effect No Effect Adverse
House Effect Effect
No
Ruth Elementary Adverse Adverse No Effect Adverse
School Effect Effect Effect
No
Washington Geer No Effect No Effect Adverse No Effect
House Effect
No
Yelton's Flour Mill No Effect No Effect No Effect Adverse
Effect
*Gilboa United No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Methodist
*This property was evaluated in the survey but is no longer within this project's APE
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations in a
concurrence form dated June 6, 2008 (see Appendix A)
?Y
4-8
4.4.2 Archeaological Resources
As discussed in Section 3 4 2, archaeological surveys will be conducted for the project
following selection of the preferred alternative
4.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.5.1 Soils/Topography
The properties of soils, including shrink-swell potential, erosion hazard, risk of corrosion,
and suitability as road fill, can affect the engineering design of a roadway Table 3-1 lists
the mayor soil associations in Rutherford County The three soil associations located in
the project area, Cecil-Pacolet, Pacolet-Saw, and Pacolet-Bethlehem, range in suitability
as road fill from well suited to unsuited This is an indication that the roadbed may need
to be undercut in some areas, removing several inches of the soil, and replacing it with a
more suitable soil These soils generally have a high risk of corrosion for both uncoated
steel and concrete The shrink-swell potential of these soils range from low to high In
soils of high shrink-swell potential, surcharging the roadbed may be required The
expected soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design Decisions
regarding soil limitations and methods to overcome them will be determined during final
design
4.5.2 Biotic Community and Wildlife
4.5.2.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
Terrestrial Communities
Project construction activities in or near terrestrial resources have the potential to impact
the biological funtions of these resources Table 4-6 below presents anticipated impacts
of the project alternatives on terrestrial communities
Table 4-6
Effects of Detailed Study Alternatives on Terrestrial Communities
Plant Communi (acres)
Alternative Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Disturbed/
Maintained Pine
Forests
3 139 171 0 3105 177
4 42 984 1476 85
6 152 2342 3249 220
74A 65 645 1488 146
4-9
Terrestrial Wildlife
Project construction will result in the reduction of available habitat for terrestrial wildlife
However, due to the existing amount of urban and agricultural development in the project
study area, wildlife habitat is already fragmented Although some loss of disturbed
habitat adjacent to existing road shoulders will result, these areas are of limited value to
wildlife that may utilize them Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area are
generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes in this area However, fragmentation and
loss of forested habitat may impact other wildlife in the area by reducing potential nesting
and foraging areas, as well as displacing animal populations Futhermore, forested areas
provide connectivity between populations, allowing for gene flow, as well as a means of
safe travel from one foraging area to another
4.5.2.2 Aquatic Communities and Wildlife
Water resource impacts may also result from the physical disturbance of the forested
stream buffers that adjoin most of the streams within the study area Removing
streamside vegetation increases direct sunlight penetration, which ultimately elevates
water temperatures within the stream An increase in stream water temperatures often
stresses or reduces the population of aquatic organisms
Table 4-7 in Section 4 5 3 presents the anticipated impacts of the project alternatives on
streams in the project area
Disturbing stream buffers can also create unstable stream banks, further increasing
downstream sedimentation 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 that rely
on them as a food source The removal of riparian buffer may also increase the amount
of sediment released into the stream Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic
organisms may result from this increased sedimentation
4.5.3 Water Resources
Stormwater runoff from roadways carries silt, heavy metals, petroleum products, nitrogen
and phosphorous These materials can potentially degrade water quality and aquatic
habitat integrity The effects of water quality depend on the size of the waterways
crossed, the number of such crossings and the season of construction
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of erosion control measures
and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) These measures include the use of
dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff Disturbed
sites will be revegenated after construction to help reduce erosion
Table 4-7 list the stream impacts for each alternative in the study area
4-10
Table 4-7
Anticipated Stream Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative
3 4 6 US74A
Stream Impacts (Feet) 12,063 8,730 13,113 9,200
4.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues
4.5.4.1 Wetlands
Table 3-3 lists the junsdictional wetlands in the project area As discussed in Section
3541 there are no high quality wetlands in the project area The wetland impacts of the
project alternatives are shown in Table 4-8
Table 4-8
Anticipated Wetland Impacts of Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative
3 4 6 US74A
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 08 06 1 3 07
In addition to the direct impacts within the construction limits, other adverse impacts to
wetlands and aquatic sites associated with project construction could include direct or
indirect hydrologic impacts resulting from the alteration of drainage patterns The
concentration of overland flow into pipes and the potential increases in stormwater runoff
could lead to downstream channel incision and consequent wetland hydrology alterations
In addition to permanent alterations, temporary adverse impacts also may occur, such as
temporary pond dewatenng and stream diversion during the construction of bridges and
culverts, and temporary clearing and filling associated with underground utility relocation
and construction access
Avoidance and Minimization
During the development of the detailed study alternatives, efforts were made to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable Given the number of
streams and wetlands in the project area, total avoidance of surface waters and wetlands
by this project is not feasible
Most of the alternatives still under consideration for the project have been retained
because they have lower impacts on wetlands and streams Alignments within the study
corridors for the alternatives have been developed which minimize impacts to wetlands
and streams within the corridors The NEPA/404 merger team has concurred on streams
which should be bridged by the alternatives Impacts on wetlands and streams will be
4-11
considered in the selection of the preferred corridor for the project Additional
mimmization measures will be considered as the project progresses
Compensatory Mitigation
The purpose of compensatory mitigation is to replace the lost functions and values from a
project's impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands
It is expected wetland and stream mitigation will be required for the project Final
decisions regarding wetland and stream mitigation requirements will be made by the US
Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality On-site mitigation will
be used as much as possible The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be used
for remaining mitigation requirements beyond what can be satisfied by on-site mitigation
4.5.4.2 Buffer Areas/Impaired Waters
There are no buffer regulations within the project limits and no impaired waters listed
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
4.5.4.3 Protected Species
Although this is a state funded project, a permit will be required from the US Army
Corps of Engineers due to project impacts on wetlands and streams Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act will apply to permit areas of the project
4.5.4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
As discussed in Section 3 5 4 3, five federally protected species are listed for Rutherford
County Table 4-9 below presents the federally protected species listed for Rutherford
County and the biological conclusion for this project's likely affect on the species
Table 4-9
Federall Protected Species Effects in Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status* Biological Conclusion
Indiana bat Myous sodahs E No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastyhs naniflora T May Affect-Likely to
Adversely Affect
Small whorled ogoma Isotria medeoloides T No Effect
White insette Sts rinchium dichotomum E No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E No Effect
*E (Endangered) - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "
T (Threatened) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range "
4-12
Indiana Bat
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No hibernacula for Indiana bat are present within the project study area, however,
appropriate roosting habitat is present The closest hibernaculum for a small colony of
Indiana bat was discovered in 1999 in the Cheoah Range District of Nantahala National
Forest in Graham County (USFWS 1999) This location is more than 100 miles west of
the study area No known occurrence of Indiana bat has been reported within the project
vicinity Due to the presence of appropriate roosting habitat, but the absence of
hibernacula, the proposed project will not effect the Indiana bat
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
MAY AFFECT/ LIKELY TO
ADVERSELY AFFECT
Field surveys conducted in 2003 found suitable habitat and one previously undocumented
population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area Due to the presence
of this species within and immediately adjacent to the study area, it can be concluded that
the proposed project may affect and is likely to have an adverse effect on this federally
threatened species
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the project's
effect on the federally-protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be conducted prior to
completion of the final environmental document for this project
Small whorled pogonia
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Habitat for this species was found in several areas during field surveys conducted in
2003, however, no individuals of this species were located No known recent occurrence
of small whorled pogonia has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program in the
project vicinity Due to the presence of the appropriate habitat, but no occurrence of the
species within the project area, it is unlikely that the proposed project will affect this
federally threatened species
4-13
White Irisette
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for this species is located within the study area, since no basic soils are
present No known recent occurrence of white insette has been reported by the NC
Natural Heritage Program in the project vicmty The proposed project will have no effect
on this federally endangered species
Rock gnome lichen
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is no suitable habitat present within the study area for the rock gnome lichen
Elevations within the study area only reach a maximum 1,100 feet, which do not provide
suitable environmental conditions for this species No known occurrence of the rock
gnome lichen has been reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program within the project
vicmty The proposed project will have no effect on this federally endangered species
4.5.4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
As described in Section 3 5 4 3, a number of Federal Species of Concern are listed for
Rutherford County (see Table 3-5) No FSC species were observed during the site visit,
however, one is recorded by the NC Natural Heritage Program as occurring within three
miles of the project area Santee chub is reported to have been located two miles east of
US 221
4.6 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along
US 221 The project will not directly serve as an economic development tool, although it
could generate indirect land use development (particularly industrial) because of the
improved access and mobility provided by the proposed project However, as discussed
previously, the area has lost a number of textile fobs and is not growing as fast as the rest
of the State
Development activity is minimal in the project study area Most of the new residential
development is taking place west of Rutherfordton along the US 64 corridor Industrial
development has been slow due to textile industry layoffs Most of the retail
development in the area is along US 74A in Forest City
Since it has been determined that indirect and cumulative impacts are likely as a result of
the proposed project, an analysis of a set of quantitative factors included in the Oregon
Department of Transportation's "A Guidebook for Evaluating The Indirect Land Use and
Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements" (March 2001) was completed This analysis
4-14
helps to determine the potential magnitude of the indirect and cumulative impacts over
the 20-year timeframe Table 4-10 below presents the results of this rating analysis
Table 4-10 Ma etude of Land Use Change, 2000-2020

