19970616 Ver 2_Complete File_20021021

•
•
•
�f
�
��d[� p
1 3 2005
�AT�R nuAUnr
StORMWATER BRANCH
� Nor�th Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
LeiLani Paugh, NC Department of Transportation
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
FROM: Joe Mickey and Jim Wasseen, WRC Stream Mitigation Program
DATE:
SUBJECT:
April 7, 2005
As-built report for the Greene stream mitigation site, R-529 US 421
Project, Mecklenburg County
We are pleased to submit the Greene as-built report which summarizes 783 linear feet of stream
enhancement completed in February 2005. This site is partial fulfillment of the off-site stream
mitigation agreement between the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for the R-2420 B road improvement project in
Mecklenburg County. Under this agreement, a total of 903 linear feet of stream mitigation is
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ).
This site has been protected from future disturbance by one conservation easement and two land
purchases negotiated by NCDOT Division 10 right-of-way personneL The conservation
easement and land purchases have been recorded with the Mecklenburg County Registry.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this plan. If you have any questions about the as-
built report please contact me at P. O. Box 387, Elkin, NC 28621, phone [phone] or 1549,
email: joemickey�,surry.net .
cc: Shannon Deaton, NCWRC
Larry Thompson, NCDOT
Michael Wood, Catena Group
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

!�
•
DWQProjectNo.: �Y" �6��a County: �GG��
Appticant: �1,1 C. i�i Id �: E�. ��,Soe.tr'tes �.ow�rt•'
Project Name: �jr!!/V �. i�+� i e ar.�"� o.�J si fG : T.���" � Y.�O �
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: Oc'�-o%ser l3 .T 00 y
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1621. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, �DC 1�i. n'1 i c�ttv . cTi� . , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due caze
and diligence was used in the o servation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 40l Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules,
the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: , � Date: 'i��'��OS�
Agent's Certification
• I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules,
the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project,for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used
in the observation of the consttuction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved
plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
�
Registration No.

•
As-Built Report for the Greene Mitigation Site on Goose
Creek, Mecklenburg County
Prepared for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation Stream Mitigation
Program
Transportation Improvement Project R-2420B
�
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
James A. Wasseen II
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
2005
�

• This as-built report is submitted as partial fulfillment of the off-site stream mitigation
agreement between the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for the R-2420 B road improvement project in
Mecklenburg County. Under this agreement, a total of 903 linear feet of stream mitigation is
required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The purpose of this report is to summarize those practices
used for bank stabilization and habitat enhancement along 783 linear feet of Goose Creek known
as the Greene mitigation site, Mecklenburg County (Figure 1). Mickey and Scott (2003)
described pre-construction site conditions and project objectives.
Mussel surveys
The Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata, a federally endangered freshwater mussel, is
found in Goose Creek. Approximately 4.5 miles of Goose Creek have been designated as critical
habitat for this species. This area extends from the NC 218 bridge in Union County to its
confluence with the Rocky River. The Greene mitigation site is located several miles upstream
of the designated critical habitat area. To ensure that the Carolina heelsplitter was not present at
the Greene mitigation site, a mussel survey was conducted on March 18, 2004 by the Catena
Group using batiscopes and tactile surveys along the banks (Savidge 2004). The Carolina
heelsplitter was not found at the site, however, one individual of the Carolina creekshell Villosa
vaughaniana (Federal species of concern and North Carolina endangered species) was found
upstream of Country Woods Drive, outside of the mitigation site impact area (Savidge 2004).
• An USACE permit condition also required the WRC to conduct a mussel survey at the site
immediately before construction started. Any mussels found at this time or during construction
would be relocated upstream of the construction area. On January 10, 2005, WRC nongame
aqua.tic biologists conducted a mussel search. No live mussels were found; however, one
Carolina creekshell shell was located and moved. During construction, no mussels or mussel
shells were observed.
Conservation Easement and Land Purchases
In order to ensure long term protection of the site, NCDOT obtained a 50 ft buffer
conservation easement (CE) totaling 0.47 acres from James and Christy Tyndal, and purchased
1.58 acres from Lisa Gabbazd and 3.71 acres from George and Linda Greene (Figure 2).
Riparian buffer widths range from 100 ft to >300 ft along the purchased properties. The CE and
land purchases permanently protect 5.75 acres and encompass 783 lineaz ft of Goose Creek.
Right-of-way access to the site is from Country Woods Drive (SR 4220), which borders the
northern end of the site. The site will be maintained by the WRC in perpetuity.
Site Improvements
Channel Modifications
Construction was carried out through an informal contract with Todd Hodges Construction of
• Patterson, N.C. The contractor provided a dump truck, loader, and trackhoe with hydraulic

• thumb. Access to the site was through a temporary construction access along an old road bed off
Country Woods Drive. Before the contractor could move to the site, the local DOT maintenance
shop had to remove a guard rail and install one 12 inch and two 36 inch corrugated metal
culverts in ephemeral stream channels to allow site access. Gravel and ballast stone were then
placed over the pipes and on the temporary access road. Stream work began on February 8 and
was completed on February 23, 2005.
Six rock vanes, two rock toe benches, three root wad structures, and four log structures were
installed to prevent channel headcutting, to divert flows away from streambanks, and to create or
maintain pool habitat (Table 1, Appendix 1). Large footer rocks were installed to support top
boulders in the vanes. Large boulders were also placed behind root wad structures and used as
log structure anchors. Holes were dug below the vanes and root wads to hasten and maintain
pool formation. Excess streambed materials were excavated at rock vanes and placed upstream
of the structure neaz the bank where natural deposition would be expected. Rock vanes were
used to divert water away from eroding banks and for habitat diversity. In addition to these
structures, several existing large boulders were repositioned to direct flows away from
streamba.nks. At seven locations totaling 6751inear feet, streambanks were reshaped on a 1:1 or
2:1 slope to eliminate vertical, eroding banks (Table 1, Appendix 1). At six of the bank sites a
bankfull bench was constructed and the bank reshaped on a 1:1 or 2:1 slope (Table 1, Appendix
1). By the end of each working day, all disturbed soils were seeded, limed and fertilized, and
covered with erosion control matting or with straw.
• The as-built survey, conducted on March 2, 3 and 14, 2005, included a longitudinal profile,
eight channel cross-sections, pebble counts, and establishment of vegetation monitoring plots.
The purpose of the as-built survey is to establish post-construction baselme data that can be
compared with future surveys to monitor channel stability and vegetation survival. A water level
staff gage is located in the lower right corner (facing downstream) of the multi-cell box culvert at
station 0+00. The water level at the time of the as-built survey was 0.18 ft.
The pre-construction longitudinal survey was 773 ft in length whereas the as-built survey
began at station 1+10 and ended at station 7+78, a total of 668 ft(Figure 3). The as-built survey
did not include the first 109 ft of the project site since no stream work occurred in this section.
The pre-construction survey found 49% of the stream was pool habitat whereas the as-built
survey contained 37% pool habitat. The reason for the decrease in pool habitat between the two
surveys is directly related to two factors. First, the pre-construction survey identified a long
shallow pool from stations 3+52 — 4+60 whereas the as-built survey found a pool — riffle — run —
pool complex at the same stations. Second, the pre-construction survey contained a long pool
that had developed behind a large log/debris jam (Figure 3) from stations 4+82 — 5+68. This
log/debris jam is no longer present and the as built survey identified a pool — riffle — pool — riffle
— pool — run complex at these same stations. There is a rapid rise in the thalweg at the head of a
riffle at station 6+24(Figure 3). This 0.5 ft rise is attributed to the presence of bedrock located in
the pool above this station.
Eight cross-sections were established for the as-built survey (Figure 4). Two cross-sections
were located at pools (Figures 4.5, 4.6) and six at riffles (Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, and 4.8).
• Data from the six riffle cross-sections was used to determine the stream type following
2

• construction (Table 2). The pre-construction survey (Mickey and Scott 2003) classified the
stream at the Crreene site as an unstable F4 and G4 stream type (Rosgen 1996). Using the North
Carolina rural regional curve data (RRC) (Hannan 1999), the as-built survey classified the
constructed stream reach as a stable F4 at two locations and a B4c at the other four locations
(Table 2). The project goal to construct a stable F4 and C4 channel through this reach was
achieved. However, when comparing the same six riffle cross-sections to the North Carolina
urban regional curve data (LTRC) (Doll et al. 2002), four of the six cross-sections are C4 and two
are slightly entrenched E4 stream types (Table 3). The reason for using the RRC and URC is
that the present condition of the stream channel alludes to the stream's stable F4 and B4c
conditions evolving in an urban setting to stable C4 and E4 channels. The Goose Creek
watershed contains approximately 10% impervious area (M. Fowlkes, personal communication).
With the completion of the I-485 project, the area is ra,pidly transforming from a rural to urban
landscape. The C4 and E4 channels are more representative of the newly constructed channel
cross-sections (Figure 4).
Channel bed material was analyzed using the reachwide pebble count and cross-section
survey methods (NCSRI 2003). Riffle pebble counts were conducted in the vicinity of cross-
section stations 1+39 and 6+24. The D5� observed in the two riffles and reach ranged from 11.7
mm to 25.4 mm with a weighted dso of 18.4 mm (Figure 5). Sixty-four percent of the bed
material in this reach of Goose Creek is considered gravel, 17 % silt and sand, and 16 % cobble
(Figure 5).
• Riparian Improvements
Disturbed streambanks and soil disposal areas were seeded with a WRC native riparian mix
(Mickey and Hining 2003) and a cover crop of winter wheat and rye. After seeding, bare soils
were limed, fertilized, and covered with erosion control blankets or with straw. Erosion control
blankets were used to stabilize the soil surface on steep slopes until vegetation can become
established.
A total of 981 stems (live stakes and rooted trees) were planted during and following
construction (Table 4). Sixty-four percent of the planted stems were composed of silky dogwood
Cornus amomum (28%) and silky willow Salix sericea (36%). Three vegetation plots totaling
0.085 acres and 195 stems (20% of total planted) were established on March 3, 2005 (Table 5,
Appendix 2). These three plots will be used to determine stem survival rates through the
monitoring period. The vegetation plots can also be used to monitor volunteer stem growth.
Based on planting guidelines established for mitigation sites, a total of 320 stems/acre should be
counted through year three (LTSACE 2003). At the Greene site, approximately 0.8 acres were
disturbed during construction, requiring that 256 stems be counted at the site in the winter of
2008.
The terrestrial exotic invasive plants of wild olive Elaeagnus spp. and Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense exist at the site. These invasive species need to be monitored and if they
become a nuisance, some form of cutting/chemical control may be required.
u

• Project Costs
The WRC project cost for stream enhancement work was $30, 454.17 or $ 38.89 per lineaz
foot of stream enhancement (Table 6). Project cost includes: meetings with landowners, DOT,
DWQ, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel; field survey work; preparation of project
conceptual design; construction and as-built report; tree purchase and planting; erosion control
materials (seed, fertilizer, fabric); and WRC personnel and administrative costs. Taking into
account DOT personnel, equipment, materials expenses, and CE and land purchase costs, project
costs increase to $101,871.36 or $131.79 per foot (Table 6). Site monitoring and repair costs
will be added to the cost total as they accrue during the monitoring period.
Summary
Using natural stream design techniques, stream dimension and profile was improved at this
site. Based on North Carolina RRC data (Harmon et al. 1999), an unstable F4 and G4 stream
type was converted to a stable F4, B4c stream type. However, when taking into account that the
watershed is rapidly urbanizing, North Carolina URC data (Doll et al. 2002), indicate this reach
of Goose Creek would be classified as a C4 and slightly entrenched E4 stream type. Water
quality will be improved through reduced sedimentation from previously eroding banks. In-
stream habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates has been increased with the installation of rock
vanes, log vanes, and root wads. Both aquatic and terrestrial species will benefit with the return
of a functioning riparian corridor. Stream aesthetics have also been improved. Trends in pool
• development and channel narrowing tend to be positive from pre-construction to as-built
conditions. However, monitoring will be necessary to determine if the scour action created by
rock vanes, log vanes, and root wads can be maintasned or increased. The reshaped banks should
remain stable following bankfull and flood events.
•
4

CJ
References
Doll, Barbara A., D. E. Wise-Fredrick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, R. E.
Smith, and J. Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams
throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 38:3:641-651.
Harman, W. H., G. D. Jennings, J. M. Patterson, D. R. Clinton, L. O. Slate, A. G. Jessup,
J. R. Everhart, and R. E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships
for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings of the American Water
Resources Association Specialty Conference, Bozeman MT. American Water
Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Mickey, J. H. and S. Scott. 2003. Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek, Mecklenburg
County. Enhancement plan. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
NCSRI (North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute), North Carolina Sea Grant, North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and United States Environmental Protection
Agency. 2003. Stream restoration, a natural channel design handbook. Raleigh, North
. Cazolina.
Savidge, T. W. 2004. Freshwater mussel survey for the Greene mitigation property. TIPs R-
2123 & R-2420B, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Prepared for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation — Office of the Natural Environment, Raleigh.
The Catena Group. Hillsboro, North Carolina
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream mitigation guidelines.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
�J
5

•
�
�
�
0
U
on
`�
�
�
a�
�
U
r�
/-�
N
�
C�
%
.�
�.
b
� �
>
�
.�
�
�
�
x
a�
a�
�
U
a�
�
0
0
�
�
�
..,
�
�
0
...,
�
ou
.�
�
.�
a�
�
a�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
� w

