HomeMy WebLinkAboutUS 221 Rutherfordton Bypass (5)1 181 1
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date November 7, 2008
Comment Deadline December 8, 2008
Corps Action ID No SAW-2008-2857
TIP Project No R-2233B
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding a potential future requirement for
Department of the Army authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States associated with the proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass from US 74 Bypass to
SR 1366 (Roper Loop Road), Rutherford County, North Carolina
Specific alternative alignments and location information are described below and shown on the
attached plans This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District
Web Site at www saw usace army mil/wetlands
Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
c/o Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application to compare alternatives that have been carried forward for
study pursuant to applicable procedures under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C 1344)
In order to more fully integrate Section 404 permit requirements with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and to give careful consideration to our required public interest review and
404(b)(1) compliance determination, the Corps is soliciting public comment on the merits of this
proposal and on the alternatives evaluated in the State /NCDOT Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) At the close of this comment permit, the District Commander will evaluate and consider the
comments received as well as the expected adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed road
construction to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) The
District Commander is not authorizing the US 221 improvement project at this time A final
Department of the Army permit could be issued, if at all, only after our review process is complete,
impacts to the aquatic environment have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable and a
compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts has been approved
R
Location"'
r?
Exissting 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 221A (Charlotte Road), and US 64 before tying back into existing US 221 south of SR 1367
(Thompson Road) A vicinity map is included in this public notice Waters of the United States will
be impacted by the proposed project Streams within the project area are part of the Broad River
Basin Three mayor stream systems, Stonecutter Creek, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek flow
through the project area The project is more specifically located starting at Latitude 35 3054 N,
Longitude 81 9209 W and ending at Latitude 35 4070, Longitude 81 9687
Existing Site Conditions
Rutherford County is predominantly rural The towns of Rutherfordton and Spmdale are two of the
largest towns in the county Existing land use in the project study area varies from undeveloped
forested or agricultural land to intensively developed commercial or industrial uses Most of the land
in the study area is residential Five plant communities occur within the study area Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-History Forest, Disturbed-Maintained Communities, Wetland
Communities, and Pine Forest
The three kinds of wetlands present within the project study area are forested wetlands, shrub-
dominated wetlands, and wetlands dominated by herbaceous vegetation Three mayor stream systems,
Stonecutter Creek, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek flow through the project area The project is
located within the NC Division of Water Quality sub-basin 03-08-02 and US Geological Survey sub-
basm 03050105 One hundred and three jurisdictional streams are located within the project study area
and are described in Table 4 below
Applicant's Stated Purpose
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 The proposed project will address the
following needs
• Substandard roadway geometry that does not meet the 60 MPH design speed requirements
• Projected high traffic volumes
• Excessive travel time
The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on the purpose and need for the project on December 14, 2000
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a US 221
Rutherfordton Bypass mostly on new location The proposed project is approximately nine miles long
The proposed US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass will be constructed as a four-lane median divided
roadway with 12-foot lanes and 10-foot grass shoulders (4 feet paved) A 46-foot median is proposed
for the project A 23-foot raised median and curb and gutter with a ten-foot berm is proposed for
2
portions of the proposed bypass routed along existing US 74Alternate A design speed of 70 MPH is
also proposed for new location portions of the project
Detailed Study Alternatives
Detailed environmental surveys were performed for four alternatives Preliminary designs were
prepared for the alternatives, as well
The four alternatives currently under consideration for the project are discussed below All of these
alternatives are shown on figures attached to this public notice Table 3 presents a comparison of the
four alternatives and the alternatives are described individually below
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
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 Busmess/US 221Alternate 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 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
Table 3
Detailed Study 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.)
NWI
Stream
Impacts 12,063 8,734 13,113 9,200
ft.
Dwarf-Flowered
Heartleaf Impacts 4120 1723 371 5 371 5
s ft.