ating

hange in
Accessil" ?
Change
tin
Property
r Values

orecasted,
Growth Land
Suppl3
vs.
,Land
Demand

Water/
Sewer
Availability

arket For
Development

ublic
'Policy
>3% <10-
Travel Time Annual Year Current Extremely
Savings > 10 > 50% Pop Supply Services High Pro-
Strong min Increase Growth of Land Exist Potential Growth
X X
X X
X X
X
Weak Travel Time No <1% > 20- No Plans Extremely Anti-
Savings < 10 Change Annual Year For Future Low Growth
min Pop Supply Service Potential
Growth of Land
Indicators that contribute to the likelihood of a low magnitude of growth as a result of the
proposed project are the low forecasted growth rate, the anticipated minimal property
value increase and the fairly poor market for development Indicators of a moderate to
high growth magnitude within the impact area include a moderate travel time savings
potential (about five minutes), the vast availability of water and sewer services and the
pro-growth local public policy In addition, since a portion of the project is located in an
urban setting, the land supply is less than it would be in a more rural environment
In summary, indirect impacts are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project The
project will provide access to previously inaccessible land, and will also provide a more
efficient route for through traffic Both of these impacts will create opportunities for
economic development in the Rutherfordton area
Based on the assessment criteria in the above sections, however, the magnitude of the
induced growth as a result of the proposed project is low to moderate Two to three
intersections/interchanges for a 10-mile bypass in a predominantly urban/suburban
environment does not create an abundance of opportunities for premium access-induced
growth
Two adjacent projects are proposed for US 221 on either end of the proposed project
These projects are shown on Figure 4-1 TIP Project R-2233A will widen existing
US 221 from the South Carolina State Line to north of US 74 TIP Project R-2597 will
widen existing US 221 from north of SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road) to SR 1153 in
McDowell County
4-15
Table 4-11 below presents the potential environmental effects of TIP Projects R-2233A
and R-2597
Table 4-11
Adjacent Pro'ect Effects
TIP Project R-2233A Effects
Resource Project Effect
Residential Relocations 105
Business Relocations 20
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 01
Streams Affected (Linear Feet) 3,700
Affect Federally-Protected Species? Yes
TIP Project R -2597 Effects
Resource Potential Project Effect
Residential Relocations 20
Business Relocations 4
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 0 12
Streams Affected (Linear Feet) 2,413
Affect Federally-Protected Species? No
A cumulative effect of these three projects is that they will improve mobility and reduce
travel time along the US 221 corridor more than the proposed bypass by itself This will
make the Rutherfordton area even more attractive for industrial development
4.7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project may cause temporary adverse impacts to the local
environment Construction impacts are generally short-term in nature and can be
controlled, minimized, or mitigated through the use of Best Management Practices and
standard NCDOT procedures The No-Build Alternative would not generate any
construction impacts
Potential construction-related impacts are briefly summarized below Construction along
Alternatives US 74A and 4 would be expected to last longer than construction along
alternatives with more roadway on new location (Alternatives 3 and 6) due to the
requirement for maintaining traffic flow along existing US 74A and US 221
4.7.1 Visual
Construction, staging, and stockpiling operations will be visible from adjacent properties
and will result in temporary visual impacts The contractor will be required to remove all
equipment, excess materials and equipment following project construction and to reseed
any disturbed areas
4-16
4.7.2 Noise
Heavy construction equipment generates noise and vibration Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable
generators can reach noise levels of 67 dBA to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet Although
the detailed study alternatives traverse primarily low-density residential areas,
neighboring communities will be temporarily impacted by construction noise The
duration and level of noise differs with each phase of construction Typically ground
clearing and excavation generate the highest noise levels
NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA Leq in noise
sensitive areas adjacent to the project NCDOT may also monitor construction noise and
require abatement where limits are exceeded NCDOT also can limit work that produces
objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours
4.7.3 Air
Temporary degradation of the air quality in the project area may result from the
construction of the project within any of the detailed study alternatives The contractor
will be responsible for controlling dust at the project site and at areas affected by the
construction, including unpaved secondary roads, haul roads, access roads, disposal sites,
borrow sources and production sites Dust control measures may include the following
• Minimizing exposed earth surface
• Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching
• Watering of working areas and haul roads during dry periods
• Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles
• Using covered haul trucks
Emissions from construction equipment are regulated Burning of cleared materials will
be conducted in accordance with applicable state and local laws, regulations and
ordinances and the regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air
quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D 0520
4.7.4 Utilities
The proposed project will require some adjustment, relocation, or modification to
existing utilities Any disruption to utility service during construction will be minimized
by phased adjustments to the utility line All modifications, adjustments, or relocations
will be coordinated with the affected utility company
4.7.5 Water Quality/Erosion Controls
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities could affect drainage
patterns and water quality In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 4B 0001- 0027), an erosion and sedimentation control
plan will be prepared for this project
4-17
The erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the selected alternative in
accordance with the NCDENR publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design and the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
These Best Management Practices include, but are not limited to the following
• Use of berms, dikes, silt barriers and catch basins
• Revegetatmg or covering disturbed areas
• Conforming with proper clean-up practices
The NCDOT also has Standard Specifications that require proper handling and use of
construction material The contractor will be responsible for taking every reasonable
precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent pollution of any body of
water Pollutants such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage and other
harmful wastes shall not be discharged into any body of water Contractors will not be
allowed to ford live streams with mechanical equipment unless construction is required in
the streambed, including stream rerouting, channel improvements and culvert
construction
Excavated materials will not be stockpiled or disposed of adjacent to or in areas where
stormwater runoff may cause erosion of the material into surface waters If material
storage in these areas is unavoidable, the contractor must implement measures to prevent
runoff Contractors also must provide sanitary sewer facilities for employees during
project construction
4.7.6 Geodetic Markers
The proposed project could impact several geodetic survey markers The NC Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of monuments
which will be disturbed Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of
NC General Statute 102-4
4.7.7 Borrow and Disposal Sites
The contractor will be responsible for locating borrow and disposal sites for the project
Prior to approval by NCDOT of any proposed borrow source and the removal of any
material, the contractor will have to provide certification from the State Historic
Preservation Office that the removal of the borrow material from the borrow source will
have no effect on any property eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places
In addition, borrow sources will not be allowed in any area under the jurisdiction of the
US Army Corps of Engineers until the contractor has obtained a permit for the borrow
source Waste materials, as well, may not be placed in wetlands or streams unless a
permit is obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers
4-18
4.7.8 Traffic Maintenance & Detour Accessibility
Maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction will be planned and scheduled so
as to minimize traffic delays within the project limits Traffic will mostly be maintained
on-site during project construction Lane closures may be required at times and
temporary detours may be needed for existing roadways crossing the proposed bypass,
but it is not expected that temporary detours would result in unacceptable delay or
congestion along detour routes
4.7.9 Bridge Demolition
No existing bridge structures will be removed with any of the alternatives for the
proposed bypass It is unlikely any materials from existing structures will be dropped
into Waters of the United States during project construction
4.8 IRRETRIEVABLE & IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
Construction of any of the detailed study alternatives would require certain irretrievable
and irreversible commitments of natural resources, manpower, materials and fiscal
resources Lands within the right of way would be converted from their present use to
transportation use Use of the lands is considered an irreversible commitment during the
time period that the land is used for a highway facility However, if a greater need arises
for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be
converted to another use
Considerable amounts of fuel, labor and highway construction materials such as concrete,
aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended to build the proposed project
Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the
fabrication and preparation of construction materials These materials are generally not
retrievable However, they are not in short supply and their use would not have an
adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources Any construction would
also require a substantial one-time expenditure of State funds that is not retrievable
4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG TERM & SHORT TERM
USES/BENEFITS
The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the proposed project will
occur during land acquisition and project construction Most short-term construction-
related impacts will occur within or in close proximity to the proposed right of way
Existing homes, farms, and businesses within the selected alternative's right of way will
be displaced However, adequate replacement housing, land and space are available for
homeowners, tenants, and business owners to relocate within the study area Improved
access within the study area will contribute to long term residential and business growth
4-19
Short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to earthwork, road improvements, and
exhaust from construction vehicles will occur during project construction Short-term
noise impacts will be unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment
Implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters will minimize potential water quality impacts In addition, the NCDOT will
consult with the appropriate Federal and State environmental resource and regulatory
agencies to identify measures to minimize these impacts
The local, short-term impacts and use of resources by the proposed action will be
consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity
Construction of the proposed improvements will add a vital link to the long-range
transportation system for the region The project is consistent with long-range
transportation goals and objectives of the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program,
the Rutherford County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Draft Rutherford County
Land Use Plan It is anticipated the roadway will enhance long-term access opportunities
in Rutherford County and will support local and regional commitments to transportation
improvement and economic viability Benefits of the proposed project will include
decreased congestion on existing US 221, improved roadway safety on existing US 221
and improved high-speed regional travel along the US 221 intrastate corridor
4-20
\•\
721
64
22,8-4812 Q f -
ALT
RUTH ,

• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
?^• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ADJACENT PROJECTS
RUTHERFOROTON BYPASS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
FIGURE 4 1
T I P P R O J E C T
R-2597
T I P P R O J E C T
A
U-3A58 / - L ` R-2233

6 R 1 0 G E
T I P P R O J E C T S
RUTHERFORDTON / I

® } ?° SPIN DALE r KILOMETERS
I 0 1 2 3
MI LES 2

I _ALT
FOREST CITY
Q
C,
-?
R-2233
/ B-4259 s
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

.
This Draft State Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation The following personnel were involved in the preparation
of this document
NCDOT Project Development Unit
Name
Teresa Hart, PE
Jay McInnis, PE
Qualifications
Project Development Unit
Head, 22 Years Experience
Project Engineer, 17 Years
Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Planning and environmental
analysis
Project Development Co-
Project Manager
Jameelah El-Amin, PE Project Planning Engineer, 2
Years Experience
Project planning,
environmental document
preparation
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Name
Tyler Stanton
Brett Feulner
H.W. Lochner
Name
Ken Roeder, Ph D
Heather Renninger
Qualifications
Environmental Supervisor, 5
Years Experience
Environmental Specialist, 5
Years Experience
Pnmarv Responsibilities
Natural resources
investigations
Natural resources
investigations
Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Biologist, NC Licensed Soil Natural resources
Scientist, 20 Years Experience investigations
Biologist, 3 Years Experience Natural resources
investigations
5-1
NCDOT Human Environment Unit
Name Qualifications Pnmarv Responsibilities
Gregory Smith, PE Traffic Noise & Air Supervisor, Traffic Noise and Air
2 Years Experience Quality Investigations
Ric Cox Traffic Noise Engineer, 36 Years Traffic Noise Analysis
Experience
Bobby Dunn Traffic Noise Engineer, 17 Years Air Quality Analysis
Experience
Mary Pope Fun Historic Architecture Supervisor, Historic Architecture
14 Years Experience Investigations
Steve Gurganus, AICP Community Planner III, 11 Community Impact Data
Years Experience Collection and Analysis
HNTB
Name Qualifications
Susan Fisher Paschal Community Planner, 8 Years
Experience
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Name
Roger Thomas, PE
Qualifications
Project Engineer, 18 Years
Experience
Brian Robinson
Sterling Ragland
Project Design Engineer, 14
Years Experience
Transportation Engineer, 17
Years Experience
NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Name Qualifications
Richard Tanner Transportation Engineer, 5
Years Experience
Primary Responsibilities
Community Impact
Assessment
PnmM Responsibilities
Roadway Design Co-Project
Manager
Roadway Design Engineer
Roadway Design Engineer
Primary Responsibilities
Traffic Forecast

5-2
NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Name
Qualifications
Primary Responsibilities
Benjetta Johnson, PE
Congestion Management
Regional Engineer, 8 5 Years
Experience
Review of Traffic Analysis
Report
PBS&J
Name
Qualifications
Primary Responsibilities
Andrew Lelewski, PE Civil Engineer, 9 Years
Experience
Traffic Analysis Report
5-3
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on August 23, 2001 at the R-S
Middle School in Rutherfordton to obtain comments and suggestions about the project
from the public Approximately 400 citizens attended this meeting This meeting was
advertised through local newspapers and flyers were sent to property owners and citizens
in the project area
No objections to the project were raised at the workshop The majority of
comments and questions related to the project alternatives and the effects of the project
on individual properties
Several people representing historic interest groups attended the workshop due to
the proximity of the project alternatives to Gilbert Town (see Section 3 4 1) In
comments at and following the workshop, they asked NCDOT avoid Gilbert Town
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing for this project will be held following approval of this document
and prior to right of way acquisition The alternatives still under consideration for the
project will be presented to the public for their comments at the hearing The
recommended alternative for the project will be selected following the hearing Citizen
comments will be taken into consideration in the selection of a recommended alternative
A second hearing will be held following selection of the recommended alternative to
present the proposed design within the recommended corridor
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process
This project has followed the NEPA/404 merger process The merger process is
an interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act into the National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental
Policy Act decision making process
Representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Division of Water
Quality and NCDOT served as co-chairs for the merger team The following agencies
also participated on the NEPA/404 merger team for this project
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Park Service
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Isothermal Planning & Development Commission (non-signatory)
The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need, alternatives to be
studied in detail and wetlands/streams to be bridged The merger team will select the
least environmentally damaging preferred corridor for the project following the public
hearing The team will also concur on further avoidance and minimization measures for
the project following selection of the preferred corridor
D. Other Agency Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies
throughout the project development study Comments on the project have been requested
from the agencies listed below Asterisks indicate a response was received Copies of
the comments received are included here in Appendix A
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Department of the Interior - US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
US Department of the Interior - National Park Service
*NC Department of Cultural Resources-State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
DENR-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Isothermal Planning & Development Commission (Region O)
Rutherford County
*Town of Forest City
Town of Rutherfordton
Town of Spmdale
?,?ENT QF?
O? P ??? y?iyT
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Support Office
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 1924 Building
100 Alabama Street, S W
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
August 10, 2001
Mr Jay McGinnis
PDEA Branch, NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Jay
Here is a map illustrating the location of a certified segment of the Overmountain Victory
National Historic Trail (OVNHT) Through its Challenge Cost Share Program the
National Park Service funded 50% of the trail's development This segment is a portion
of a longer rail-trail project in Rutherford County developed by the Bechtler
Development Corporation
Two of the alternatives presented at the August 8 meeting would have a negative impact
on this trail If either of these alternatives becomes the preferred option, the National
Park Service would like to see this trail segment and accompanying facilities (such as
interpretive exhibits and parking) incorporated into the design At this stage we are not
opposed to either Eastern Bypass Alternatives 2 and 3, we want to ensure that this very
popular trail is included
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] ext
601
Sincerely,
Richard H Sussman
Chief
Planning and Compliance
Enclosure
United States Department of the Interior
1 ?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 17, 1999
vEa
F?
n N999 C ti_
Mr William D Gilmore, P E, Manager
Project Development and Environmentai Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P O Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr Gilmore
Sip 2 ; .
V c1C' ?C t.? ? .
`^ o,P LW r
G .?J s
l+y?
v ? r
?'tE
Subject US 221, from South Carolina State Line to North ofRutherfordton, Rutherford County,
North Carolina, Federal Aid Project No NHF-221(9), State Project No 8 1891001,
TIP No R-2233
In your letter of September 9, 1999, you requested our review and comments on the subject
project The following comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U S C 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531-1543) (Act)
According to the information provided with your letter, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is proposing to widen US 221 from the South Carolina state line to south of
Rutherfordton and construct a bypass of Rutherfordton on a new location
Enclosed is a list of species from Rutherford County that are on the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and species of Federal concern that may occur in the project
impact area We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur to these species We
do have records from the project area of the threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) in the vicinity of Floyds Creek Species of Federal concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened We are including these species in our
response to give you advance notification The presence or absence of these species in the