•
u
C I
�
0
U
�
�
a�
�
�
N
�
U
a�
�
O
0
�
�
�
.�
an
�
.�
�
Q�
�
V
�
C�
�
N
.�
'C
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
U
�
�
'C)
�
�
"C
�
�
�
� O
� O
� N
o �
'� M
� ���y
i�1 I
�
Uo
•o
N N
W vj
C7 �Q„
w�
���,1� o�
�?m
��.a\�
z
��
. ���
���
� ( �
I ��
��
� 1Q
��
' �
1p v
; � I��
�r 1
�
I � f
' f� �
/ /
� j- � \
� ' �
�; 1 Q =F� `
� `
L
�
� � �
� � ,.../._ _'
.,N ... ... _.._ -�---..
t�. � r. S
M
'� 4 � �
C7 a � �c
W Y. %
/
�
/
/
i�
/�
� �
o �
'� �
c�
� �
�
v�i � o
0
p � N
� � �
�
�����
H ��
'.•
.�l ,
I-y �
S"r � �N�
V � a'-a
� � inN
/ Z��
' a�F
u
' 4 O
U
�
�
�
U
a�
�
0
0
�
�
�
U ,_.
� 'i.
C1, ¢
�
�
�
'�'�°o
C7 M N
.�G
a�
L
U
N
O
O
C7
7

•
� �
•
�
0
..,
�
U
�
�
�
�
U
�
N
i�
�
�
�+
�
O
U
oA
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
.�
3�
"�
i�
N
�
a
-i�i
�
�
.yr
�
�
U
�
�
O
O
C7
�
�
�
�
0
.�
on
...y
+-+
.,y
G"
�
N
�
Qi
a�
� �
0
�o
� N
O �
� r�
� /
�
'C `n
� �
�
•� �
� �
O
� �
...
ri �
� �
� '�
w �
� _ _
�
�
�
�
o�, � rn rn a o, rn o�o o�o
(g) uoqena�g
C
O
�
O
O
r
�
O
�
�
0
0
N
N
Us.�
rR
-/.
❑
O
.�
v
y
iG
Q
O
O v�
'� o
0
N
N
U
� �
U �-+
O � T
� Q
� M
� O
O
N
U �
�
.,
�
0 0
° •�
�
x
4
M
O
O
O N
O rrj
N ,�
�
ti
1
0
0
0
g

• F�GU� 4. Details of pre-construction and as-built cross-sections established at the Green
mitigation site, Goose Creek, Yadkin River drainage, Mecklenburg County, Mazch 2005.
•
•
URC — Urban Regional Curve
RRC — Rural Regional Curve
io�
ioo
�
98
97
a
b 96
0
� 95
w 94
93
92
91
90
_����������
�r.'_��__���i
�_���r����_��'��
��\\�""/���������—
��'�/ ������I��
__\�1�_��__�___
���.�"!�! ���C ia���
�_�����,�___
...�:....�i��
_� � �
�_�_ _�_
0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance (ft)
�Jan. 13, 2003 —�March 2,2005 —URC BKF —RRC BKF
FiGU� 4.1. Cross-section 1+39, riffle. (Photograph not available)
0

� FIGU� 4. Continued.
•
�
U
�oo
�
I 98
�
97
.� 96
>
d
w 95 — — -
94
93
I 92
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
—�—Jan. 13, 2003 —�March 2, 2005 —URC BKF —RRC BKF
FtGU� 4.2. Cross-section 2+57, riffle.
10

:,
� � .� �,,. � �..:� � .r
. e - � � ,r � � Vt+- { ' I r: � � � ` r ��a I '' "- '' �i
•� r r a� il,. � r'_ ���
,.� .- ,� -- , , �a , � v' � ,- �
i .` = J l i ' �' t ` y r� �1 � ' � � ' . .. ,�11!„r�A � ].� � }
��1` 3 �� � '9 � � a
, , ' ��� !t �`� �s i r = ;
� ` � ... 11 I
I ��, �'3i�� Y ��, .�+li �al eR91'`� ,�= e�j i�l i'
� �'.r. i"�'-�.�•> �i-- y -, 7'' � 3 .
_ d `�!i. i� � .r � x; � �4 �� '_l l. >
' „� 1Y li,� :} !, .,,�� ` � ,
� .�p'� �`. _ ; �s'�j� ;-�=..:_ � }.�'1-�'�J� -• �
��4 .., � �
:� -., °i. -
_ � .,..,,
:�,��-__��, ., =
' Y l�� L if',' tf�� �.. _ � "�. •—_.acfr'.', J
• . �;_ ���-��i_'� . �� . �ia�� .�{�� �/."• '
,�� .
�9;` _="-'��-�:.
`��2'..
� � f;,V
.` ' �
- :y:_
,
, .�{ 4. ,
; -
: �. :'
. - .. � _�,��; .-{„�` _,°
K.� R`` , ��...r%
_ . !� ,�; N�
r .�y.y N.. .
'�S t _ -.
- J ��
�'-� � � �:-�_.
��� "'� -`� ... '�
�,�,�.,,�•ao;,
r-arR_
� s,v�'_i!: �- . --.ti
- . /,. \y'�: -,,.�a _�:
,. ;. ' ,��.;5�'.�:�i• ;�,
._ . : : .J, .. ,.
�, ,. � ,,.� -cY,:-- ..• .,;.�,.'�,� � ?
I v �..�:,.1:'�:--;�aiL .
�
�� �
��,�� ,; ,, Y
r
'r(+ , `
t i ,�. - � . �,�.�
0
_ a.''�" _l
.. -� � rl - .f. .�
u
�-. .,
K :e�

• FtGUx� 4. Continued.
�o,
�oo
�
98
aC 97 ---
.� 96
� 95
94
93
92 —
9l
0
•
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1l0 120 130
Distance (ft)
—♦—Mazch 14, 2005 —URC BKF —RRC BKF
., ,y-.?^.: -.•�.-:t.•- ,r . _ - �_ _ . �M".'It
FtGU� 4.4. Cross-section 4+04, riffle.
•
�
' `` ?
�ir
��r.
xN.r��
���,P
�• ,
.,.�'- -:- •-::,.,,
: �;
�c�,�,���'`�:;,c� � `�`� � '.
,
�� � . , .
,� �`' y r �� , ,�r,.- . �y,.: � .
e ' �,c
i+�:� ��fi'����a�", � ;.d
,�,r►' .'"�R�
12

• F�Gtrx� 4. Continued.
YY -_-___����
. : /�+ii.�'�����il�����
. �i'���i�!►�i�
, . , �i►�������/��
_ . ���l,'�.'+���������
�����i.����� �r��
. , ����!`.����: ��
' ___���-��__
. �����'�1��'���
: ��i�ii��"�i:i'�i'�■C
,
l0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (ft)
�-Jan. 13, 2003 �Mazch 2, 2005 tURC BKF -RRC BKF
�
-�� ;.
i
. ,_ri.�.':.'�='•�,r+� .:t.���� ' . . '�i ;� . . _ .�� �".i
FiGU� 4.5. Cross-section 4+22, pool.
•
�-
r�� - �
.! -;� �/"�y�.
�� • , . .�'"x-�,�
�4 Y \�� � '.�:�'� �'dx ':-y3=:
��r * ���.�r ""'"' -rR
,. � �• _ -_.:��'f.
13

• Fi�uxE 4. Continued.
•
•
i oz
�o�
ioo
�
98
� 9�
.� 96
� 95
94
93
92
91
90
--------A
------���
-------���'-
�i'!i��-�����//��
���'t ���i����
���,��ia����
��i,������i
�■�������-���■�
---- ---- - -
����►��fir���
��_� �: � ��
��,�� , ��
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (ft)
—�—Jan. 13, 2003 �March 2, 2005 —URC BKF —RRC BKF
Ftcu� 4.6. Cross-section 5+39, pool.
14

� Ft�tr� 4. Continued.
�
•
io2
ioi
ioo
99
98
� 97
.� 96
� 95
� 94
93
92
91
90
0 10 20 30
--♦-Mazch l4, 2005
40 50 60 70 80
Distance (ft)
URC BKF RRC BKF
FrGtrt� 4.7. Cross-section 5+55, riffle.
15

� Fi�t rxE 4. Continued.
��
�J
�
103
]02
101
100
99
a 98
c 97
0
�� 96
>
W 95
94
93
92
9I
90
0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (ft)
--♦-Mazch 2, 2005 - URC BKF -RRC BKF
FiGtrx� 4.8. Cross-section 6+24, riffle.
16

•
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
U
�
�
�
N
�
U
N
�
a�
bn
c�
�
.�
�,
�
�
>
�
�
�
Ri
�''
. "1.
�
N
U
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
.�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
C�
a�
�
�
w
�
�
�
�
V
N
��
�
N
a
�
� N
C7 �
w°
i
�
�
�
C
7
O
U
�
�
�
a
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
♦
.�
C
C�
u
a
>
o �
� U
� �
�
�
v
U
.�
o a'
0000e0000ao°
O O O O O O O O O O O
O Q� a0 l� �O �/1 � M N
�qy iaa�,� laaolad
�
�
�
�
F.
d
'O
�
O
CCi
�
.a
�
O
U
a�
�
�
a�
b
�
� �
� �
�
�
� U
U �
� �
a
�I
o+
Q
�
00
A
O
�A
�
�
� �
N M
� Q
Ca
U
�.
�
�
.N Q
�
� � � �
N O ct �
0 0 0 0
� N N
0 0 0 0
�D N N N
'-+ �--� N N
� � � o
� n � �
\ o o °
� � � N
o � o �
cn N [� �O
vo��o�
M �O V'1
.-r �--i
00 N � �--�
� � o �
'�t �t l�
O� V'� �--+
�--� N r.
� � �O
'� O
� � M
.--i
v) 00 O
�"'� � OO
[� N c0
vi vi C
M � �
X X �
17

•
•
C�
T�sLE 1. Channel modifications for the Greene mitigation site on Goose Creek, Yadkin
River dra.inage, Mecklenburg County, February 8-23, 2005.
Longitudinal profile station Work location Work performed
2+19 - 2+75 Right bank Bench & reshape bank
3+00 Right bank Log vane
2+38 - 3+00 Left bank Bench & reshape bank - Rock toe
2+84 Left bank Rock vane
3+25 - 4+41
3+29
3+64
3+81 - 4+84
4+09
4+41
4+41
4+64
Left bank
Left bank
Left bank
Right bank
Right bank
Rightbank
Left bank
Left bank
Reshape bank
Rock vane
Log vane
Bench & reshape bank
Root wads
Rock vane
Log vane
Rock vane
4+86 Left bank Rock vane
5+00 - 6+96 Right bank Bench & reshape bank
5+15 Right bank Root wads
5+43 Right bank Rock vane
5+41 - 6+00 Left bank Bench & reshape bank - Rock toe
6+72 - 7+55 Right bank Bench & reshape bank
7+19 Right bank Root wads
7+43 Right bank Cross log vane
18

�
•
•
N
N
�--�
�
.,..,
� .'�'
�N�+ O
C� �
...�
a� �
� �
�, �
44� �
�' o0
�o
0
0
� �
�„ ..,
O �
O
• U r~/�
4� y
ti �
� �
� �"
�-�+
� �
�3
�
�
0
��
� N
O� �
� U
•-� y,,,
�
�
�", �
O
� O
U
x��
�
b�
��
��
U �
O �
...
� � c�
t. ,�
� .��y
�
N Fli
� _�
� �
.... �
� �
�n �
, �,, N
�U
�
� o
00
U CJ
�' o�
� n�
o �
U �'
�
N .O
� �
� ��
c3 �
� �
�
�
,o
� �
y 4"
r-�"+
�
W
�
�
-� o
b �
3
b �
o �
� �
� �
'� �
� O
r'�"-+
�
'C �
� �'
�
�^
�
.� �
Q
� b
U � U U U �
� w � � � w
N M[� V� l� M
.--� .--� .--� .--, r+ .�-�
� � � � � �
O N o0 M M N
(V r-+ .--i .--i .�-� .-�
0o N �t '� oo �
M M � � M M
v� O� �D O� O� N
.� r, .-� .� .�
N N�O o0 O� 00 O�
N N N N N N N
'� � � O 00 d' M \O
�N �-+ '� O �n V� v�
� M N M N N N
,�
C".
O N
U �+
� �
�
� �
ti �
O c�
U
� ��
�°�
w
�
0
•U �
O
� �
� �
o �
�,
U
� O� M[� N 00 l�
� [� �O O [� l� '--�
et d' v� � � v�
������
� � � � �' � �
U e� �n � o �n c�
� � N M d+' v�i �
�
�
�
U
�
.o
b11
N
�.
�
�
19

•
•
•
N
N
r-+
y
...,
� ��'
� O
� �
� �
.�
.s: �
w �
�' °°
�°o
�o
�, . �
N
O Q+
O
•� �
� U
.,.., cd
� �
�
U �
� �
�
c�
�3
��
0
0
� N
O V
N i'�'
c'� �
N �i'
� �
Q U
d�
'd �
� �
�
U �
� �
.O N
� �
� � c�
� •�.D
� N
i
� r�
an �
'� �
� cd
� �
� �
��
s.,
U
� �
0
° o
a�i �
� O
�
v�i N
�
U�'
�
M .o
a a�
� ��
� �
�
� �
a�i
,� ,o
� �
� t"
�
�
W
.�
�
a�
-� O
'+�d �'
3
b �
o �
� �
� �
"C� �
� O
�
N
� �
� `'.
�
� ^
�
• � ��-+
r� �
'b
U W U U U (.�r.�
c� �n v� o� o0 0,
�o vi � v� � d�
� M 00 00 �
•-N� � � � •--� 01
�n O O O O',
N I� O � [� � .
,--� N N �-+ '-+ I
rn ��� �'
N M N cV M MI
�D oo N oo [� �
M � � � �' � �
� � � O o0 N l� N �
�M�O •--� d� O vi N
� M M� V M M
,�
�
O N
UQ"',,,�
N �
�
� �
� y
O c�
U
� �
��'
4-i
�r
0
U �"
�, o
� �
i
� �
� �
U
� � O� O� N � O�
O O O O� O O
r-. .--i �-, .--, �--� .-� .-�
�- •= = = _ •-
. _ . . •
U c�n �� o v�i c�v
I � ,-+� N M d+' � �
cd
�
b
��
U �+"
� �
Q�
�O �
bA y
a� �
� �
�
� p
�

•
•
•
TABLE 4. Trees and shrubs planted at the Greene Mitigation Site along Goose Creek,
Mecklenburg County, February 15-25, 2005.
Type of plant Scientific name Common name Number planted
Trees
Shrubs
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Alnus serulata
Carpinus caroliniana
Fagus grandifolia
Juglans nigra °
Juniperus virginiana
Liriodendron tulipifera
Pinus virginiana
Quercus palustris
Quercus spp.
Prunus serotina
Salix nigra
Unknown speciesb
Cephalanthus occidentalis °
Comus amomium °
Euonymus americanus
Saliz sericea °
Sambucus canadensis Q
Boxelder
Red maple
Tag alder
American hornbeam
American beech
Black willow
Eastern red cedar
Yellow poplar
Virginia pine
Pin oak
Black cherry
Black walnut
Buttonbush
Silky dogwood
Strawberry bush
Sillry willow
Elderberry
10
9
99
13
45
50
18
9
23
2
2
3
1
21
23
275
2
356
20
Total stems planted 981
aPlanted as live stakes.
b[Jnknown species are probably hornbeam, beech, and maple trees. These trees will be
identified upon leafing out in the spring of 2005.
21

• TABt,E 5. As-built vegetation survey plot totals for the Greene mitigation site, Goose
Creek, Mecklenburg County, March 3, 2005.
Species Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
(0.028 acre) (0.017 acre) (0.040 acre)
Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 4
Comus amomium 8 13 22
Juglans nigra 25 1
Salix sericea 19 14 21
Acer rubrum 2 1
Alnus serrulata 13 4 10
Carpinus caroliniana 1 1
Fagus grandifolia 2 7
Juniperus virginiana 3
Liriodendron tulipifera 3
Quercus palustris 1
Quercus spp. 2
Pinus spp. 5 2
Prunus serotina 1
Salix nigra 1
• Sambucus canadensis 3
Unknown species 4
Totals 79 37 79
r�
U
22

•T,�sLE 6. Project costs for Greene mitigation site, Goose Ck, Yadkin River drainage, Mecklenburg Co.
March 18, 2005.
•
•
Expense category Amount
WRC Administration
hours $ 1,305.03
mileage $ 185.25
WRC Pre-Planning
hours $ 4,706.74
mileage $ 351.00
WRC Construction
hours $ 7,658.30
mileage $ 1,029.38
WRC As-Built
hours $ 3,104.44
mileage $ 286.13
WRC Monitoring
hours $ -
mileage $ -
Construction Contract $ 5,325.00
Construction Materials S 2,758.23
Livestcek Egclusion Contract
NRCS Administrative Cost
Tree Purchase S 25.00
Livestake Purchase
Miscellaneous Purchases $ 72.00
WRC Overa11485 Project Administration
hours
mileage
project equipment / office expenses / supplies
WRC Total Project Cost as of 2/05
WRC Cost per foot (783ft)
DOT Easement Payment/Land Acquisition
DOT Access Preparation
DOT Total
$ 453.45
$ 145.18
$ 2,864.54
$ 30,269.66
$ 38.66
$ 65,822.00
$ 5,595.19
$ 71,417.19
Overall Project Cost $ 101,686.85
Overall Cost per foot $ 131.55
23

•Appendix 1. Before and as-built construction photographs of the Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek,
Yadkin River drainage, Mecklenburg County. February 14 — 25, 2005. Key: Stn. = station location,
LDS =looking downstream, LUS =looking upstream, RB = right bank, LB =1eft bank.
•
•
LDS before and after construction from stn. 2+19 — 2+75 RB and stn. 2+38 — 3+00.
LUS before and at�er construction from stn. 2+75 — 2+19 RB and sin. 3+00 — 2+38 LB. Notice rock toe bench on right of picture (LB).
LDS beforc and after construction from stn. 3+35 —�3+� 1 LB aiid 1213.
24

•
�
�
Appendix 1. Continued.
LDS before and after construction from stn. 3+81-4+g4 RB.
LUS before and after construction from sm. 4+84 — 3+81 RB.
��� � i �i s ' ,, � '� <
it � `4r fF ,y , ;n ..
�_
' I it -�- "s�j��.
� -pZi��l�.�[�. . - .
. v . _ �il►"''.:
. . . . - -. �a++r�� ... .
LDS before and after construction from stn. 4+64 — 5+55 RB.
25

•
i
•
Appendiz 1. Continued
�.�".�• �i
LDS before and after construction from stn. 5+41— 6+00 LB and stn. 5+35 — 6+96 RB.
LUS before and after construction from sm. 6+96 — 5+50 RB.
LDS before and after construction from stn. 6+72 — to 7+55 LB.
26

•Appendia� 2. As-built vegetation monitoring plots, Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek, Yadkin River
drainage, Mecklenburg County, February 25, 2005. Note that station locations (stn) are approzimate
locallons of these monitoring plots.
•
•
Vegetation plot 1, 0.028 acre, 79 stems, at stn 2+38 — 2+75, LB
Vegetation plot 3, 0.040 acre, 79 stems, at sfi 6+50 — 6+96, RB
Vegetation plot 2, 0.017 acre, 37 stems, at stn 5+41— 6+00, RB
2%

2003 Monitoring Report for the Miller et al.
Mitigation Site on Meat Camp Creek, Watauga
County
Prepared for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation Stream Mitigation
Program
Transportation Improvement Project R-529
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
Staci S. Hining
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
December 2003

This 2003 monitoring report is submitted as partial fulfillment of the off-site stream
mitigation agreement between the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for the R-529 US 421 road improvement
project in Watuaga County. Under this agreement, a total of 14,8141inear feet of stream
mitigation is required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and 7,407 linear feet
of mitigation is required by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)- The purpose
of this report is to summarize the 2003 monitoring data collected from 6521inear feet of Meat
Camp Creek located on the Miller et al. Property, Watauga County (Figure 1). Mickey and
Scott (2002) described pre-construction survey methods, site conditions, and project objectives.
Monitoring data was compared with data submitted in the 2003 as-built report (Mickey and
Hining 2003).
Site Improvements
Channel Mod�cations
The first year monitoring survey was completed on October 21, 2003 and included
longitudinal profile, pebble count, and five channel cross-sections. The longitudinal profile has
remained stable since the as-built survey (Figure 2). A total of 14 structures (2 rock weirs, 11
rock vanes and one log vane) were constructed (Table 1) with approximate locations shown on
the longitudinal profile (Figure 2). The pre-construction and post construction riffle D-50's were
45 mm and 46.6 mm (coarse gravel) (Mickey and Hining 2003), respectively. The monitoring
pebble count D-50 was 37.2 mm (Figure 3)_ While the monitoring D-50 was slightly smaller
than the post and as-built D-50, it is still in the coarse gravel range. The five cross-sections have
remained stable since construction and have experienced very little change since the as-built
survey (Figures 4.1-4.5).
Riparian Improvements
A total of 177 live stakes and bare root nursery trees were planted on March 17, 2003 (Table
2). Plantings included tag alder Alnus serrulata, silky dogwood Cornus amomum, silky willow
Salix sericea, black walnut Juglans nigra, and black locust Robirur pseudoacacia . Due to the
small size of the plantings and high weed growth at the time of the monitoring survey, a survival
count of live stakes and bare root nursery stock was not conducted. A vegetation count will be
conducted during March of 2004.
Livestock Exclusion
The livestock exclusion plan, two water tanks and fencing, is functioning as planned.
Livestock are no longer drinking from Meat Camp Creek or two small spring seeps located on
the Miller property.
Conclusion
Since construction in September 2002, the Meat Camp Creek mitigation site has remained
stable. Rock weirs, rock and log vanes are functioning as planned and have created more stable

2
streambanks at this location. Water quality should be improved through reduced sedimentation
from eroding streambanks and exclusion of livestock from the riparian zone. In-stream habitat
for fish and aquatic invertebrates has been increased with the installation of rock weirs, rock and
log vanes and root wads. The second year of monitoring will be conducted during
October/November 2004.
References
Mickey, 7. H. and S. S. Hining. 2003. As-built report for the Meat Camp Creek mitigation site,
Watuaga County. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
Mickey, J. H. and S. Scott. 2002. Stream restoration plan, Miller site, Meat Camp Creek,
Watuaga County. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.

�* #� � �
_ �� :
� �
. Y i
p �: � �'' �,
N , �'1 +x !
� j y� �
a� i
O �'=�y�, +� �y�,
U
� {
� �i �
0 � �
U �� �
� :�: �
�
' �.___ �
�
a�
a�
�
� _ ��
U ��
� ��""',.,
� �
� �.--�-__
o.._.----�
a� „�--
.�
' � �----�
� .- --•
o -
� �..
� �
i /' •
� ��
a� � .
,-�„"
�,
�� ,'�' ';,�= -
tE�~ • �` �
�f €L., � -:'
ar - -
. 1'... � S � . r
� .y
.i��~;�►,; ._ . . - ��
� � ¢, a - _ .. �', "'!
}_ � #� �.
�t � -
� ���''� � 1 �
' '- ����
t..
/ � � � ,
; e�,y .- . '
t �''+► +�''
1�
�
� ��,_ _,�.- _
,. �_� ,', �
� ;�;r� �'�p `� !
CF'1 � ,f+..� 1` \ !:.
O ��� ` � �i
o !'� �.r�F _ f
• � �� ..,, ,� t �.
. ,� ;` r'
� k �.�:
a fr^ ��� t `'' � ,, ,
Y � ��;
'"'' � `�i }
� =����c � ���� �
�
�
w
N
�
�\
�
3

�
bQ
�
�
3
�
�
.N
�
0
.�
.�
�
�
�
ti
U
a
�
U
�
�
�
O
�
�.+
.�
A
O
.�
�
.�
.�
'�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
.�
�
�
O
U
N
w
0
�.
a
�
�
�
� cri
�°o
� bp N
� �.
� �
O
U
N O
� �
c� �
w o
U
c
0
�
�
�
N
C
U
�
a
�
0
�
�
�
X
c
0
�
�
�
c
0
U
�
0
Q.
c
O
�
U
�
y
X
m
�
.�
0
�
c
0
�
�
}
�
�
w
.�
m
�
Q
.�
,
c
0
U
�
�
c
O
U
�
a
�
(�) uoi�ena13
0
�
�
�•
O
O
LCi
O
O
�
O
O
M
O
O
N
O
0
�
0
�
a�
U
C
�
�
�
0
N
C
C
�
�
U
4

M
�
0
N
i.
�
�
O
�
U
0
�
Y
�
�
�
U
�
on
�
�
�
3
�
�
�
�
U
�
�
cd
U
�
cd
r�
/
C
O
�
�
.�
�
O
.�
b�A
.�
.�
�
i�+
N
4.
a>
�
N
.S�
�..,
�
�C
G
�
�
�
�
U
�
.�
�
�
a
ri
�
CJ
�
W
c ui
�v_
��
w �
U G!
N �
a m
a
� ��
3
d
z
Y n
O �
LL V
t
m
in�
('70 CD01�CD0(O(D1�aD""
O O � O � �� m��
�N ��N�(OCD���('Nn
o�����"����°�°°��������
YU
O
�
�
N
V
3
O
�
w
�
�
0
U
�
u�
rn
O
N
�
�w
� CV
�(h O O O O O g �
(V 00000 O � N
C C
� � 3 7
� � o � � U U
W �
U
t �
Of �
OD 1� (O � O � � �
�NM1A�N
w � � ���'��EE����mEo,m�n�d
� N� � w w w�� E•� R N R� 3�
; � u � � d d � � � B w �-- � �'v R
N
� > � � �' � N �
> w w >
> >
5

F�GV1� 4. Five cross-sections at Miller et a1. mitigation site on Meat Camp Creek, Watauga
County, October 2003. Figures 4.1 - 4.3 were surveyed from left to right bank looking
downstream; pictures were taken looking upstream. Pictures for figures 4.4 - 4_5 were taken
from station 0+65 looking to station 0+0.
98
96
:r
v 94
c
0
w
� 92
90
88
-�—As-Built �--1 Year MonRoring B�
r.�
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
'�( �. .. �� �.
! . ��� �
� � � t ����.
� s .�
n � fi� �
, , .-
;i' �! 'tA �.,
� . � �i� 11t��
_ ±- �+
' • � ►. .a. . � � '.p � i f �
�L .. , i� il., �l
.>��� '� '..�f,.� � �
. s � �..
�v !�� �..r� �y
I r �,� `� � J
'` ", t , i -'.
! � �..- ? rs:.��.�t+IY�1
Distance (ft)
-- - - �- . . ' � t �� r � �� � � ; } �
� a: t � :
, . • t j �� f�� t. �; �� � ��
, ��
, � � � � �, �
� ��'-x ;�.; �` ;;� = `
,-.
.. �'� i � 1 - { i �'�� .
y _ �, �: , '�.5.
y.�4 ,'� c . 5 Si. � � _ , �
. - �. � r . r..
3. ,� � ��
'� ' . v: ' - f �� '�: �� "�.�i*�
,.. . _ : _ ." �
� - . ._�, .� .� �'y
M F �i+i�:'. . ' � � � '
.. ra,;. - . - 'K , y �y'��. :,
e
;�p t
. . , . h�WfY��� y�.qr �.r�:
. � �� � " �� ,. � .
- .� ^' .� .. ,�y..
�IPt ' ' ' � - t` :�' m .
. . _ .. .. . - � . � e t=
� . - ., . � .`:
�. T ' S 4
�k���._ . .� f^- x .-%i,' 't r ��.^.l,e�i � �., .�. � '��ii
. ,�,` ' , � :'�� �r
• `z'!.
� t. �+-.E't" ��: � w � / . ���� j '
��a - - . -,�� YW:= .'� ':`�.
.r�: ; _ -�-� �- �..-�� �,•s; � -
' ;��,:�:�
�'� � --
.� '' . .
` - t `k. .e{,_.
_ _ '�- `.r>E.ya;`�s' _
t "� .: .
-A .c�;.: � �' 4
� F _:�c?�,,y .
� �' . �`��__' � '[
_.. �
.,�0.�.� �
F�GURE 4.1. Cross-section at station 1+73, fast pool at rock weir.
�

F�GUxE 4. Continued.
95
93
,-.
�
�
..,
c
° 91
c�
>
a�
m
89
87
0
�� 1 Year Nbnitoring
�—As-Built -- Wfpa
BKF
��`"; A
�r��'� %``
�� _ �.,- '.��#� �t �� ���:,s.�.� :;�.:.�:,4,
; a. �' -�
- C r ��.� �Y �
�r •'? i � p f � � ; ' ,� L- � +�i9! fi�z�r ��#c�.:k; a,!' r r_.,..�......�.r_�_
� . � k
, • , �
�Y� . � ; r_ _ . �°.. � @' 4 � r � .
- f � � •
. � 'r, � � s. f . . . . . �p t �` � �'� 4 --;r�r t � .
,. � . -.�.• � ,y f7,� �*;. q�.
;✓ ' ;L ��� �.' il�" .ry ,�c�, A
' ��;/ 1 !� . :£ � . . `r� s +- • � tL" a fr`�°i.."'� „� . Z •�+�', 4w,i��
. � . �� .:� . " ` '� ; xt y Y.r .°. ;�s'. .,
`� � v . l �� i07� � �; � �
r � ., , � f~V-..: _ -.. . ., c *' .: s�, .... . �..• } � • �ty .�� ,��+�r ;� r � ' .... �c;
r
. j . . / . a..l .. � . '�p�+,,.e �� r-�� -'� ��� t +R r 'a � r- yt :s � �p l, 2��
�� � ''. . �' �r„r" 4,�.r .,� � k ,:
: . . :�_._. . � . y _. _ , -
'� Tf �. _ �'-"{��'�et:..�•..``�� ��.r� - l''iX�.�'t�„�- ' �.` 5 ���c� _� r 1� �,� t"'"�c
� /�/" . .. . . _ _ .� �'. *'' +�'' � _ y'" .'" w -_ „-a��F t�f'�'" 4 . . .>. . - ... � , _. �x,_ .
20
40 60
Distance (ft)
80 100
�
FtGU� 42. Cross-section at station 3+37, riffle.