Length New
Location 9 1 3 5 86 3 3
miles
Total
Length 85 93 94 87
miles
Total Cost (mil) 1 $2230 $219 0 $234 0 $200 0
Impacts based on field surveys
Jurisdictional Streams
Streams within the project area are part of the Broad River Basin Three mayor stream systems,
Stonecutter Creek, Cleghorn Creek and Hollands Creek flow through the project area The project is
located within the NC Division of Water Quality sub-basin 03-08-02 and US Geological Survey sub-
basin 03050105 Streams in the study area are described in Table 4 below
4
Streams in Project Stud Area
Table 4
Stream ID Bank
Height
feet Channel
Width (feet) Stream
Determination
B 6-8 2-4 Perennial
1B 1-4 3-4 Perennial
UT1B 2-6 1-3 Perennial
A 1-5 2-5 Perennial
2ZZ 1-10 1-3 Perennial
1C 1-2 6-10 Perennial
UT1C 1-2 1-4 Perennial
2UT1C 1-3 1-4 Perennial
3UT1C 1-4 <1 Perennial
MUTIC 1-4 1-2 Perennial
2A 6-12 05-3 Perennial
4UT2A 05 1 Perennial
UT2A 2-4 05-1 Perennial
2UT2A 3-4 05 Perennial
3UT2A 2-4 1-2 Perennial
5UT2A 2-3 1 Perennial
213 upstream 4-5 05 Perennial
2B downstream 6-10 1-3 Perennial
UT213 4-6 2-3 Perennial
2UT213 3-5 05-1 Perennial
UTIUT213 2-3 1-2 Perennial
1D 2-10 2-4 Perennial
UT1D 6-20 4-6 Perennial
lE 1-3 4-6 Perennial
UT1E 1 4 Perennial
2C (Stonecutter
Creek 10-25 1-4 Perennial
UT2C 2-3 05-3 Perennial
UTUT2C 15 05 Perennial
3A 0-1 1-4 Perennial
2F 1-10 3-6 Perennial
2G downstream 2-10 6-8 Perennial
2UT2G 4-9 3-5 Perennial
3-2C upstream
(Stonecutter Creek) 2-4 8-20 Perennial
1J 1-6 8-15 Perennial
UT1J 1-3 2-6 Perennial
3-2C downstream
Stonecutter Creek 2-8 20-30 Perennial
2UT3-2C 0-1 12-16 Perennial
Stream ID Bank
Height
feet Channel
Width (feet) Stream
Determination
3UT3-2C 0-2 0-3 Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3UT3-2C 6-14 2-16 Perennial
4UT3-2C 6-20 3-4 Perennial
UT4UT3-2C 1-4 1-3 Perennial
3E 12 1-8 Perennial
UT3E 1-9 3-6 Perennial
3D (North of US
74 0-8 4-12 Perennial
3C upstream
0-2
1-4 Intermittent
becoming
Perennial
3C downstream 2-6 4-10 Perennial
3UT3C 0-2 1-3 Perennial
4UT3C 0-1 1-3 Intermittent
3B 0-6 1-4 Perennial
3D (South of US
74 3-4 6-10 Intermittent
becoming Perennial
UT31) 0-6 1-8 Perennial
lY 2-4 4-6 Perennial
UT1Y 1-2 1-2 Perennial
2UT1Y 0-6 1-10 Perennial
3UT1Y 1-2 2-6 Perennial
2J 1-2 3 Perennial
1G 3-15 3 Perennial
UT1G 4 3-5 Perennial
2H 20 3-4 Perennial
UT2H 20 4-6 Perennial
2G upstream
(Cle horn Creek 3-10 20-35 Intermittent
becoming Perennial
3UT2G 8-12 4 Perennial
4UT2G 4-20 3-4 Perennial
5UT2G 15 2-3 Perennial
6UT2G 1-18 3-8 Perennial
UT6UT2G 1-3 3 Perennial
3-2UT6UT2G 2-6 1-4 Perennial
3-3UT6UT2G 2-4 1-4 Perennial
3-4UT6UT2G 1-4 2-4 Perennial
3-5UT6UT2G 1-2 1-2 Perennial
3UTUT3F 2-3 4-8 Perennial
2UTUT3F 2-8 1-6 Perennial
3F (Hollands
Creek 6 6-15 Perennial
Stream ID Bank
Height
feet Channel
Width (feet) Stream
Determination
UTUT3F 2 3 Perennial
UT3F 3-4 3-5 Perennial
2UTUT2K 05 1 Perennial
UTUT2K 1-5 1-5 Perennial
UT2K 1-5 1-3 Perennial
UTIHC 1-40 2-20 Perennial
UT3X 2-12 3-6 Perennial
UTUT3X 1-9 3-6 Perennial
3X 3-12 8-20 Perennial
3G (Hollands
Creek 5-10 10-15 Perennial
UT3G 3-6 3-4 Perennial
3UTUT3G 2-8 1-3 Perennial
UTUT3G 1-3 1-2 Perennial
2UTUT3G 1-4 1-3 Perennial
UT2UTUT3G 1-3 1-3 Perennial
2UT1HC 1-2 1-3 Perennial
UT3UTIHC 1-2 1-2 Perennial
3UT1HC 1-3 1-5 Perennial
31 2-10 6-40 Perennial
UTUTIHC 2 3 Perennial
UT1HC 2-25 2-10 Perennial
1HC
(Hollands
Creek
12
4-6
Perennial
2K (Hollands
Creek 2-4 12-18 Perennial
2UT2K 3-4 5 Perennial
3UT2K 3 6 Perennial
1K 1-2 4-6 Perennial
UTIK 0-3 0-1 Perennial
3H 1-8 2-20 Perennial
2UT1K 0-1 1-3 Intermittent
3UT1K 0-1 1-3 Intermittent
4UT1K 0-3 2-3 Perennial
5UTIK 0-2 2-3 Perennial
UT3J 2-4 2-4 Perennial
3J 1-5 2-4 Perennial
UTIN 2-8 1-6 Perennial
IN 2-8 3-8 Perennial
2UT1N 2-3 2-3 Intermittent becoming
Perennial
Bank Channel Stream
Stream ID Height Width (feet) Determination
feet
Intermittent becoming
1M 1-3 2-4 Perennial
3M 2-4 2-3 Perennial
UT3M 1-4 3-4 Perennial
2UT3K 3-20 2-4 Perennial
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
Anticipated impacts to streams of the current study alternatives are presented on Table 5 below
Table 5
Anticipated Effects on Streams
Alternative
3 4 6 US74A
Stream Impacts Feet 12,063 8,730 13,113 9,200
Wetlands
Wetlands in the project study area were field delineated using the current Corps of Engineers
methodology The anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the project study area shown on
Table 6
Table 6
Anticipated Effects on Wetlands
Alternative
3 4 6 US74A
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 08 06 13 07
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and
has determined that registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are
located within the project area and/or will be affected by the proposed
Properties Eligible for the National Register
The Proposed Boundary Expansion of Main Street Historic District (Rutherfordton) is a site
bounded by North Main, Carnegie, North Washington, and Fernwood streets It is recommend 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
8
Dunkard's Creek Baptist 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
The Homer and Bertha Sparks 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 Robert J Norris 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
Ruth Elementary School 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 Washington Geer 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
Gilboa United Methodist 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 This property was evaluated in the survey but is no longer within the project's
APE
Yelton's Flour Mill is located on West Main Street in Spmdale, dust east of US 74 A (Railroad
Avenue) 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
Project effects on historic properties are shown on Table 8 below
9
Table 8
Effects on Historic Pronerties
US 74A
Historic Property ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT 6
ALT.