project impact area should be addressed in any environmental document prepared for this project
The environmental document should contain the following information, if pertinent
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (the build
and no-build alternatives)
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
that may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
improvements
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be filled as a result of the
proposed road improvements We are concerned about potential wetland
areas along Torrence Creek and its tributaries Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands We
recommend contacting the U S Army Corps of Engineers to determine
the need for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit
(4) Extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
biotic resources
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because
of the proposed project
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental impacts
associated with this proposed work
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i e , spanning structure,
culvert) and the rationale for choosing the preferred structure(s) We prefer
stream crossings that span the bankfull width of the stream and do not impede
natural stream functions or fish passage
(8) A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts
(9) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, nvenne, and upland)
associated with any phase of the proposed project

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this project In any future correspondence concerning
the project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-99-267
Sincerely,
)'?-L-Bnan P Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc
Ms Linda Pearsall, Director, Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, P O Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
1142 I-85 Service Road, Creedmoor, NC 27522

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List It is a
listing, for Rutherford County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program) The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbanums, literature, and personal
communications The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys
Critical habitat Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated
Aquatic species Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties
Sea turtles Sea turtles occur to coastal waters and nest along beaches This list includes sea turtles
in the counties where they are known to nest The U S Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over sea turtle issues on terrestrial systems, the National Marine Fisheries
Sen ice has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters
Manatees Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters, this list includes manatees
in counties where there are known concentrations The U S Fish and Wildlife Service has
consultation and recovery responsibility for manatees
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander
Cerulean warbler
Peregrine falcon
Eastern small-footed myotis
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Northern pine snake
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Butternut
Sweet ptnesap
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
White trisette
Anetdes aeneus FSC
Dendrotca cerulea FSC
Falco peregrtnus anatum Endangered
Myotts letbtt FSC
Myotts sodalts Endangered
Neotoma flortdana haematoreta FSC
Pituophts melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Hexastylts nantflora Threatened
.Juglans ctnerea FSC
Monotropsts odorata FSC
Saxtfraga carohntana FSC
Senecto mtllefohum FSC
Stlene ovata FSC**
Stsyrtnchtum dtchotomum Endangered
August 17, 1999
Page I of 2
A/
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range "
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is msufficient
information to support listing)
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record
August 17, 1999 Page 2 of 2
f c>rlrrrrl tr,r ' NIA iW' - R-223313 ( oupw Kttthcrford
t KRLv( E r( RNI I OR N'sSl 5-All NI l 01 I f I f C I S
Pr r,m t f>vct rrjurn,, Kwfit: proton B? pas, from l N 'a € '% pa,t to SR 1155
( N Ittrnam e' i -l 6 ,`Hitt -4,1)
()n (14 -- 1 2009 and 06 02'2()11$ rtprt,tntttt)?,, of tht
North Carolina DeparUnunl k,l I r,iti,pOrl.ttt0n C N( DO I 1
S Army Corps of f_nutneets tt SAC L)
He--IANorth C aroh ..i Yale llizowi?. €'rtse-% sticTn 0q1t,,( tlll'tt)
? Other
Re4tencd the ,uhj ct prt)tcci and agreed
? Thc.rL 4rL tw CFIL01, ?n tht. Nantlrial KL111.ter-I?sted propert, properttc? located vt)thtn thL
prntcct's atra of potential e€fcL( and h,icd on the rLAer;t.
? Filth are fit) eftens oil alt Natlmial Rt ??,t.r-4€1 *rhl? pr.,pert? properties locatea .tttliin
tht. prtilcti s arca of potential ef1,.t and ht teJ can tilt reNer,e
EWK I here t; an effect w, the Natto ia€ RtLnNle,-lost iwopt-rt, props mLS to-ited v i l,tt, the
prujto a area ofpotenttttl et`fe4t I lie p,npetic ptopertte, and the tftect(") art. I",tLd Out
tht, rc,, t r.%4
I hero is an -: fect on the Vittonal Re>ist:r-el)?)hle lirup f trt\' propertms im itrd % ahm the
prOICL1 4 area of pttttni) it it1;?t I lie p-ttpcrlt properties and eftecl(5j ate lt,ted on the
reN et:c
St+ned
Rtpte.etit3Mt-' 'AC'Df)`I
LIS 1C E k? dr tngtot Dts€rtct
Its r.srntarne 11110----?-
?t?uc I ltctont, lIr.set%attttri OttiLel
?!S
.'+I
Date
Late
Date
)a e
1 tiArctl i,rl a \; 1 111' = R-23311 t mmli Rutherford
PROPERTIES 1\ i E :11\ T1 I= NRE + OF +L Er* _C T FOR I,. FIC=1 THFRF IS \0 I;I•FI;CI
IvDIC vTitF PROPER1-? tS \ yT;Cty i> P?C,151"r l:- I4I "T> t?CZ1 1)1.')F [ t?f:'?firi?l> t ti, tK, j (DI-)
l2uth Elementarl school (DL t- No Ale,i wr Al,ernati?e ?; 6
Rutherfordton Historic District tNRi - No Mies, for \ILLrnwil e . s ? 6 'ind 74a
?iorrls Hc}u5e (T)T't- ?,> etir??t It?r \1tLrn.ltt?L w , ' .1nr a
w1},trls Hclucc (I)}- y 's1) LftcLt ttTr AltLrnatnL-' , i -i rntct f7
Washington Greet llouse (DL) No etfeet tot 11te1nau?e' s ; I and-la
Gilbert lo"n Historic District (NR) No e1Ikc> for alter-lathe = ,,3 I_ and 7 1a
Central Iligh School (D[ )- No -ttect for AhLrnat[?C - I
1 elton's Flour Mill (DI )-\o etlect for Altc,ualiNe s ; 4 an(t 6
Dunkard Creel. Church Ml,i No Lfic'?t fOr Nlt.rn,llnL = 6 and 744
l t\oPEi.TM;t1'I I NI\ Tt-rF' \RI` > C)r t'(} \11 !1 I • • L t > C}I tti`HIC H7111 R _ IS .\\ I:,6-1-EC
1m)[C.At1 1,1wl'l Im <1 ^+,I t_(, (\]v,k)t? €)ht vN= M ,( Mill im I in(:I ?,rAIk FOR11tF-
ffIIC1
Ruth 1: lementan School (r)f) - AckLrsL LALLI 'Wr A1tLrn,ttr?L - ti : and 4 hLLau?c these
alternates require land fmn ibe :chord S houndarl ehmtriate 011L htti1t)r1L CntraltLL W WL
prOpLrt, and require large cut drnl till ,uses iluni the boundarn and in the ! ie?%, stied Of the
school Tliert i; al,o r a. unable putLninal fclr dL,?Lk+pmerit f11LrL v?tll be no ?idver%, et"fecl for
Mu matne r -Id beL.11.15e tl+iti dl(L ndi•\e onk mqutr.s an ca.LML:)t \Nithm t1u: htsto ri4 boundors
ind iLLLS, \\ ill rLart.lut 111L sarm HO\"(.%LT 111E n atir+n,tbl. potential fur dc%clopinent rLmdin,
eoncei 11
Rutherfurdtun Historic DtstrlLl (Nk) \lu ad\,-r,( L11e4t for llternatiwe u a because tht
re(.UiltiLurdI10n of the ramp betuc;n r m,,tin,, I ') 221 and the ne%% MILLS', w III 1101 -LQUit-L R(i\\
or con',ArUC11011 «11h1n ihL citsirl.l k,ts pLr tits map, 6 2 20081
Nurris House ( L)L-) \r adter,,e effect for \tternatn e =- : ; and --ta because access to th,-
jm,pLrtN %%111 not hL impaimd For , ; di si " road » Ill pull zmn\ trom the ext.ting+ propttt?
and melt the ramp im thL b% pass it i 1-w1Lr,L11wn I or ' '4a thL to ilm props m\ sill bL
at slvnalized intersection
Initialed C. I)U 1 mp?- 15 \(I f-tt' € €pt i A ?'
'sparks House( UE )- \o ad\er:e etlcet itit 1ltLr1d1IV- -4a the nc.. laclllt...tll be
appro\unatc K at the cumml uradt le. cl ,Ind n, ne.. ROW t; r--qu:retl
\Vakhrngton Greer House t E)1_)-loo ad\er,L eftt..t Ior \IILMatt.c v G because there ..tll be no