8
Frr.r mF 4 r�ntinued.
��� '
;
��f �� ��.. '
�'�-�`�'_,�'t l �
�" ` �1• �
[ � )�� � �i , • . i ).�.� • � �� ��� • • � �'1± , �
�t t -,"�, • � "( �' .
, Z . �� !. _ .. . .. . . ' s� - .
i ; - yi 1 � :% r .' : �.
. . >_�{ � � , ' - � .cr 'f�.�
�
� i p�}` , ,....
. 4 r . '- � y, . � . . 3} a . : il' $j��Wl�,� . � . .
�..• � � �'. � + �'� ,��.. �� E �:t
�
� � 4r � YS "`��+.
����, .�� .� , f .! - � . a.. _ � ..... -
F � _ , ' . �i . _ . - _ _ .. " ..�.
'l'T-. _ � . z : : ;",�'w}"
. .�•: ...s,i- +;-` - ° a'"
�� ;...;�n- '�., . - � -� . _ _ . .
_ - - ..
�3 c a —�. _ ' _ � - 4"—
a . _ , -��« ::, �+-� -��
"' ` ,T . �� :"`""�p� �� ����i�
.
_ . ,; :.. . - �
� , ,. �. ...'�" ^'0�'`
_ - ' �� � 1'. aa�i: '� — _ � � ..c.+f����� f t— ��1��___�� , ~ �
`.' � � � � - " s�' �"'�` � '.��, IY-'-
� ,.�p,i,�, ���.�" `�.�-�"���''�,',�".=`. *.'
�r ��� .. � ��e � ~�' b���_`iE�'�'��';��
_ . . - _-* _ , ::s'_. �:r ��X'" �
._: �._;:�
;.,
,�.,: �
�.
.,.}..
w;i ;__--
�-�--=
;,.
f.y' �_:
..�w
F�Gtrx� 4.3. Cross-section at station 3+66, pool.

FIGUxE 4. Continued
94
92
.^.
� gp
c
0
�
� 88
m
86
84
—♦--As-Built —=-1 Year Nbnitoring -- �Pa
BKF
� �p 20 30 40 50 6o iu �0
FiGt7xE 4.4.
Distance (ft)
`� �
E �����'X'�=' µ 1
�}fisx a tv'� �. K .� � � �� .. - m �'�,�
r tt `t . .:�:
i'�� ,�r�.�' �'�'" R ,
�� ;�fy � -�3. �� �`�._�+.;, r
j�¢`��'. ' }� ;.�t � � ; K+; y .,�;. �, *�`,j:
, � � +c �t±�t� .�,`� y
f �,,,�.q _ � ... � `rt �°+�#v�Cir�� s
3 a: • � �' .
+�<.�''�` � '�"}F� '4`r'� ldly"�,� � t`.3. 1 � 44,� " ..
e �`a .,;,:,.�� r �+�
� � � a f;z� �� .� `�'"�'�y�� �� . .' .
t� ;y � .`v` ;�tv �� �ai'i�'.
. .�..� � �k� 3` r.+... ��t.
�`t:��r v :� �rl���';.`��JQ� �- x���} �3
F
� �� , ¢!�� . ,; . �'� � � r._•;
� ��
� � 1 ,T }�.F` `-.'C � � �: c p ! �.
�' i �?. , . i�y'� �, Fg�•}�Y'M '�� i . � ��
`�.� , ..1..3 , . �.L4YmE��'r=AP���... :�6�'�_ _
9
» ;!�r f��. }y� �.�R,�
..i[f i' -,h ,# � X� �:..
.g �` '�"' 1 . y� �y ti J �
t ��f^•"+h '. �y" 'h'4Z 4W �'0. �'"�,T /"''r'dC M-���\.
„�, Sr � _. � _
�..A
s s .,' � .': . ,� _ �_; #r ''�''�r" _ wr.�..
. i. � � '� . �. .
'��`.1 �_- � : i �., � � t �• •i,y e ) r -S �
� _ �� t � . � ._ y.
i . ` w` i ..t.. . �y � �- r .. �' �i 4� , �' "^4 < :
. ,. T � + .\
�.�� '`?n+�:..1� �� '� �
U' � - .`3�+ vt_ v . - % ; J':.
�I�J ' . A ! . k ,y L.'� .J',1 -� ro y,j,�f�t
�t - �'f l. .�( �� �Y-✓ w�.�,j � f � 'q . w1 +M\
� ��,c _ Y E 2 . . r{ W?
"'ts y�,�,� r� � `•6�. �'/i��,�� ' � ' � C'- .� �.. - �T
/�!�"i ,- �"����.': ,x 5,�,. � � . ".
r � a � ` � •,����r
y�..,���'�.3� `14.r r��1� y�• � �w`�'. �' '�.. a !�
-:a.�� ' f��'� �i� r � i � ' �.'`.. -
�C. . '�e.� i.,SY" . . . .. � .
� ; . � • . . � .. � 4� ..' .
.4. Z .�.�^.�t`�M ,.tf� v J` . ''_i
'� l!• �y'1� i�:. : t`aev` •
� ' d'' � �9 V V 3•.ti' �=A' .;T '
✓� • y . ' '`�, f T � �, ,� . ../ ¢ , ' �K� , :
r ` >. � . . � ..'. *f yi� `t 1 ,
., • � � ' '1�' >�S �`�
°' . . : � �•., : ���� .
� :� ,. ..:4!�, ` 4 � ' � •;�, � �roi . �,
. . . . . . + �O,�L� "�'N .
�_Y� w. ti�.r� f rt::t
Cross-section at station 4+74, riffle.
�

io
FIGU� 4. Continued.
--�— As-Built
92
90
.-.
..
% 88
c
0
�
`� 86
a�i
m
84
82
0
����--�-1 Year Monitoring B�
�p 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
� : 5 �`�� � �`'"� �
]��? ��'JJ.��f;�' \� i�n
�J � + ,
�•.
.� �-�..; ,., <=
' `�,�t`` � `��" �'':�
.��� 4�,
. ,_ ` �i = '� 'r '`'� '' �
,� . �:. -:�
� ,�{
�y�� 4Y�C� AWi.
s
£4 %
1 � ��
. � � "��� ��` �� �
c`' .,�,"""'�� r5f +�.�S�.d�,� "_ b"4�`' Qvj"r�+ . �iF . s�.-.
4 fi .-� � tr.._' S !t '_�( W
.�'' i" `E��,� �.i+`'t�'" r c _
4„ �� ° s� '.
i� �2 : a
,-c 34 r
� � � r � �Pi' ' �.,iw b`� .
'. .' � � :
. � } L
� � � - �T - -a�� '�=�;
✓r. -r . �'i ,c.x �:. a �e.�� �``�' ;+c + y
� ��., 4 .
; _ .. �,,y�-�.�,�ii�y r.%o �` -
>�. ^v _ . �N . +^*. -..�.
_ . . .�Zc .� N'-'Y�@�f.�-. �Y'a.Sy! .
�'N e-�
�, � 4 ^ �y�..,_ 2'
,r. . ;,.�,�. .
?:. r -_
r� 'F �-'4
s �'
� "_ � `�a i if '�� "� �� is;i
*' � _
} �iY � ,t ��.'� ..,. '���� �3:i:
' -�� � � �4'Y'• ' ��s! �•7i } . � -
.i � »' #. �1�� ��*
. � �,: , '�, � -
�c� ^ - . . - � ' . ="i ., c�
t�'. � ' T-� .. '�� ��
�" , �,{ . ?:s .� . . '�' _ •:
,. .. r �,,;
;�' , . �'> - ,�, t 'r ,
,, , {., i ° • :.
. , t .A j *r . �.y4 .�.
�! ���J �� .:5.�,. „� �`��'y, ., •�:}�.i�
FIGURE 4.5. Cross-section at station 4+97, pool.

ii
T�LE 1. Type and location of in-stream structures installed at the Miller et al. site, Meat
Camp Creek, Watauga County, 2002.
Structure T e Lon itudinal Profile Station Number
Rock weir 1+64
Rock vane 1+89 RB1
Rock vane 2+10 RB
Rock vane 2+2g RB
Rock vane 2+89 LBZ
Rock vane 3+06 LB
Rock vane 3+30 LB
Rock vane 3+51 LB
Log vane 3+97 LB
Rock vane 4+15 RB
Rock vane 4+38 RB
Rock vane 4+57 RB
Rock vane 4+70 RB
Rock weir 4+89
1 RB - right bank
2 LB - left bank
TaBLE 2. Plantings along Meat Camp Creek at the Miller et a1. site, Watuaga County, March 12,
2003.
S ecies Scientific name Number lanted
Silky willow Salix sericea 136
Black locust Robina pseudoacacia 26
Black walnut Juglans nigra 5
Ta alder Alrrus serrulata 10
Total 177

NC-EIS-89-01-D
US 421
WATAUGA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
State Project No. 6.751008
T.I.P. No. R-529A
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAET STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to the North Carolic
Environmental Policy Act, G.S. 113A-1 through
By The
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9- ��- �'
Date of Approval
� �Z�%�/ L:U����-!�
. Ja Ward, P.E., M
Plann ng & Research B
For Further Information Contact:
L. Jack Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Phone [phone]
' This action involves consideration of improvements to US.,421 from
NC 194/US 421 intersection to just west of the South Fork New
River Bridge. This consideration includes evaluation of the
proposed project need based on projected traffic demand.
' Alternatives for the project, including alternate build locations
and a no action or no build option are evaluated. The impacts of
these alternatives on the natural and human environment, the
' commitment of natural resources, the project cost, and the public
benefits are discussed and analyzed together with input from a
' public involvement program. A final alternative will be selected
� based on the findings of this study, evaluation of 'the comments
received on this document, and the public input obtained at a
public hearing.
� Comments on this Draft EIS are due by ,� -�a-O�and should be
I� sent to Mr. L. Jack Ward at the above address.
'
r,
�

'
'
'
'
�
'
'
'
IJ
I _I
'
'
�
�
�
,
,�J
�
'

SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The proposed action is a Transportation Improvement Project on
the eastern limits of the Town of Boone and in Watauga County.
Watauga County is located in the northwest portion of North
Carolina within the Blue Ridge Mountains. Boone is located
within Watauga County and serves as the seat of County
Government. It is the only municipality in the county with a
population greater than 500. The action consists of the
improvement of US 421 from the intersection of US 421/NC 194
within the Town of Boone to just west of the South Fork New River
in Watauga County. The general location of the action is shown
on Exhibit l.l.
The proposed US 421 improvement will be a five-lane facilit� with
an approximate length of one mile. This report docum2nts the
ideritification of five possible construction alternatives. Three
of these alternatives, as well as the "no-build" alternative, are
evaluated with respect to feasibility, cost, environmental
impact, and mitigation.
US 421 serv�s as the primary transportation route linking Boone
to eastern North Carolina. Over the past 20 years, this area has
experienced a substantial increase in traffic volumes. This
increase can be attributed largely to the popularity of the area
as a tourist attraction. Each year, thousands of visitors from
i

the piedmont and coastal regions of the state travel to the Blue
Ridge Mountains to view "the changing of the leaves," enjoy the
many theme parks, or ski.
The eastern section of Boone and the surrounding area are rapidly
being developed. Several proposed commercial service areas just
west of the South Fork New River Bridge are currently in the
planning stages. Year 2008 traffic studies indicate the need for
a multi-lane facility to accommodate these developments. The
existing US 421 cannot" effectively serve this demand. The
improvement of this roadway will ensure that adequate trans-
portation facilities are available to accommodate anticipated
future growth patterns.
S.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The "no-build" alternative and five construction alternatives
were evaluated for this report. The alternatives considered are
shown in Exhibit 2.1 and are as follows:
Alternative A- begins- at NC 194 and extends northeast around
Mount Lawn Memorial Cemetery following along the
alignment of SR 1329 (Perkinsville Drive) to
connect with existing US 421 west of SR 1516.
Alternative B- begins at the intersection of US 421 and NC 194
and extends southeasterly along Spruce Street to
connect with US 421 just west of the South Fork
New River Bridge.
ii

