Loading...
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