cta.tutg on OIL prop} .m and the nL" ROC) onl'% reclutrc, tcmo\ all of a smAl ruinous ?.om crib
Gilbert Town Htstoetr District (NK) - No adact.e C14CCt fOr AhLrndltre A b ht:c.dttse it dLrc, not
Impact ;tructures or land,cdpec tn3cgm I to th, 5,,-,m l anLt ofl the dt;trrit In fax the Land Esc
tlr,-adx been changed v ith the de%vlt•pittcnt „ t a rnohik IRMIC park
Central High School (IN ) NO. d%CJ-,L t tl?:t for \h;..rnatt.c o hecause the,chool t,, not
negalmck ifrLLtul as a noise r"eptor and doe" nL't reciut,c notcc abatt-rrn.nt Tm- Sure, 1 lyre Is
rl" dcl.cru, LftLLi for '%lternatt.t, 1- f-ta bit mse the Jiang,,- to actic,s..tth a loop drni..:t) doe,
not dffec.t the historic character tit the 5?ti n, stn,.c R r, €;, W\n `rridc of the sch.xi' buildtnr;. lim
dOcs tt ne"dtt.ch alTect the ,,;11001 aS a noise rcc(,ptor
Velton`s Flour Mill (L)L) -- No adverse ettect tot AltLr.,atAL , "4a he?du?e a..t<r;s to the
hutldtnl and 1wirkutg..ili TIM ht blocLkl b. ?,mtnII I acte?,
Dun kard Creel. Church tl)E) - \o ad.Gru 'It CC Ifot AIICI nat I\L hlcanSL do te4, to th;
bulldtnLl and parking, •6111 nt>t lit BIOCKC0 bN L01111`01 Of iLLC-,N
J? r
Initialed I I OT ? l'S \Cr ??r,?, 11 PO
'. ?sswr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck, Adrru tisttator
Michael F Easley, Govemor
Lisbeth C Ecans, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM
r`C(-=E1VED
DIVlslon of Hl9hways
JAN 0 4 1006
,i-tenstr,.t,tcn
a aet
n"nlentatAna* aBr?
Office of Arclu,6 es and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO GregoryThorpe, Ph D, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
Pte- sa of tLCCIL
FROM Peter Sandbeck 09
RE Rutherfordton Bypass fro US 74 to SE 1355 (Mountain Creek Road), R-2233B,
Rutherford County, ER 00-7599
We have reviewed the November 19, 2007, letter report on Yelton's Flour Mill, prepared by Courtney Foley of
your staff and off the following comments
Based on the information provided in the report, we concur with the recommendation that the flour mill is
eligible for listing in the National Register under criteria A and C and that the boundaries for the property are
appropriate In the future, please clearly indicate the criterion for which a property is found eligible
Please note that we need to receive another hardcopy of the letter report and a compact disk containing the
report for our files 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
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
cc Mary Pope Furr
Courtney Foley
Location 109 East ones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax [phone]-6599
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S Brook, Admuustrator
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 ??''???
FROM David Brook , 4'La 64-1?
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, A,-:2233 A&B,V
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 Cntena 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 19u` to mid 20`s 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.hPo.dcrjtikte.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fa:
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Scrvice Center Raleigh NC 27699-1617 (919) 7334763 • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVFY & PLANNING 515 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4618 Mal Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-1801
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 Norns 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`h 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 Uruted Methodist Church, east side of SR 1532, 0 3 mule south of junction
with SR 1533, Rutherfordton vncuuty, 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, whtch 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
archutectural 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 hsting in the National Register of
Historic Places
Nos 2-6, 8-13,15-16,18-37, 39-54, 56-82, 84-119,121-145
The Rutherfordton-Spindale Central Hugh School and the Main Street Historic District,
Rutherfordton, are currently listed 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 ? Mary Pope Fun
Frances P Alexander, Mattson, Alexander and Associates Inc
l eclerctl ltd ? NiIF-221(9) III' n 12-2233 A&B Coinui Rutherfoid
CONCURRENCE FORIW FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
P,olect Desc,tption Widen US 221 from SC Line to SR 13-55 Including bvpass of Rutherfordton
On 3 December '100. representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highwav Administration (FH WA)
® North Caiohna State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photo-graph review sessiontconsultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
Eve(.' `t8 s ^t
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project area of potential effects Lf C.
o-F (+--D- eXPy KS
® There are no properties less than fifty vears old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project s area of potential effects o,? CP1?,),,109756NR - EVAI-' -7/ 1 L- 1-71 53 55, 120
® There are properties over fifty vears old within the project s Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each propem the properties identified as
2 - ? g- 1 4 I S-? (o (8 -3-7 3 It -s 5 - -27
are considered not eligible for the National Resister and no hurt er evaluation of em is necessary
? There are no National Register-listed or Studv Listed properties within the project s area of potential effects
? All properties greater than 30 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation and based
upon the above concurrence all compliance for historic architecture ),pith 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 ( 4ttach am notes or documents as neeciecl)
Signed
-7 ?° r,4 L. ?7c -3 T>,,,,, 2r?L
Representative NCDOT Date
?-
FH WA for the Division Administrator or other Federal Agency Date
Representative HPO Date
7*'? -
A j? Z)j, J?J z ?? OZ:
State i I istoi is Preservation Officei D Ate
11 d >urVLN rl.plm is prLpartd I till d LupX ill rhi, lunn roil ihL 111,101ul 111r %% III bL nx.lud.d
FOR
.Down o/ '7or¢3E city
Jam- . (9 Box 728
y°'crs co9otcsE 61y, dVottg eawtina 2So43
September 27, 1999
Mr David McCoy, Secretary
ITC Dept of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr McCoy
The Town of Forest City appreciates the opportunity to have input for the update of the
2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program for the 2002-2008 schedule
Forest City endorses the projects scheduled in the present T I P which includes
Project - R2233 - US 221 improvements
Project - R2597 - US 221 improvements
Project - R3612 - US 221-A spot improvement
Project-U-2711 including two projects on Oak Street in Forest City
We ask that these projects continue on schedule and the following recommendations be
given senous consideration
Pnonty 1 A portion of the East-West Connector proposed in the current
Thoroughfare Plan from SR 1585 (Vance Street) to SR 1576 (Old
Bostic Road) a distance of 0 5+ miles This would be a tremendous help
for school traffic from the new school on Vance Street in Forest City
Priority 2 Rutherford Count}, bridge nu nibcr 69, SR 1576 (Old Bostic Rd ) Tlus
structure is over the CSX railroad and is narrow, on poor alignment and
has limited sight distance This is a heavily traveled road with several
school buses using this bridge each school day
Thank you again for this opportunity I also want to express our appreciation for
the excellent cooperation extended to us by the Department of Transportation personnel
at the division, distract and county level
Your consideration of these requests is appreciated
Sincerely,
Harold K Stallcup
Commissioner
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAWRELOCATION REPORTS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18) The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible) The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state of
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area
EIS RELOCATION REPORT

® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Departr rent of Transportation
REUXA7m AWWANCe PROGRAM
WBS ELEL4ENT: 34400.1 1 COUNTY Rutherford Attemate 3 of AAltemate
TIP. No.: R-22338
DE cmpTm of PROJECT: US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop
Type of
E is owners Twwft Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-3SM 35?OM 50 UP
Residerttiaj 80 19 99 l 4 27 30 38 0
?XVAXAIIL
Farms 0 0 0 Owners Tena nts For Bate For R ent
Nw,Profit 1 0 1 A 0-20tt 0 f 0-136 p p $ 0-1ao 4
20?40nt p 1S&M S 20-rott 4 130.270 5
Yes Nlo Exert r?'yES"www". x0-70+ 15 25040 14 40-? 21 ? 13
x t. wdl spedraiocadon serwoas be nece 70-/000- 28 400-400 p 7040M 34 400400 9
x 2. WIN schools or dxxdws be atfeciad too w 37 too up p 106 ur 143 coo uv 7
displacement? TOTAL 80 19 202 38
x 3 WE business services SO be available
after project? 2. mountain View Baptist Church
x 4. WNI any business be displaced? If so, 3. war root be Owupted due to the projsci
kWirate size, type, estimated number of L sa attached shout for eat of 6esinasss.
employs", minorities, eta. s. Dw to Hmttsd esrrtal houe4lp and the n rnber of tenerft-dspiawes, the
project may affect avsaabie rental houftq In the ars&
x 5 WNl relocation cause a housing Shortage? 4. Rumps Unsmbd. Cokwmj-?. Century 21• West Redty. and the
Rud-ford Weeld
ll
-
o
8 Source for available housing 0154 y
p
p
IN, Am necessary In accords with stab Law.
x 7 WiN additional housing programs be 10 9 low rent housing Is not available at the tine of MMUN lion, pubic
needed? housing might be necessary.
x 8 Should Last Resort Rxisi ng be
considered? it HUD housing.
x 9 Are there large, disabled. elderly, eta. 12 Given the ind resort housing programs and proper lead tpas it In felt
famNies? that WS housing could be noses available to tin a persons being
diaphace& Adequate lead tine ahotW be 24.18 mondw
tl tt le felt that our fast escort !rousing program will enable any person(s)
being dispinew to obtain or maintain housing within their financial
msars

x
10. Will pubic housing be needed for paged? .
14, sulable business sites will bi enflabb during the relocation period.
sources are the acne as t ooq 6aWJn No. 6 above.
x 11 Is pudic housing available?
x 12 Is It febt there wit be adequate DSS housig " You may notice a dW :rues M the manbw 0-1 dtepteoass on the
hou=V evadabis dung relocation period? Relocation EIS Report and the Appraleei Cost Edmsts. This is due to
proodndty darer C being a tatter on to Cos! Esti nub Report
(inmprwmnwna not actually In Its proposed aha, but considered damaged
x 13 will there be a problem of housing within to the point of no veins) as wets as potential Was of access due to the
Inermal means? conb a of access rW* of wait The dlsplacess shown on this sport only
Include #me actually totaled within the prorooa0 right of wary of this
x 14. Are suitable bu wass ales available (last woke
source).
15. Number more is estimated tD complete
neimcATiom? 30 months
7-24-08
? C. Dab
rrw i o-c
ALTERNATE 3_BUSUMSES
a). Auction House 3 employees 1800 SF 0 mm.
b). Green Memorial Monument Co. 1 employee 2000 SF 0 min
c). Tn-City Tire 6 employees 3500 SF 2 min-
d). The Little Cubbard 3 employees 1000 SF I min.
e). Goode's Memorials 1 employee 1000 SF 0 mm.
fj. Pro Physical Therapy 6 employees 2500 SF 3 mm.
g). Lank Medical Inc. Home Care 5 employees 1800 SF 2 min,
h). Century 21 Realty 3 employees 1800 SF 0 min.
i). 3-Tex 10 employees 5000 SF 5 min-
D . Jon's Frame Shop I employee 800 SF 0 min.
k). Mitchell's Market & Convenience Store 4 employees 1100 SF 0 min.
1). Snack Bar 2 employees 600 SF 0 min,
m). Mountain View Baptist Church 1800 SF
n). Grimes & Teich, Attorneys 5 employees 1000 SF 2 min.
o). Blue Ridge Audiology & Hearing Aid 4 employees 1000 SF 1 mtn.
p). NC Dept. of Corrections, Div. of Community
Corrections, Judicial Dist. 29A 3 employees 1000 SF 1 mm.
?. Ann's Cozy Quips & Fabrics 2 employees 1200 SF 0 sun.
r). Michael A. Gray, CPA 2 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
s) Garland F. Byers, Jr., Attorney 3 employees 1200 SF 1 min.
t). Allstate Insurance, Randy S. McKinney 2 employees 1200 SF" 0 min-
u). Citizen's First Mortgage 2 employees 1200 SF I min.
v). Rutherford Hospital Patient Financial Serv. 8 employees 1200 SF 4 min.
w). Butterfly Life Healthy Living Solutions 4 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
x). Venzon Wireless Center 5 employees 1200 SF 2 min.
y). Family Dollar Store 8 employees 2000 SF 3 min.
z). he Uniforms 4 employees 1500 SF 3 min.
aa). Sunnyside Orchard 5 employees 15W SF 2 min.
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
J

North CWOHM Deparbnsnt of Transportation
RELOCATION hASSISTMM PROGRAM
0 E I.S. ? CORRIOOR Q DE51GN
WBS ELEMENT 134400. 1.1 c m*m Rutherford Aftemate 4 of Altemets
T I.P. No.: R-22338
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: US 221 Rutherfiardton Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop
I Type of
Businesses
Farms
Nan-Profit
s
yes ~~NO
x
E
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
r
x
owners Tenants
111 52
24 !S
0 0
2 0
Tatiai Mln dbw 0-15M 15-25M 25-M
163 28 0 46 64
43 0
0 0 Owners Tenants For
2 0 oxen 0 SO-150 0 *am
;MM " 20-4N 0 1ss-2so 26 ?o.4ar

35-" 1 50 UP
For
n aw -rES aresse.rx 40-7W 18 20- 00 10 ID-7oM Z1?0 73
x 1 Will special raiocetlon services be necessary? 70-loon 42 400-M 0 71>•t00n 34 400?e00 g
2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up $1 wo to 18 too v1' 143 tae UI 7
Tu7TAL 111 3'1 202 38
3. WIN business services still be available r mu m - { { Q
AIM after project? 2. SevenOWUy Itdvenflet Ctuireh and Yo vain View s.pti t ctunch
4 WIN any business be displaced? If so, 2. VM not be disrupted due to the project.
indicate sae, type, estimated number of 4. See attached ~ for NO of buskrasses.
employees, via mbes, etc. s. Due to {idled rw. housing and the nurnbw of terrantdlsptaswea the
project may affect ave0able rental housing In the area
5 WIN relocation cause a housing sihortege? a ttamal'a UnIni ftd, CotdwNl$wntsr, t-.errtwy 21- Rrst scatty, and the
Rutherford Weeid
Nwv
a
sr

6 Source for available housing (list). y
p
p
.
6. As necessary In accordance vAth stow Law.
x 7 WIN additional housing programs be 10. N lore rend housing Is not available at the ulna of a=Wi*ltkxk publIc
needed? houskrp migkt be necessary-
& Should Last Resort Knaing be 11 HUD housing.
considered?
x 9 Are there large. disabled, elderly. etc. 12. G vvn the Iaet resortbousirg pope and proper lead tkns K b felt
families? that DES housing could be made available to those persona being
displaced. Adequate lead time ahwdd be 2646 arond
13. It Is fart that our Iset neeort housing program wili enable arty pwson(a)
M being deptaosd m obtain a mainhM ttonnaktg wtllNn tlrNr tlntaneiri
mans.
WE pudic housing be needed for project? 14.3uit W burgess attea will be available during ten Mon adr, period
Z Sources we the cam. as tlwee IIstad In Nw a above