Alternative C- begins at NC 194 and extends southeasterly just
north of Spruce Street to connect with US 421
just west of the South Fork New River Bridge.
Alternative D- begins at NC 194 and follows existing alignment
to the South Fork New River Bridge. Existing
pavement would be maintained and widened.
Alternative E- begins at NC 194 and follows the existing
alignment to the South Fork New River Bridge.
Existing pavement would be removed at designated
points and the grades lowered or raised as
required in order to maintain a 55-mph design
speed.
S.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETAILED STUDY
Alternatives A, B, and E were selected for detailed evaluation
based on environmental impacts, land use compatibility, and
constructability. Functional design plans and profiles were
prepared for each of the study alternatives and served as the
basis for the cost-benefit analysis.
S.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The significant impacts and cost estimates evaluated for each
alternative ate itemized in Table 5.1.
iii

TABLE S.1
EI�TVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative
"No-Build" A B E
Relocation
Homes
Businesses
Graves
Construction
Cost
Right-of-Way
Cost
Archaeological
Sites
Historical
Sites
Wetlands (Acres)
Endangered
Species
Air Quality
Violation Sites
Noise Sites
Prime Farmland
(Acres)
-- 10 23 24
-- 3 6 4
-- 0 0 100+
-- $3,853,000 $4,553,000 $2,603,000
-- 2,002,500 2,783,000 5,082,000
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
27 15 21
4 4 1
iv

S.5 PERMITS REQUIRED
No applicable state or federal permits are required.
S.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Although the final selection of an alternative will not be made
until after comments from the public hearing have been
considered, the obvious advantages of Alternative A resulted in
its identification as the preferred alternative. The advantages
of Alternative A are as follows:
l. It satisfies the need for an improved transportation
facility.
2. The location is supported by most local residents and
property owners.
3. The associated right-of-way and construction costs are
minimized.
4. The fewest relocations of residences and businesses are
required.
u

0

'
'
' Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary........................................... i
Tableof Contents ................................. vi
Listof Tables .................................... x
List of Exhibits .................................. xii
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PROJECT SETTING ................................... 1-1
1.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................... 1-2
1.3 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND ............................. 1-2
Existing Year 1988 and Design Year 2008 No-Build
Traffic Volumes ................................... 1-2
Accidents......................................... 1-4
1.4 SUMMARY .......................................•--- 1-5
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .............................. 2-1
2.2 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES ......................... 2-2
AlternativeA ..................................... 2-2
AlternativeB ..................................... 2-4
AlternativeE ..................................... 2-4
Opening and Design Year Traffic Projections....... 2-5
Roadway Design Criteria ........................... 2-6
2.3 MATRIX EVALUATION OF SECTION ALIGNMENTS........... 2-6
Environmental Category ............................ 2-6
Land Use Compatibility Category ................... 2-10
CostsCategory .................................... 2-12
Traffic Services Category ......................... 2-14
Safety............................................ 2-14
Review of the Evaluation of Matrix Analysis....... 2-18
2.4 ROADWAY COST ESTIMATE ............................. 2-18
2.5 USER BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................. 2-18
2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................. 2-22
vi

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ..................... 3-1
Economic Characteristics .......................... 3-1
Watauga County Population Characteristics......... 3-7
3.2 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING .......................................... 3-13
ExistingLand Use ................................. 3-15
LandUse Planning ................................. 3-16
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ 3-17
Schools........................................... 3-17
Recreation and Leisure Activities ................. 3-17
Historical and Archaeological Resources........... 3-18
3.4 UTILITIES ......................................... 3-18
ElectricalPower .................................. 3-18
FuelOil .......................................... 3-19
NaturalGas ....................................... 3-19
TelephoneService ................................. 3-20
Water............................................. 3-20
Sewer............................................. 3-20
Railroads......................................... 3-20
3.5 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................. 3-21
3.6 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................. 3-21
Noise.......................................:..... 3-21
Air Quality Standards ............................. 3-22
WaterQuality ..................................... 3-24
Floodways and Floodplains ......................... 3-28
Hydrology and Drainage ............................ 3-28
Topography, Geology and Soils ..................... 3-29
HazardousWaste ................................... 3-32
3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES ................................. 3-35
FloraSurvey ...................................... 3-35
FaunaSurvey............ ........................ 3-36
Wetlands.......................................... 3-37
Prime and Important Farmlands ..................... 3-38
Wildand Scenic Rivers ............................ 3-38
vii

4.0 ENYIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 LAND USE IMPACTS .................................. 4-1
Economics......................................... 4-1
Relocations....................................... 4-3
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................ 4-5
Schools........................................... 4-5
Section 4(f) of the Department of
TransportationAct ............................. 4-6
4.3 UTILITIES .... .................................... 4-6
Electrical Power Transmission ..................... 4-6
Sewerand Water Services .......................... 4-6
4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................. 4-6
4.5 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................. 4-7
Noise............................................. 4-7
AirQuality ....................................... 4-14
WaterQuality ..................................... 4-20
Floodways and Floodplains ......................... 4-23
Hydrologyand Drainage ............................ 4-23
Topography, Geology and Soils .............. ..... 4-24
Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Storage Tanks....... 4-24
4.6 NATURAL RESOURCES ................................. 4-26
Flora and Fauna Impacts ........................... 4-26
Threatened or Endangered Species .................. 4-29
Prime and Important Farmland Impacts .............. 4-30
4.7 VISUAL IMPACTS .................................... 4-32
4.8 ENERGY ............................................ 4-32
4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .............................. 4-33
WaterQuality ..................................... 4-33
AirQuality ....................................... 4-33
Noiseand Vibration ............................... 4-34
4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES ...................................... 4-34
4.11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND
LONG-TERM BENEFITS ................................ 4-35
viii

5.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS� AND PERSONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT ....................... 5-1
6.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INYOLYEMENT
6.1 COORDINATION ...................................... 6-1
AgencyCoordination ............................... 6-1
SteeringCommittee ................................ 6-2
Public Officials Meeting .......................... 6-2
6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................ 6-5
Computerized Mailing Lists ........................ 6-5
Newsletters..... ................................ 6-5
Toll Free Hotline•Phone Contact ................... 6-5
Small Group or Individual Informational
Meetings....................................... 6-6
Public Meetings/Workshops......... ................. 6-6
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................... 7-1
8.0 INDEX .................................................. 8-1
9.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A- Level of Service Description
Appendix B - Relocation Reports
Appendix C - Agency Responses
Appendix D - Newsletters
ix

'
,
,
'
�
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
�
'
,
'
'
TABLES
TABLE TITLE
S.1 Environmental Impacts
l.l Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes and
Peak Hour Level-of-Service Analysis
2.1 Preliminary Construction Alternatives
Matrix Categories
2.2 Roadway Design Criteria
2.3 Matrix Evaluation of the Environmental
Category
2.4 Matrix Evaluation of the Land Use Category
2.5 Matrix Evaluation of the Costs Category
2.6 Intersection Analysis
2.7 Average Running Speed (Years 1993/2008)
2.8 Estimated Annual Total Accidents
2.9 Cost Estimate
2.10 Benefit/Cost Analysis
3.1 Unemployment Rates by Counties, Region D
& Statewide for 1983 Through 1985
3.2 Income Data
3.3 Employment Data
3.4 Employment by Place of Work
3.5 Per Capita Income
3.6 Families With Incomes Below Poverty Level
3.7 Population by Age Group, 1980 Census and
Projected 1987, 1990, 2000 for Watauga County
3.8 Statewide Growth Rates
3.9 Population Projection for 1988 Through 2000
for Watauga County
x
PAGE
iv
1-3
2-3
2-7
2-9
2-11
2-13
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-19
2-21
3-2
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12

TABLES (Continued)
TABLE TITLE
3.10 1980 Age Characteristics - Watauga County
and North Carolina
3.11 Ambient Air Quality Standards
3.12 Quality of South Fork New River Headwaters
January Through December 1988
3.13 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Within the
R-529A Study Area
4.1 Existing Land Use by Alternative Alignment
4.2 Relocation Report - Estimated Number of
Displacees
4.3 Noise Abatement Criteria
4.4 Existing Noise Monitoring Data Summary
4.5 Traffic Noise Exposures
4.6 Noise Exposure Estimates
4.7 Data Parameters for Use in the Indirect Source
Dispersion Analysis Modeling
4.8 Estimated Worst Case One-Hour and Eight-Hour
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
4.9 Approximate Acreage of Wildlife Habitat Loss
for the Alternate Rights-of-Way
4.10 Prime and Important Farmland
6.1 Agency Coordination and Responses
xi
PAGE
3-14
3-23
3-25
3-34
4-2
4-4
4-8
4-10
4-11�
4-13
4-16
. �
i�
4-31
6-3, 4

�
'
,
�
'
'
,
'
'
'
�
,
'
�
'
'
'
'
'
EXHIBIT
l.l
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
TITLE
Study Area
Average Daily Traffic Volumes - No Build
Alternative
Preliminary Alternate Alignments
Potential Intersection Locations
Opening Year (1993) Estimates - Average
Daily Traffic Volumes
Design Year (2008) Estimates - Average
Daily Traffic Volumes
US Route 421 Improvement - Mainline
Typical Sections
Existing Land Use
Cultural Resources
Power Transmission Lines
Water/Sanitary Sewer Lines
Geophysical Cross Section Showing Idealized
Runoff Conditions
Floodways
Geological Data
Impacted Potential Hazardous Waste Sites
Prime & Important Farmland
Noise Monitoring Sites
xii
FOLLOWS
PAGE
1-2
1-2
2-2
2-4
2-6
2-6
�
3-16
3-18
3-18
3-20
3-28
3-28
3-30
3-34
3-38
4-8

'
,
'
�
'
'
�
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
This project is designed to meet the growing transportation needs
of Boone and Watauga County and to provide for their planned
development. This study.substantiates the need for improving US
421 through an evaluation of the traffic demand and the
transportation system within the study area.
1.1 PROJECT SETTING
' The Town of Boone is located in Watauga County in the
northwestern portion of North Carolina. Watauga County is
' located within the scenic Blue Ridge Mountains which form part of
the Southern Appalachian Mountain Range. Exhibit l.l shows the
' county and study area in relation to the state.
�
�
'
'
'
The town's location allows for a variety of employment
opportunities supported by the tourist trade and the winter
skiing r�sorts.
The population of Boone tripled in the twenty-five years between
1960 and 1985, growing from 3,686 to 11,360. Much of this growth
can be attributed to the economic opportunities provided by
tourism.
' Appalachian State University (ASU), founded in 1899, also has
been a catalyst for Boone's growth. ASU's student population has
'
�
' 1-1

almost quadrupled in the twenty-five years between 1960 and 1985,
growing from 2,584 to 10,204.
1.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
US 421 is the only east-west roadway with direct access to the
Boone area. During the past several decades, the traffic volumes
on this highway have increased dramatically. The level of
operation and safety of US 421 have been compromised by this
increase, which was generated largely by summer tourism, part-
time residents, university students, and winter ski resort
enthusiasts. These traffic generators are a vital part of the
economy of the region and crucial to the future well being of its
citizens.
During the past ten years, the county has seen its employment
base shift from manufacturing and industrial to service and
tourism. One reason for this loss of industry is the unsafe,
limited, two-lane access provided by US 421.
1.3 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
1.3.1 Existing Year 1988 and Design Year 2008 No-Build Traffic
Volumes
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Years 1988 and 2008 on US
421 and NC 194 are shown in Exhibit 1.2. The highest volume
within the study limits, 13,600 and 24,600 vehicles per day (vpd)
for Years 1988 and 2008 respectively, occurs on US 421 east of
the intersection with NC 194.
1-2
,
'
'
,
,
,
'
��
'
,
� .
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
,

\ +—
:.� � �'+ �
. �_. •
:�y � '� � . �
�� �� m ?"-�a
.�' \\,-��. 171 '12y-1 �
wc..n2i �
1 VM �
� ` � � � i�t� —�- C_�_ 1J
�4 / BOONE
� .r
1 � .
'l l'
�' +r
Y'1 C
e•�---`�'a
��
"7 •�.�
)s•t3'
„l �
��,�
3
�
�
.
,�\°� cu � \\
s� �,
"� � .w.,
� � li
�� ��
/ ,,.. '
1i / 1�a .
STUDY AREA
EXHIBIT 1.1

�
�
�
a
�
�
w
U
H
}
a
W
�
w
0
a
w
>
w
a
�
0
m
�
�w
•a
�
w�a
a�
H �
.�-
a
O
U
H
w
w
�
H
�
a
H
�
Q
a
�
�
�
�
W
}
�
�
N
d'
�
-� � w
ovo
��
0
xa
�
a �I w
�
�
a �
O 1� ^ �1'
�•�.0 �O
cU� Q, O
R1 Oa � N
w�v
co 0
0 0
�+ o c�
a N
O N^ M
x � .c
x � °'
w>°voCOO o
rn �
� �
�
00 °o
°0 1O
�v H N N
3 �
N O
CO O
� �
rn �
� M
r—�1
H
�
0
�,
w
�
�
�
a�
�
�
a
z
41
O�
�
.,1
�
W
�
v
�
.r.,
x
3
z
d' �+
� �
rl O
x
2 x
� �
� a
�
�
w
0
c
O
.,-1
J-1
U
n
Sa
N
�
c
H
1-3
Ga
o NI
`� � I w
�
v -- co I +
��o °`\°
.� o
v �
> v
�
� v
� b�
�Q�I �
r�—I O I oM0
•rU-I L-1 N f7
� �
N O
>x
rnx
.va� �
w °�' I �
N
�
c
0
.,1
�
a
-�
SJ
U
�
v
z�
S-1
�
1-1
�-1
�
�
0
a
s�
0
w
�
k
.,1
�
C
�
a
�
a,
v
�
�

Table 1.1 presents the ADT, estimated peak hour traffic volume,
and the level-of-service (LOS) for US 421 and the US 421/NC 194
intersection. As indicated, US 421 is now operating at LOS E.
It is expected to operate at LOS F in design year 2008.
LOS E describes high driver discomfort, with delays being
experienced greater than 75 percent of the time. The
intersection of US 421/NC 194 is operating at LOS F during peak
hour. At LOS F, excessive delay and queuing of traffic are
experienced.
1.3.2 Accidents
Accident data for the period between January l, 1985, and March
31, 1988, were gathered for the study area. During this three
years and four months time span, a total of 24 accidents, all
non-fatal, occurred at the US 421/NC 194 intersection. Based on
the total number of vehicles entering the intersection, the total
accident rate equates to 105.36� accidents per 100 million
entering vehicles (MEV). This is considerably higher than the
national average of 82- accidents per 100 MEV for T intersections
as reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).1 The
predominant cause of this abnormally high average accident rate
is the over-capacitation of the intersection.
The total number of vehicles entering the intersection in Design
Year 2008 is projected to be approximately 38,700 per day.
Assuming that the total accident rate will not increase, the
total number of accidents that would occur in Year 2008 is
approximately 12.
1-4

'
� Between the intersection and the South Fork New River Bridge, a
' total of 10 accidents occurred during the study period. This
equals a total accident rate of 148.10 accidents per 100 million
' vehicle miles traveled (MVM). Using the anticipated Design Year
2008 traffic projections for this segment of roadway, the total
' number of accidents would be approximately 23 in Year 2008.
' 1.4 SUMMARY
, Because US 421 is the only highway connecting Boone to eastern
North Carolina, the healthy growth of this area would be
` constrained by the capacity limitations and safety concerns of
' the existing highway.
�
�
'
'
'
,
,
'
�
'
1-5

1.
CHAPTER 1
REFERENCES
FHWA, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic
Control and Roadway Elements, FHWA-TS-82232, December, 1982.
1-6

: a. � t ,. � t � �.-.. t^e �.. Y
r�,� . � c r -_.�;.ac� 4 � '�.a . �i
. ..�_' ; .. , . ..,t. � C� . ,.._i Y . .