Rutherfordton- No
No Adverse No Adverse
Spindale Central High Adverse No Effect
Effect Effect
School Effect
Main Street Historic No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
District
No Adverse
Gilbert Town No Effect No Effect No Effect
Effect
Main Street Historic No Adverse
No Effect No Effect No Effect
District Expansion Effect
Dunkard's Creek No Adverse
No Effect No Effect No Effect
Baptist Church Effect
Homer and Bertha No Effect No Effect No Effect No Adverse
Sparks House Effect
Robert J Norris Adverse No Effect No Effect No Adverse
House Effect Effect
Ruth Elementary Adverse Adverse No Adverse
No Effect
School Effect Effect Effect
Washington Geer No Adverse
No Effect No Effect No Effect
House Effect
Yelton's Flour Mill No Effect No Effect No Effect No Adverse
Effect
*Gilboa United
No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Methodist
*This property was evaluated in the suvery but is no longer within the project's APE
Ruth Elementary School would be adversely affected by Alternatives 3 and 4 because they
would require land from the school
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with these findings on June 6, 2008
Archaeolouical 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
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and
consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database Based on available information, the
Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), that the proposed
project may affect federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical
10
habitat Habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is present within the study area and one previously
undocumented population was also identified within the project study area Consultation under
Section 7 of the ESA will be initiated and no permit will be issued until the consultation process is
complete
As of January 31, 2008 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally
protected species are listed for Rutherford County Table 7 lists these species and their federal status
Table 7
Federally-Protected Species in Rutherford Count
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status* Biological Conclusion
Indiana bat M ous sodahs E No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastyhs naniflora T May Affect-Likely to
Adversely Affect
Small whorled o oma Isotria medeoloides T No Effect
White insette Sis rinchium dichotomum E No Effect
Rock gnome lichen G mnoderma hneare E No Effect
Field surveys for the project were performed in May, July, August and September 2003 No habitat
exists in the project area for white irisette and rock gnome lichen
No hibernacula for the Indiana bat are present within the project study area, however, appropriate
roosting habitat is present No known occurrence of Indiana bat has been reported within the project
vicinity
Habitat for the small whorled pogoma is present in several areas within the study area, however, no
individuals of this species was located
Habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is present within the study area and one previously
undocumented population was also identified within the project study area
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation will be required for project impacts to wetlands and streams The applicant
will make every effort to provide on-site mitigation where possible The applicant has offered that any
mitigation requirements not provided on-site will be met utilizing the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP)
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest That decision will reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources The benefit which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably
foreseeable detriments All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including
11
the cumulative effects thereof, among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood
plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of
the United States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will include
application of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State and local agencies and
officials, including any consolidate state viewpoint or written position of the Governor, Indian Tribes
and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity Any
comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to select the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) To make this decision, comments are used to assess
impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and
the other public interest factors listed above Comments are used in the preparation of a Corps of
Engineers Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Comments are also used to determine the need for
a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received by the Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, December 8, 2008 Comments should be submitted to Mr
David K Baker, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, North
Carolina 28801
12
T-
END PROJECT
two
?d h
l /
/ 84 i
64 Z3
'?-
6
-?A'?r ?'• ';'ir_ yl ar jy ^,*' ? /
P,. n r
tr i Rutti9rf0
.E?j?.-?y7r>,l'i .?f r-?.. ,'I - ,o%?-••` M1 s in'ia -t S' i ? ` 1? , •`};" _?n / }f '?? /
s,1- 4
--
?r
*c?°,
A
FO1F86t City
Lt t 29 ti.` \ It --
' Q BEGIN 74
E - PROJECT
o
{ )
0 05 1 2
Mlles
x
F{
?y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
t OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 221
RUTHERFORDTON BYPASS
o RUTHERFORD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-2233B
APRIL 2008 BY JTORTORELLA 1-1
FIGURE