. Is public housing avaitabMe? .
12 Is it felt there vA be adequate DSS housing " You may nodoe a dMilannoe in the number of dleplacese on the
housing available during relocation period? PAkm tion EIS Report and the Appraisal Cost Esti nee. This Is due to
proudmity darrnape being a recta on the Cost Estinuft Report
(knprovernn+fs not actually In the proposed take, but connaI I I damaged
13. Will there be a problem of housing within to the point of no vskjo) as wep as potential foes of access due to the
financial means? oonb'oi of access rfpht of way. The dispiacees shown an ends raport oily
include those actually toeawd whin the proposed right of way of this
14. Are suitable business sites available (list projeas
source).
15 Nu tuber montls estimated to complete
AEtACMtott? 30 months
T-2408
Daryl G Robert Daft Relocation Coardksotdr Data
Right of Wow Anent
FFMIS-E
BUSINESSES ON ALTERNATIVE 4
a). Mitchell's Market & Convaneuce Stom 4 employees 1100 SF 0 mm.
b) Snack Bat 2 employees 600 SF 0 mm.
C) Healing Touch Chirro Center 8 employees 1800 SF 2 mm
d). CF Rowe $ San Crane Service 20 employees 3500 SF 4 rime
e). Bon Hon QutCk Mart 3 employees 1500 SF l mane
0. Dogwood Motel 3 employees 35M SF 2 min.
9) East Mountain KwilcMart 5 employees 1700 SF 3 mmn.
h). Chevron Food Store & Deli 5 employees 1700 SF 3 mm.
1? Gold Nugget Auto Sales 6 employees 1800 SF 0 mm-
A Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Rutherfordtan 3000 SF
k) Mountain View Baptist Cbarch 1800 SF
1). Grimes dt Teich, Attorneys 5 employees 1000 SF 2 mine
m). Blue Ridge Audiology dt Heermg Aid 4 employees 1000 SF 1
n) NC Dept of Comeettons, Div of Community
Corrections. Judienai Dist. 29A 3 employees 1000 SF 1 mm,
o). Ann's Cory Quilts dt Fabrics 2 employees 1200 SF 0 mm.
p) Midmd A. Gray, CPA 2 employees 1200 SF 0 mm.
e) Garland F. Byers, Jr., Attorney 3 emzployces 1200 SF I mm,
r). Allstate Insurance, Randy S. McKinney 2 employees 1200 SF 0 mm.
s) Citizen's Frost Mortgage 2 employes 1200 SF 1 min.
t). Rutherford Hospital Patient Financial Samce 8 employees 1200 SF 4 nun.
u) Butterfly Life Healthy Ltvmg Solutions 4 employees 1200 SF 0 mm.
V). Van= Wireless CCnW 5 employees 1200 SF 2 mm.
w). Family Dollar Store 8 employees 2000 SF 3 mm.
4 he Umforms 4 employees 1500 SF 3 mm.
y). Carolina First 8 employees 2000 SF 4
z) Clean Ride Carwash I employee 1500 SF 0 mm.
aa). Cabin Fever FAum ure 8 employees 4000 SF 4 ten,
bb) Thcra-SSage 5 employees 1000 SF 0 mm.
CO. Slall-Creaham, Inc. 3 employees 1000 SF 0 mm.
dd). List for Leas Realty 3 employees 1000 SF 1 mm.
ee). Audrto y Advantage Hearing Care Center 5 employees 1000 SF 3 mm.
fb) Lovelace Financial Group 4 employees 1000 SF 1 nm-
gg) SkyCatcher Commizzucauans 6 employees 1000 SF 2 min.
hh) ABC Store 4 employees 2000 SF 1 min..
u). Amencan Trans-Mad 10 employees 1800 SF 3 mm.
1j). The Barb=w Place 6 employees 2700 SF 3
kk). Carolina Energies Gas Station 5 employees 1200 SF 0 mm.
ln. Joe Moore Auto Sales, Inc. 5 employees 2000 SF 2 min.
mm) Super Lobe Oil Change 5 employees 1100 SF 1 mm.
nn) Jack's Self Storage 10 employe ea 2000 SF 3 nun.
oo) Apple Tuck dt Assoc. Construction dt Storage
Facility 5 employees 1800 SF 2 min
pp) Carolina Home Semoes 5 employees 2000 SF 0 min.
qq) Restwell Heim Assisted Living 12 employees 3000 SF 6 mm.
rr) Fiddlesticim Antiques 2 employees 1500 SF 0 min-
SS). StmnyWde Orchard 5 employees 1500 SF 2 ann.
E1S RELOCATION REPORT
ml I
W

North Carolina Department of Transpo &b*$on
RaMrATM A=TAMM PROORMM
® E I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
WM &.EMNT: 34400.1.1 CouNTY Rutherford Attemate 6 of Altemate
T.I.P. No.: R-22338
DEsCRIPT*N OF PRoxCr. US 221 RUtherfordban Bypass from US 74 Bypass to SR 1366 (Roper Loop
'k
. v jYv
Type of
Dlsphacees Ow rtets 7erolrtts Tdai Mnontiea 0.15M
15,2 5M 25 35M 35. 50M 50 UP
Residentied
Businesses 73
7 18
19 91
26 13
2 24 41 26 0
Farms 0 0 0 0 t
Owners enants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 San lso p eta 0 $ "50 4

Yee No -crnisin all
" VIES- M"w
401O 250 0 M."M 1l0 7lD R
'77

x
x
x
x
x
x
11 ?oo 17 21 2e44oo 13
x 1 Will special ralocaUon services be necesawY? M10011 21 400.600 1 TWIMM 34 40"M 9
2 Wig schools or churches be affected by 100 ur 41 000 Ur 0 10o w 143 M UP 7
-
displacement? Tt7TAL 73 18 202 NEZ 38
3 Wig business services still be available -
s t - ,°
bit e. 3
r.
after prngact? *Wn View Baptist Church
4 Wig any business be displaced? M so, ot be disrupted due to the project.
:
:
indicate sue, type, estimated number of r4.
3"
A for list or b
employees. minorities, etc o ilreihousing and the ntaeber of Wef?d(eplaeees, sire
ct may affcavdiabie radal houskV te the ans.
5 Wig relocation cause a housing shortage? W*s UrAmted, Coldrw148anker, Century 21- Rut Realty, and tie
w wd Wseid
Naw
e
er

8 Source for available housing (list). y
p
p
.
S. As necessary in accordance wflh State Law.
x 7 MA additional housing programs be 10. S low tart horsing is not available at the time of acquisition, putrilo
needed? how*V might be necessary.
8 Should Last Resort Mousing be 11. HW housing
considered?
x 9 Are there large, disabled. elderly, eta. I& Gheo the last resort honing programs and proper lead tome R M lint
famrNes? sass D$S housing couid be made avallable to lhoas persons being
displaosd, Adequate Mad time should be 24-A mondw
18. ft le/sit that our last rosort housng program wig sn" any person(s)
being displaced to obtain or mahdain hawing within, *A* tlrnaneies
means