'
,
,
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A comprehensive list of possible preliminary alignment alterna-
' tives was developed. They were the "no build" and five
' construction alternatives. During the data gathering and
analysis phase, three of the five construction alternatives were
' selected for detailed study. The following is a description of
the preliminary alignment alternatives and the process for their
' development and rejection or selection for further study.
'
�
'
�
'
�
'
'
'
'
'
'
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build or "do nothing" Alternative is used as a baseline
condition with which to compare all other acceptable
alternatives. Under the "no build" scenario, no major
improvements would be made to the existing US 421 roadway.
Advantages of the "do nothing" Alternative include the following:
- No new capital expenditure.
- No relocation of businesses or houses.
- No traffic delay due to construction.
- No removal of or impact on the biotic communities.
- No increase in ambient noise levels.
However, there are a significant number of disadvantages to the
No-Build Alternative:
- Rapid degeneration of the Level of Service.
- Increased demand on local roads.
2-1

- Increased amount and duration of congestion.
- Higher-than-average number of accidents.
2.2 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Accommodating the area's future traffic demands will require
increasing the capacity of US 421. This can be done by
constructing two additional lanes in the existing US 421 corridor
or by using alternative alignment corridors.
Preliminary Alternative Corridors A through C were developed
using information collected about environmental, land use, and
constructionability factors in the area. These alternatives are
shown in Exhibit 2.1 and were presented for public review at the
first public meeting/workshop held on January 17, 1989.
The preliminary alternatives were then.more specifically analyzed
according to the factors listed in Table 2.1. An evaluation
matrix was used to identify and reject the alternatives that
would provide the fewest benefits and have the greatest negative
environmental impacts. . The basic evaluation methodology used to
compare the corridor alternatives is described in Section 2.3.
Using this process, Alternatives C and D were eliminated. The
remaining corridor segments were studied in greater detail.
2.2.1 Alternative A
Alternative A begins at NC 194 and extends northeast around Mount
Lawn Memorial Cemetery following the alignment of SR 1329
2-2

,
1
�
�
,
,
�
�
�
'
�
'
'
�
�
'
'
�
�
TABLE 2.1
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES MATRIX CATEGORIES
Category Factors
Environmental Agricultural Resources
Flood Plains Acreage
Historical Sites
Archaeological Sites
Aesthetics
Land Use Compatibility Neighborhoods
Cemeteries
Schools
Churches
Constructability Relocations
Earthwork
Traffic Control During
Construction
2-3

(Perkinsville Drive) and connects with existing US 421 west of SR
1516. At-grade intersections are proposed at the western
terminus of Alternative A with NC 194 and near the eastern
terminus where this alternative meets existing US 421. Exhibit
2.2 shows the proposed intersections for all alternatives.
2.2.2 Alternative B
Alternative B begins at the intersection of US 421 and NC 194 and
extends southeasterly along Spruce Street to connect with US 421
just west of the South Fork New River Bridge. One at-grade
intersection with NC 194 is proposed. Two are proposed on
existing US 421, where Alternative B intersects both its western
and eastern ends.
2.2.3 Alternative E
Alternative E begins at NC 194 and follows the existing alignment
to the South Fork New River Bridge. This alternative would
improve the existing corridor while incorporating a 55-mph design
speed. Although the construction cost to improve the existing
corridor would be less than building on a new corridor, the cost
of traffic control would be much greater. The only possible
detour would be SR 1329, which has inadequate design and capacity
for the large amount of traffic which would have to be detoured
from US 421.
2-4

The existing vertical alignment does not provide sufficient sight
distance to meet the proposed 55-mph design speed. One example
of the vertical alignment deficiency is at the roadway's crest,
approximately midway through the project. To correct this
problem, the vertical curve would need to be lengthened, thus
lowering the roadbed at its crest by over 25 feet.
2.2.4 Opening and Design Year Traffic Projections
An assumed opening year of 1993 and design year of 2008 were
established; the actual opening year would depend on a
construction timetable. Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4 present the
estimated ADT volumes for each alternative corridor alignment and
the intersecting local roads for Opening Year 1993 and Design
Year 2008, respectively. The estimated ADT volumes for
Alternative E for.Years 1993 and 2008, respectively, are the same
as those shown in Exhibit 1.2 for the No-Build Alternative.
Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4 show that traffic volumes are approximately
the same for Alternatives A and B. Traffic projections for
existing US 421 would drop significantly, with only local
traffic using the roadway. For both alternatives, ADT volumes
are estimated at approximately 13,600 and 24,600 vpd for Years
1993 and 2008, respectively.
2-5

2.2.5 Roadway Design Criteria
Roadway design criteria as approved by NCDOT and FHWA are shown
in Table 2.2. These criteria, which are based on Year 2008
traffic projections, indicate that a minimum of five lanes--two-
in each direction with a center turning lane--are needed for the
mainline of US 421. Two typical sections are proposed for all
alternatives, as shown in Exhibit 2.5. The use and location of
the typical sections were determined by topographical consider-
ations and transverse slopes.
Typical Section 1 would be used from the western terminus where
US 421 and NC 194 intersect to the point where the transverse
slope exceeds 0.04. Typical Section 1 would then transition to
Typical Section 2.
2.3 MATRIX EVALUATION OF SECTION ALIGNMENTS
An evaluation matrix was used to compare the alternatives. The
methodology is similar to that used to eliminate the least
beneficial corridor alignment, although more comprehensive. The
four major categories are environmental, land use compatibility,
costs, and traffic services, and each has its own separate matrix
evaluation.
2.3.1 Environmental Categor
This category contains seven factors for evaluation:
* Surface Water Impacts - the calculated effect on surface
water quality;
2-6

TABLE 2.2
ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Factors Recommended Standards
Speeds *Mainline - 60 mph desirable, 55 mph minimum
*Cross Streets - 35 mph
Pavement Widths *Mainline - 12 feet standard lane width
*Cross Streets - 11 feet minimum desirable
Shoulder Widths *Mainline five-lane undivided (Typical Section 2)
10 feet outside (2 feet paved),
*Mainline five-lane undivided (Typical Section 1)
Use curb and gutter.
Vertical *Mainline rates of grade - maximum 7% at 50 mph
Alignment - maximum 6o at 60 mph
*Stopping sight distance - 1984 AASHTO standards
*Length of crest and sag vertical curves -
1984 AASHTO standards
Horizontal *Degree of curvature:
Alignment Mainline - 4°45' maximum (60 mph), 7°30' (50 mph)
*Tangents mid-length between reversed curves
should be adequate to facilitate superelevation
transition.
Cross Slopes *Mainline - normal crown
*Superelevation - 0.08 maximum
- 0.04 maximum with curb and gutter
Vertical *At-grade intersections
, Clearances
Sources: "A Policy on Design of Highways and Streets�" AASHTO, 1984,
and NCDOT Roadway Design Manual.
2-7

* Agricultural - the acreage of prime and/or important
farmland within the right-of-way;
* Historical Sites - the number of potentially eligible struc-
tures within the right-of-way and the number of potentially
eligible structures abutting the right-of-way;
* Archaeological Sites - the number of significant sites
within the right-of-way;
* Flora/Fauna - the acreage of natural wildlife habitat and
the number of potentially threatened or endangered species
areas within the right-of-way;
* Ground Water - the calculated effect on ground water
quality; and
* Hazardous Waste or Petroleum Storage Sites - the number of
identified or potential hazardous waste sites located within
the right-of-way.
The Environmental category evaluation matrix is shown in Table
2.3 along with the scale for each of the seven factors. The
higher the number of the scale, the greater the impact. For
example, a high number on the Historical Sites factor scale means
that a great number of historical sites are located within or
adjacent to the right-of-way.
Generally, Alternative E has the fewest negative impacts for all
factors except Hazardous Waste or Petroleum Storage Sites. Alter-
native A has the fewest possible hazardous waste or petroleum
storage sites and falls within the two extremes for surface water
2-8

�
Z
�
O
�
�
X
W
, �
� � �d
�
�
\
�
LL. W -
� �
'� J
cD �
H �
�
�
�
1\
�
Z
�
O
�
C9
X
W
J
J
� �
Z �
� W
�
JO
��
oa
c=nOOQ
~Z�
o��
���
w
0
z
0
z
�
O
�
�
X
W
�I � i
L
3 1--.
� Z
� w
� z w
� �
d
O p
O �
r
�
��
�
2
�
O
�
C�
X
W
' �C
C
W
Z
J
1
�
� �
Z Z
W �
O
W U �i
� � m
a =
� J W
Q
U
� r
W ~
� W
�
O ?
� J
Z
t� Q
��
� _ _ � _ _ � _ � _ � _ � � � � � � _

� � � � � � � � � 0 � 0 � � � � � � �

TABLE 2.3
MATRIX EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORY
Scale
Factors Range
Surface Water Impacts 1-3
Agricultural Acres
Historical Sites 1-10
Archaeological Sites 1-10
Flo�a/Fauna�l� Acres
Ground Water 1-3
Hazardous Waste or Number
Petroleum Storage
Sites
* No Sites Located
Alternative
A
2
4.0
*
*
6.1
2
3
Alternative
B
3
3.4
*
*
6.5
3
4
Alternative
E
1
0.7
*
*
2.3
1
4
(1) No threatened or endangered species identified within the right-of-way.
�
2-9

and ground water impacts. Alternative B has the most negative
surface water and ground water impacts and ties with Alternative
E for the number of potential hazardous waste sites.
2.3.2 Land Use Compatibility Category
This category contains five factors for evaluation:
* Parks - the number of parks that are impacted by noise;
* Schools - the number of schools that are impacted by noise;
* Churches - the number of churches that are impacted by
noise;
* Cemeteries - the number of actively visited cemeteries
impacted by noise;
* Subdivisions/Neighborhoods - the number of housing units
approaching a noise level of 67 dBA plus the number of units
having increased noise levels above existing ambient con-
ditions of 15 dBA or more; and
* Commercial - the number of commercial sites, including
government facilities, approaching a noise level of 72 dBA
plus the number of units having increased noise levels above
existing ambient conditions of 15 dBA or more.
The Land Use category evaluation matrix is shown in Table 2.4.
The number of sites experiencing negative noise impacts for each
alternative are as indicated.
2-10

TABLE 2.4
MATRIX EVALUATION OF THE LAND USE CATEGORY
Factors
Parks
Schools
Churches
Cemeteries
Subdivisions/
Neighborhoods
Commercial
* No Sites Located
Alternative
A
*
*
1
*
22
�
2-11
Alternative
B
*
*
*
*
10
5
Alternative
E
*
*
1
1
12
7

Alternative B follows an undeveloped corridor throughout much of
its eastern half and so has the fewest negative noise impacts.
Alternative A includes the greatest number of residences that
experience a negative noise impact, but is tied with Alternative
B for the fewest number of commercial sites. As discussed in
Section 4.5.1 of this report, the majority of the sites
identified in Table 2.4 as approaching undesirable noise levels
are also impacted by noise under the No-Build Alternative. In
some instances, the construction alternative even results in a
reduction in the predicted noise levels.
2.3.3 Costs Category
This category contains five factors for evaluation:
* Construction - the estimated cost of the roadway, inter-
sections with local streets, bridges, culverts, drainage,
and earthwork;
* Relocation - the estimated cost of business and residential
relocations;
* Right-of-Way - the estimated cost of right-of-way
acquisition; and
* Utilities - the estimated cost of utility relocation.
* Total Costs - the summation of all costs.
The Costs category evaluation matrix is shown in Table 2.5. All
alternatives are ranked from the most expensive at 3 to the least
2-12