10 WE public housing be needed for proyect? .
14. Suitable bealve" sites will be available during ere relocation period.
Sources are the same se @uose listed in Ho. 6 above.
11 is public housing evadable?
12 Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housirig You may nWice a dWeratce in the number of diepimses on the
housing available during reloeatjon period? Reioeatlom EM Report and tie Appraises Cost r- " I ThisM due re
prom rilty damage being a factor on On Cast rvtknale Rapoit
(improvama+Ms not ar ix silyr In the proposed take, but wrraklnsd damaged
13. WE there be a problem of housing wt him to the point of no vsitms) as well as patanties Masi of access due to the
financial means? Foisting of scows Hght of way: The displim"s siuowm an MM report only
lachrde -hoes actually located wlttmbt to proposed right of way of ads
14 Are suitable business sites available (list project.
source)
15 t4unnber months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 30 month3
7-24-08
Daryl G Rioberb Deno Ralocatbrt Coardkuidr Dabs
Rkft of War Anent
FRM16-E
ALTERNATE 6 BUSIlVESSES
a). Mitchell's Market & Convenience Store 4 employees 1100 SF 0 min.
b). Mountain View Baptist Church 1800 SF
e). Grimm & Teich, Attorneys 5 employees 1000 SF 2 min-
d) Blue Ridge Audiiology & Hearing Aid 4 employees 1000 SF 1 nun.
e) NC Dept. of Corrections, Div. of Community
Corrections, Judicial District 29A 3 employees 1000 SF 1 min.
t). Ann's Cony Quilts 2 employees 1200 SF 0 Min-
g) Michael Gray, CPA 2 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
h) Garland Byers, Jr., Attorney 3 employees 1200 SF 1 min.
i). Allstate Insurance, Randy S. McKinney 2 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
J). Citizen's First Mortgage 2 employees 1200 SF 1 min.
k). Rutherford Hospital Patient Financial Serv. 8 employ= 1200 SF 4 mm.
1). Butterfly Life Healthy living Solutions 4 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
m) Vaum Wireless Center 5 employees 1200 SF 2 min.
n). Family Dollar Store 8 employees 2000 SF 3 min.
o). he Uniforms 4 employees 1500 SF 3 mm.
p). ProPhysrcal Therapy 6 employees 2500 SF 3 min.
o). Link Medical Inc. Home Care 5 employees 1800 SF 2 min.
r). Century 21 3 employees 1800 SF 0 min,
s) 3-Tex 10 employees 8000 SF 5 min
t). Jon's Frame Shop 1 employee 800 SF 0 min.
u). STS Auto Sales 2 employees 1000 SF 0 min.
v). Trans-Teat 3 employees 1000 SF 0 min.
w) Oates & Lane Motor Company 3 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
x). Tarheel Motor Company 3 employees 1700 SF 1 min.
y). Unnamed Auto Repair Shop 2 employees 1400 SF 2 min.
z). Hamrick's Grist Mill 1 employee 1300 SF 0 min
aa). Unnamed Fruit & Vegetable Stand 2 employees 1100 SF 0 min.
EIS RELOCATION REPORT

® E I.S. [ ] CORFdDOR ? DES*N
North Carotlrta Department of Transportidlon
RF.LOCATIpN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 34400.1.1 COUNTY Rutherford ArWIT118te 74-A of Attemate
T !.P NO.' R-22338
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT US 221 Rutherfordtan Bypass from US 74 Bypass tD SR 1366 (Roper Loop
f 4• tJ
?f • a

r;

Type
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Mirimba 0-15M 15-25M 2535M 3550M 50 UP
ResMenbal 80 8 88 8 0 15 38 35 0
Businesses 13 19 32 0 111 gu 7
Farms 0 0 0 0 owrhers Tenants For S acs For R ent
Non-Pmfft 1 1 2 0 0-20a 0 s also 0 0.2a/ p !also 4
m 4" 1 tnp = 0 204W 4 130,M 5
Yes No Explain aff TES" ansasers. 4&7011
4 256400
a 4CI-70»

21 2110400

13
x 1. Val special relocation services be necessary? 7011000 16 400-A00 p 7a100r 34 40-400 9
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by too to 89 coo w p too up
143 000 uP
7
di nwO TOTAL 80 8 202 38
x 3 Will business services still be available 1240 z
•
Mk
t
Y ?
p 4
im)
after Kqe c ? 2. Rul erford County Hunan 3ocisty A Latter Rain Church of God
x 4 WNI any business be displaced? If so, 3. WE not be disrupted due to the project
indicate sine, type, estimated number of 4. Sao attached of for No of businesses.
employees, mrnoridea, etc. & Dm fo gmlled ru ntai houshg wnd the naarhbw of terherhWbplacaes. the
project may ~ svalisbis nruai housing In the ins
x 5. WIN relocation cause a housing shortage? S. Rwiw's iAMhnttsd, Col %v**4m tosr. Century 21. First Rmft and the
Rutherford Waald
New

8. Source for available housing (fist) y
papsr.
R As rlea.ssy In accordance wtth State Law
x 7 Will additional housing progrars be 10. N low rent housing is not available at the tuna of acquisition, public
needed? houshtp might be nscssssrX
X
I
8 Should Last Resat Housing be
cornkk tad?
11. HLID housing.
X 9 Are there large, dreabied, elderly, sic. 12. Qlven tie last escort housing programs and proper lead tee It Is hit
familres? that D83 housing could be made available to 0wae persons being
dispkce& Adequate lead time shouts be 34-34 month.
12 It le tbht that our last neon housing program will enable any person(s)
being dlspleosd to obodo or maYltein housing wNNn Chair 16enctal
raewrt
x
I
10. Will pudic housing be needed for prv)9ct?
14 Sultabie brminese sites WE be available during the rebeation period.
Sources an the acme se those listed In No
0 above

X
11 Is public housing available? .
.
x 12 )s It felt there will be adequate DSS housing You may nodce a di fannea In to number of dispiaeeee on the
housing available during mlocation period? Rsiocsitm 08 Report and the Appraisal Cast Estinete This Is due to
p vWmity dwnags being a facsa an the Coat Eaatmels Report
jimPrw wwwks not achsW in the prop, d tabs, but considsred demagsd
x 13 Will there be a problem of housNtg within be the point of no velue) as wall as potential Soso of access due to to
finanaal means? control of access right of wax The disptaaso shown on ids report only
Include those actually l l , I - within the proposed right of way of this
x 14 Are suitable blues sites available (Rd pro)" t.
source)
15 Number morel w estirrated b compiele
- RMACAliohl? 30 months
7-2408
Daryl C- Roberts Dare Dabs
RIaK of wr" Aoart
FRM15-E
74-A BUSINESSE
a). Mitchell's Market & Convenience Store 4 employees 1100 SF 0 min.
b) Snack Bar 2 employees 600 SF 0 min.
c). Auction House 3 employees 1800 SF 0 mm.
d) Oak Grave Healthcare Center 25 employees 6500 SF 10 min.
c). Tn-City Tire 6 employees 3500 SF 2 min
f). Green Memorial Monument Co. 1 employee 2000 SF 0 mm.
g). The Little Cubbard 3 employees 1000 SF 1 mm.
h) Freeman Gas 12 employees 3000 SF 4 min-
i). Rutherford i odmmith & Pawn 3 employees 1500 SF 0 min
J). Guffey's Used Appliances 2 employees 1200 SF 0 min.
k). M & G Laundry 2 employees 1200 SF I min.
I). R-S Speedy Lube 4 employees 1100 SF 1 min.
m). R-S Service Center 4 employees 1500 SF 1 min.
n). Detail Express Carwash 1 employees 2000 SF 1 min
o) Express Store 4 employ= 1300 SF 2 min.
p). Volunteer Life Saving & Rescue 5 employees 1700 SF 0
q). Rutherford County Hueneme Society 1000 SF
r) NC Tractor & Farm Supply 5 employees 2000 SF 1 min
s) Earthdog Pet Spa 2 employees 1200 SF 2 min-
t). Bright's Used Cars 1 employees 1100 SF 0 min.
u). Yamaha 3 employees 2000 SF I min.
v) North American Auto Credit 5 employees 3000 SF 2 min.
w). Jerry's Used Cars 3 employees 1500 SF 0 min
x). Latter Rare Church of God 2800 SF
y). Metcalf s Body Shop I employee 2000 SF 0 min
z). Food Lion 12 employees 5500 SF 6 min
aa). Rite Aid Pharmacy 10 employees 5500 SF 3 min.
). Hardee 's 8 employees 1500 SF 4 min.
cc). Crowe's Funeral Home 4 employees 4000 SF 1 min.
dd). Bi-Lo 12 employees 5500 SF 6 min.
ee) 64 & Vine Auto Sales 4 employees 1100 SF I min
ff). New Generation Homes 5 employees 1200 SF 2 min-
W. Unnamed Fruit & Vegetable Stand 2 employees 1100 SF 0 nun.
hh) Hamrick's Grist Mill 1 employee 1300 SF 0 mm.