Factors
Construction
Relocation
Right-of-Way
Utilities
Total Cost
TABLE 2.5
MATRIX EVALUATION OF THE COSTS CATEGORY
Scale
Range
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
Alternative
A
2
1
1
2
1
2-13
Alternative
B
3
2
2
1
2
Alternative
E
1
3
3
3
3

expensive at 1. The scale was derived from construction costs
estimated as shown in Table 2.9. Alternative A has the least
total cost, followed by Alternative B, with Alternative E having
the greatest total cost.
2.3.4 Traffic Services Category
This category involves the analysis of intersection LOS as shown
in Table 2.6. If an unsignalized intersection would operate
acceptably for the assumed Opening Year 1993 or Design Year 2008,
it was so designated. If not, a signalized intersection analysis
was performed to determine the LOS at which the signalized
intersection would operate.
The LOS analysis follows the methodology outlined in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual (see Appendix A). Table 2.7 shows the
expected average running speed for each alternative during peak
and off-peak hours. Both Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show that all of the
alternatives will operate at a vastly improved and acceptable
LOS.
2.3.5 Safety
Based on accident data gathered for existing US 421, accident
rates and average annual accidents were calculated for the
No-Build Alternative for Opening Year 1993 and Design Year 2008.
Average annual accidents were also calculated for each of the
other alternatives using accident rates provided by FHWA.1 The
results are shown in Table 2.8.
2-14

�
H
�
�
a
z'a
�
N
W O
f�A H
H W
�
W
H
z
H
U
W
�
v o0 0
�o a
•� o
J-1 N C/�
ro� �
[m
� dl U
v rn
+� � �
� o
...
�
ao
v
�
N co O
�o a
•� o
1J N CI�
ro� �
C M
S.+ dl U
N 61
J� r-I V�
� O
�
U
�
�
vm O
�o a
•�+ o
J-1 N f!�
b� �
L�i dMl U
�-�+ � O
� a
�
Cz.�
�
�o °a
�--I O
•rl N d�
fA M \
dl C�
orn
z � v�
0
a
�
w
0
c �
O •rt
•�-+ 3
�
� N
Ul �f'
�,
� �
c
H
� I I i
� i i i
� i i i
I i � �
i i � �
I I � �
� � i �
� � I �
\ I I 1
� i I i
rn
C
.,�
JJ
ul v i� ,�
•� � �n u�
W � 3 N
q �. �.
�
� Sx.i N N
�0 d' CN
+� a
v r+ � �
s, ro
+� � •� o� cn
d' � d' .t�.� •� •�
dl N Ul �1-� .1�
� O � 'a •�-�i •�-�i
z � H w w
2-15
O
-�
�
U
N
�
�
N
�
C
.,�
�
v
N
.,�
r-i
ro
c
�
.r.,
m
c
�
ro �
•a
m c
b o�
-� a,
�v JJ N
� r0 •�
Q N �-I
b •�+ ro
�ro rn
U O� �
U •�
� cn Z7
� � �
� N R7
� ��
S.roa � U
ap�, cr �
O � U
I.I I
.-.
��v
1

�
0
0
N
�
�
rn
rn
�
x
�
w
� �
N v
C]
W W
�-] W
co a
� �
H
�
z
H
Z
z
a
x
W
C�
�
a
w
�
�
v
� i
•� i
+� i
ro i
�w i
�, i
a� i
� i
� i
� I
I
I
I
I
I
v i
� i
•� i
� i
ro s�
c c4 �
�, o
v x
�
� . s,
� v
a
m
v
�
� •�
� �
•� i
+.� i
b i
c� i
L I
N I
� I
� I
� i
i
i
i
i
i
rO I
� i
•� i
�i
� I
I I
O I
z
� o
d� �n
� o
� �
� o
C1' �f 1
� �
N M
. ..
.
. ..
. .y
. ..
.
tfl N
N c�
�, �,
� aG � �G
� o ro o ro
o � a� � a�
•�+ w a
� x x
a� ro w ro w
a a� w v a-�
v
a o a o
E
• rl M Op
t-+ rn o
rn o
�—i N
2-16
0
��
v
��
.,� � ,
���
rd U O
C � •r-I
�-I Q, �
N SC N
�t-� N Ll,
r-I
rtl vl C
•r., �+
� •�
� � �n
ro u v
-� �
��
O 3 N
w .�
, �,
v a�
� � W
ro •� o
� +�
v ro�
� � c
ros.�a,
v
c � a,
o r+ .c
ro�
�
b��
'a � U
•rl f�
s-i � 3
vw o
� i +�
0
�n z a,
s� rn
�a�b
O .� ii
L � a1
�
x�ro
b �
v N C
Cl, U O
k
oa��
3 rtf
� sa 'i7
ro
a� a� �,
� �v.
a
O C
+� � �
•� 1.�
't7 U� �
va,o
���
U
N N X
a� b
x � a�
a� �
�
a���
s�oa
�s � o
rnw
N �
�+ov
� � �
�� ro
H � .�

Year
1993
2008
TABLE 2.8
ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL ACCIDENTS�1�
ALTERNATIVES .
Alternative Alternative Alternative
No-Build A B E
14
19
12
17
12
17
12
16
(1) Includes estimated accidents at the intersection and mainline.
i
2-17

All improvement alternatives reduce the total number of
accidents, principally at the intersection of US 421/NC 194. The
increase in total number of accidents for Alternatives A and B
over Alternative E is due to the greater length of the
alternative corridor.
2.3.6 Review of Matrix Analysis
The results of the matrix analysis will be used in conjunction
with the cost-effectiveness analysis and public and agency
comments to identify a recommended alignment subsequent to the
public hearing.
2.4 ROADWAY COST ESTIMATE
Estimated construction and right-of-way costs are presented in
Table 2.9. Estimated costs (in 1988 dollars) range from a total
high of $7,685,000 for construction of Alternative E to
$5,855,000 for construction of Alternative A.
2.5 USER BENEFIT ANALYSIS
A user benefit cost analysis was conducted to help determine the
economic benefits of each alternative. The following paragraphs
summarize a more detailed report document, User Benefit Analysis
Technical Memorandum, which is appended by reference.
The purpose of the user benefit costs analysis is to determine
whether the expected economic benefits during the design period
2-18

r
�
,
'
'
'
'
�
�
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
W
E-i
� �
�
N H
Ei
W V]
a w
�
�C H
H �
O
U
IWI
0
�0
o
�
� �
U� N
O�
U N
�
� �
�� rn
�
c o
b
a
a
0
0
'-+ o
�
v � �
� � rn
•� o �
� U �
b 04 �h
C
�
�
� � �
r-i •r1 ,-1
� � r-I
�
0
O
�-I O
c�
� �
U] M
O�
U M
�C t�
1J N
.�
1J r-�i
C
ro
00
00
00
N N
00 �Y'
O M
u';
0 0
0 0
0 0
� �
� �
� �
N
0 0
O O
u1 O
N O
O dl
O �t'
N
0
0
0
�
�
�
�
�
0
0
0
�
�
�
�
�
0
O
�
u'1
�
�
�C1
�
N
C
O
• �-I tll
� �
U � �d!
� b
�+ � c
� � ro [ o �,
Ul r� Ll O •� U
C Ul •� U] •� +-� C
o c.0 �n � v.� ro a�
.�+ v ocmc•�•� �,�r
c •�a�a,b+�cn +-��
N 'J�,^ 1� '� C •�-I •ri tA •r�
� ro m b•�•�,�r; � •�,+�
O 3 v U U] t!l C•�-+ t3' C C �
'a rl O N� rtf � U •� O rd
E c�•� �C�w���C EU .r.�
O O £ � Z7 O
U 6� � fZ � E�
2-19
�
O
.,a
a-t
U
�
i�
�
�
�
�
U
v
rn
ro
�
.,1
b
S�
�
u� r-i
S-i '--1
ro ro
�
� �
O N
A '�
�
w �
00 U
� �
r� H
r-I N

will exceed the estimated costs for the same period. Common
discount rates are used to compare the alternatives according to
guidelines published by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).2
Economic benefits consist of any reduction in road user expenses
expected to occur as a result of drivers operating their vehicles
on a safer, less congested, and more efficient highway. This
includes personal time with its corresponding dollar value,
vehicle operating expenses, and accident reductions. Project
costs include engineering, right-of-way, construction and
maintenance costs of the proposed alternative minus costs
associated with maintaining the existing roadway.
Table 2.10 presents the results of this analysis, which uses the
Benefit/Cost Ratio as the measure of economic desirability. The
Benefit/Cost Ratio is the ratio of the net present value of the
total estimated annual benefits to the net present value of the
estimated annual costs. An investment is considered to be
financially desirable if the benefit/cost ratio is greater than
1.0. As shown in Table 2.10, all these alternatives are
considered to be financially desirable due to the benefit/cost
ratio being greater than 1.0. Alternative A shows the greatest
benefit/cost ratio at all of the three discount rates, and thus
would be considered as the alternative with the greatest
desirability.
2-20

,
,
�
'
'
,
'
�
,
�
�
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
TABLE 2.10
BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Alternative
A
B
E
Discount Rate
7 10 12
2.04 1.61 1.38
1.84 1.46 1.26
1.65 1.30 1.12
Note: All monetary benefits and costs in the user benefit
analysis are in constant 1988 dollars.
2-21

2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATE
While the selection of an alternative will not be made until the
impacts and comments from the Public Hearing and this draft
environmental impact statement have been fully evaluated,
Alternative A was identified as the preferred alternative.
The Alternative A alignment will serve the future traffic needs
of Boone and Watauga County.
Alternative A will have minimal impact on the natural environ-
ment. As shown in Table 2.3, Alternative A impacts no historical
or archaeological sites', and has the fewest possible hazardous
waste or petroleum storage sites within its proposed right-of-
way.
Alternative A also has a lower construction and right-of-way cost
than Alternatives B and E. The roadway cost and right-of-way
cost were discussed and summarized in Section 2.4 and Table 2.9.
As shown in Table 2.10, Alternative A also has the greatest
benefit/cost ratio.
The advanced planning stages associated with Alternative A, lower
cost, minimal environmental impacts, and service to the area all
contributed to the selection of Alternative A as the preferred
alternative.
2-22

CHAPTER 2
REFERENCES
1. FHWA, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic
Control and Roadway Elements, FHWA-TS-82-232, December,
1982.
2. AASHTO, A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and
Bus-Transit Improvements, 1979.
2-23

i
!
�
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
An overall, comprehensive� inventory and evaluation of the
� economic, social, cultural, natural, and physical environment in
' the study area and Watauga County was performed. These data
concerning the existing conditions, when contrasted with historic
� information, will facilitate the assessment of the proposed US
. 421 widening and realignment alternatives. A definition of the
' study boundaries is contained in Chapter 1.
' 3.1 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
� 3.1.1 Economic Characteristics
' During the past three decades, the economy of Watauga County has
been in transition from an agricultural base to a more
' diversified and stable combination of manufacturing, retail,
educational, service, and tourism industries. More recently,
� this trend has shifted with a continuing heavy dependence on
� retail and tourism but a significant decline in manufacturing, as
described in Watauga County Planning Implementation Policies,
' 1988.1
iAlthough this strong tourism/recreational/service economic base
has given Watauga County unemployment rates far lower than the
� state average, as shown in Table 3.1, this type of employment
t
'
i 3_1

MONTEI.S
Dec. 83
Jan. 84
Feb. 84
Mar. 84
Apr. 84
May 84
June 84
July 84
Aug. 84
Sep. 84
Oct. 84
Nov. 84
Dec. 84
Jan. 85
Feb. 85
Mar. 85
Apr. 85
May 85
June 85
July 85
Aug. 85
Sep. 85
Oct. 85
Nov. 85
Dec. 85
TABLE 3.1
U[QEMPLOYMENT RATES BY COUNTIES, REGION D& STATEWIDE
FOR 1983 THROUGH 1985
REGION D STATEWIDE
7.3 7.3
8.3 8.1
8.5 7.6
8.2 7.3
6.7 6.3.
6.4 5.8
6.7 6.2
7.0 6.5
6.3 6.1
6.3 6.3 �
6.8 6.8
7.6 7.0
7.9 7.2
7.9 7.1
8.0 6.7
4.5 5.6
5.7 5.2
5.2 5.4
6.4 5.5
4.9 5.6
5.3 5.8
3.8 4.2
4.3 4.6
4.7 4.8
4.3 4.2
ALLEGHANY
7.4
7.7
7.7
5.8
12. 6
11.1
10.6
10.4
9.7
9.4
10.7
8.2
7.9
8.9
8.3
7.7
7.6
7.5
6.2
6.2
5.3
3.4
5.1
� 6.4
5.4
SOURCE: Region D Council of Government
ASHE
9.2
11.5
10.9
10.1
8.7
7.7
7.8
8.8
8.3
9.7
11.2
12.6
12.7
12.8
13.2
9.1
7.9
7.9
7.0
6.8
7.5
5.6
6.7
7.2
6.7
3-2
AVERY
9:2
11.9
10.8
10.4
9.1
8.6
8.3
8.7
7.3
6.1
6.7
8.1
9.5
9.3
9.6
7.8
6.8
6.3
6.6
5.2
5.7
4.7
5.4
6.1
5.7
MITCHELL
11.0
13.5
11.5
10.7
9.0
10.0
9.5
10.3
8.2
7.0
6.6
8.6
9.1
10.0
9.8
6.8
6.6
5.8
5.7
5.9
6.7
5.0
5.4
6.2
6.1
WATAUGA
4.7
5.8
5.1
5.1
�
4.2
4.7
4.9
5.3
4.8
5.1
5.6
6.2
6.7
6.5
7.1
5.7
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.7
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.3
WILKES
5.5
5.6
5.7
7.5
4.8
4.4
5.4
5.2
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.8
5.8
6.1
5.2
4.3
4.3
3.9
3.8
4.4
4.5
2.9
3:3
3.6
3.2

�
1
1
.�
'
�
�
'
1�
�
�
'
l�'
offers wages well below those of manufacturing. As a result, per
capita and median family income levels in Watauga County are also
lower than the state average, as shown in Table 3.2. Low income
levels coupled with increasing land costs have resulted in county
residents, especially young people, leaving the area in search of
employment opportunities and higher wages.2 Poor transportation
and accessibility have influenced and will continue to influence
this trend.
Employment by industry group in 1984 and 1985 for Watauga County
is shown in Table 3.3, which highlights the downward trend of the
manufacturing sector and the substantial increases in the tourism
and service sectors.
Additional evidence of this trend toward a non-manufacturing-
based economy is provided in Table 3.4. Again, a decline in
manufacturing employment to a non-manufacturing base is evident,
reflecting the national trend toward a more service-oriented
economy. The table shows that while 7.9 percent of the labor
force was involved in manufacturing in 1980, this figure dropped
to 4.9 percent in 1986. During the same period, non-agricultural
wage and service employment remained constant at 50 percent,
while non-manufacturing employment increased from 42 percent to
45.1 percent. Manufacturing provides 31.6 percent3 of statewide
employment, as compared to Watauga County's 4.9 percent.
3-3

Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
TABLE 3.2
INCOME DATA
Per Capita Personal Income
Watauga County
$6,083
6,799
7,093
7,627
8,467
Median Household Income
Year Watauga County
1969 $ 5,323
1979 11,039
Median Family Income
Year Watauga County
1969 $ 6,149
1979 14,532
K��
N.C.
$ 7,774
8,655
9,153
9,829
10,852
N.C.
$ 6,976
14,481
N.C.
$ 7,774
16,792

�i
�
�
.�
'
�
�
�
�
'.
�
�
�'
�
�
,
�
�
'
TABLE 3.3
EMPLOYMENT DATA
Annual Average Labor Force Estimates
1984 1985
Civilian Labor Force 16,150 16,890
Total Unemployment 900 740
Rate of Unemployment 5.6 4.4
Total Employment 15,250 16,150
Agricultural Employment 410 380
Non-agricultural Wage and
Salary Employment
Al1 Other Non-agricultural
Employment (1)
13,280
1,560
14,190
1,580
Industry Employment by Place of Work
1984 1985
Manufacturing (2) 1,800 1,600
Construction 740 840
Transportation, Communication,
and Public Utilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
Service
Government
Other Non-manufacturing (3)
240
3,210
660
2,210
4,190
30
270
3,740
730
2,290
4,290
40
Percent
Change
4.6
-17.8
5.9
-7.3
6.9
1.3
Percent
Change
-11.1
13.5
12.5
16.5
10.6
3.6
2.4
33.3
(1) Includes non-agricultural self-employed.workers, unpaid
family workers, and domestic workers in private households.
(2) Includes lumber and wood; stone, clay, and glass; food;
textiles; apparel; furniture; printing; leather; fabricated
metals; non-electrical machinery; electrical machinery; and
miscellaneous manufacturing.
(3) Includes agricultural services and forestry.
3-5

Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
TABLE 3.4
EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK
Total
Non-agricultural
Wage and Service
11,730
12,400
12,160
12,410
13,080
13,800
14,330
Manufacturing
1,870
1,940
1,870
1,830
1,800
1,600
1,400
Non-
manufacturing
9,860
10,460
10,290
10,580
11,280
12,200
12,930
Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management,
May 1988.
3-6

��
tTables 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate per capita incomes and families
� with incomes below poverty level, respectively. It is apparent
that in both cases Watauga County has a higher percentage per
population of such individuals than the state average.
� �
3.1.2 Watauga County Population Characteristics
The population of Watauga County continues to increase as shown
in Table 3.7. In addition to full-time residents, the county,
� due to its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities, had a
part-time resident population of approximately 6,786 residents in
� 1980 and an estimated population of 8,660 in 1985.4 From 1980
through 1985, the permanent population increased by 5.6 percent,
while part-time residents increased by 27.6 percent. Watauga
County's permanent resident growth rate is approximately 35
percent of the state growth rate, while its rate for part-time
residents is almost twice that of the state. Statewide
population growth rates are shown in Table 3.8.
Further comparison of Watauga County population statistics with
state figures reveals the following:
- Population growth projections between Years 1990 and 2000
indicate a county growth rate of approximately 11.2 percent,
� which is slightly higher than the statewide increase of 9.6
� percent (see Tables 3.7 and 3.9).
'
�
3-7

Watauga County
Boone
Blowing Rock*
Beech Mountain*
Seven Devils*
TABLE 3.5
PER CAPITA INCOME
1979
$5,097
4,529
9,589
7,438
5,097
1985
$ 7,856
6,935
15,707
11,790
7,856
Percent
Change
54.1
63.8
53.1
58.5
54.1
*Partial count lists information for those portions of Blowing
Rock, Beech Mountain, and Seven Devils located in Watauga
County.
Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management,
May 1988.
�.'-�

'
'
�
�
'
r
�
�
r
�
�
�
:i
�
�
�
�
�
'
TABLE 3.6
FAMILIES WITH INCOMES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL
1969 *1979
Percent of N.C. Percent of N.C.
County No. All Families No. Percent All Families Percent
Watauga 5,703 27.8 6,251 20.3 22.7 14.8
*Latest Available Data. Next Update Available: 1990 Census of
Population
Source: North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract,
1984.
3-9

0
O
0
N
O
�
�
r-I
�
�
�
�
�
H
U
Wr7
O
a�
� � O
U
M � �
a z�
U H
H O 3
� LL'
r-I O
c,
a
0
�
w
a
�
ao
0
H
Q'.
a
w
�
� �o ao �r �
J%1 O l0 61 � N
E a M M M V'
U1 M M (� d'
tf1 ftl I N l0 [� M
(� � r-I r-i r-i N
� L � tn � LCl
t11 v ,-1 �N N N
�o i-�
O N r�.{ M M �
� �
� N � � � �
I� R7 c� l� M CO
�`ni1 � � � � �
�i' UI M M �-I M
tf1 N N � M d'
d' 7+
�S_t M �M � �
� M �!' d' t1l
M S.�i n � i�t1 O
N� d' tl1 t�[1 t�f1
N� n tfl N N
I rd l0 M M �O
� � � n � n
CO �I M O � M
�
l0 �I 6O1 � M d�l
�
� � � � �
� � � � � �
� �I M c� M M
�+
U1 MC� l0 �f1 Ol
� � M N N �M
�
�n ro m � r �
� �''1 M M M
U1 I l0 N l0 t11
o ardi `r-+° � °.-,° .°�°
�
o � o 0
c0 c0 O� O
61 6l 61 O
�-i �-i �-1 N
3-10
�
C
E
N
�
C
ro
�
�
�
a,
rn
�
w
v
�
ro
1-1
�
W
0
a�
U
.�
W
W
O
�
C
.�
�
O
�,
ro
U
�
�
�
z°
ai
U
�+
�
O
�
�.
'
�.
�
�
�
�
1
r
�
�
�
� 1
'
�
,
�
�
'

1
1
�1
1
'
�.
�
�
�
,�
�
'
�
'
�
�.
�
�
'
�
�
o�
0
O dl
N N
N
�
N
N
O Ol
�
� �
r-1 61
tif1
�
�
�
cn o �
w m
H � �
�C r-I CO
GL' 00
0o x �
M 3
O
w a
a � �
w �
�c w o �
H A l�
H Ol �'
3 � ao
W O
� tf'1
Ei
. �
�
�
o �
� �
rn �
� �
�
�
b
c
.,�
�
0
s,
ro
U
�
�
�
O
z
0
a��
o��,
N � C lfl
I U rd
O l.i .� �
dl N U
rna
�
O
dl �..� N
dl C � N
ri � .(�., �
I U � N
O S.a .� �
00 N U
rna
�
O
CO J-1 �
Ol C U1 (�
•--i a� � •
I U rtf ul
O S.r .� �-i
l� N U
rna
�
O
[� 1� N
dl C O� t�
� 41 C •
I U rd �
O Sa .� r-I
l0 � U
rn a
�
ro
�
.r.,
�
0
�,
�
U
�
�
1�
O
z
�
�
�
�-i
�
z�
ro
�
�
�
�
Cy
J-1
C
N
�
v
rn
ro
c
ro
�
�
C
�
a-1
v
�
'�
�
�
a�
�
b
J-�
�
W
O
v
U
.,�
4-d
w
0
b
�
.r.,
�
0
�,
r�
U
x
�
�,
0
z
�
U
Sa
�
O
�
3-11

TABLE 3.9
POPULATION PROJECTION FOR 1988 THROUGH 2O00
FOR WATAUGA COUNTY
1988 1989 1990 1995 2000
Population 35,378 35,827 36,164 38,203 40,231
Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management.
3-12

�
' - Watauga County household size is smaller at 2.67 persons per
household than the state average of 2.85.5 The county's
' high number of seasonal households accounts for
' approximately 32 percent of total dwelling units.
' - Watauga County has a white population equal to 98.1 percent,
_ as compared to the state's 75.8 percent.6
� - Table 3.10 shows the county population breakdown by age
group, which almost exactly parallels that of the state.
1 3.2 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
�
�
Land use planning for Watauga County and US 421 falls under the
jurisdiction of the Region D Council of Governments, which
published the Regional Land Potential Study and Land Development
Plan in 1978. Between 1971 and 1981, the county adopted a
building code and subdivision regulations; employed building
inspectors, a subdivision coordinator, and a county manager; and �
adopted a thoroughfare.plan (for Boone and its immediate vicinity
only). The county has yet to adopt zoning in any portion of its
area not controlled by a municipality.
' Boone published the Boone Land Development Plan in 1977, adopted
a zoning ordinance in 1980, and has more recently adopted a
, thoroughfare plan. The town zones within the town limits only
and not within the one-mile extraterritorial area.
,
i
'
3-13

0 - 4
5 - 17
18 - 24
25 - 44
45 - 64
65 +
TOTAL
TABLE 3.10
1980 AGE CHARACTERISTICS
WATAUGA COUNTY AND NORTH CAROLINA
WATAUGA COUNTY
1,626 (5.1�)
5,071 (16.0%)
9,003 (28.4�)
7,906 (25.0�)
5,035 (16.Oo)
3,025 (9.5�)
31,666 (100.0%)
NORTH CAROLINA
404,076 (6.9�)
1,253,659 (21.3�)
822,091 (14.0�)
1,646,382 (28.0�)
1,152,377 (19.6�)
603,181 (I0.2�)
5,881,766 (100.0�)
Sources: North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Fifth Edition, 1984.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management,
Watauga County Figures
3-14

L�
1
,
�
�J
i
�
�
�
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation
Service has published An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor
Recreational Development (1974), which covers historic sites,
scenic sites, soils, lakes, etc., in Watauga County. Some of
this information is included in other planning documents.�
3.2.1 Existing Land Use
Exhibit 3.1 depicts five categories of land use within the study
area: commercial, residential, open field/agricultural, church,
and cemetery. The residential category contains all housing
types, including mobile homes. Following is a general
description of the land use types traversed by each alternative:
1 Alternative A- This alternative, running in conjunction with and
to the north of the existing US 421 corridor, involves strip and
1 scattered commercial, residential, cemetery, and church land
uses. In addition, some agricultural land and woodland would be
� impacted by this alternative.
'
,
r
�
'
�
'
Alternative B- This alternative is similar to Alternative A
except that it takes a southerly route from that of the existing
US 421 corridor. Included land uses are scattered commercial
and residential, open field/agricultural, and a small amount of
woodland.
3-15

Alternative E- The road improvements within the existing
right-of-way will have the greatest impact on existing man-made
facilities. This alternative would require the relocation of
many businesses and residences. Minimal open field/agricultural
and woodland areas are located adjacent to the existing roadway.
3.2.2 Land Use Planning
In 1988, the Watauga County Planning Implementation Policies were
adopted, which provided a vehicle for citizen participation in
the planning process. Citizens were polled regarding their
concerns about the county's past, present, and future growth as
related to its natural and man-made environment.
Other planning tools available to Watauga County include the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Ordinance to govern subdivisions and multi-unit structures.
Sedimentation and erosion control ordinance.
Flood damage prevention ordinance.
North Carolina bui�lding code.
North Carolina ridge law.
Ordinance to govern the height of structures.
Mobile home parks ordinance.
Recreational vehicle park subdivision regulations.
Sign ordinance.
Ordinance to regulate junkyards and junked or abandoned
vehicles.
Ordinance to govern structures located on land adjacent to
national park service land.
3-16

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �j,
�

,
' A precise, countywide land use plan that identifies specific
future land uses is not available.
�
Although the report does not address specific land use, it
, documents the county's growth as perceived by its inhabitants.
According to the report, the most desired improvement was in the
1 area of transportation, including widenin US 421, avin
g A 9
' graveled roads, improving trouble spots on secondary roads,
controlling road dust, and providing more public transportation.
'
1
�
i
�
�
'
�
��
�
�
�
�J
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural features within the study area include existing
churches, schools, cemeteries, and public and private open space,
as shown in Exhibit 3.2.
3.3.1 Schools
Watauga County Schools' Administrative Unit is composed of eight
elementary schools and one consolidated high school. A center
for exceptional children is located at Hardin Fork Elementary
School, and Appalachian State University is located in the Town
of Boone .
3.3.2 Recreational and Leisure Activities
Both the Town of Boone and Watauga County offer a variety of
recreational and leisure activities; however, none of these
facilities is located within the immediate study area.
3-17

3.3.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources
A records search revealed only one archaeological site, and that
was destroyed by residential construction. The only potential
historical site was deemed ineligible for the National Register
of Historic Places due to lack of integrity.8
The archaeological investigation is summarized in a report
entitled An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed US
421 Improvement by Archaeological Research Consultants, and the
historical/architectural investigation is summarized in a report
entitled Historic Structure Survey and Evaluation Report for US
421 Environmental Impact Statement by Ms. Margaret Long
Stephenson, both appended by reference.
3.4 UTILITIES
3.4.1 Electrical Power
The Town of Boone is primarily served by New River Light and
Power Company, which is a distribution utility. The area is also
served by Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation, a
transmission and distribution utility, which is the primary
supplier of electric energy in northwest North Carolina.
Electrical power requirements up to 110 kilovolts (kV) are
available. The Town of Boone is looped by a 46-kV transmission
system. Exhibit 3.3 shows existing power transmission lines.
K��:,

'
' New River Light and Power Company is located on Winkler's Creek
Road in Boone and is owned by the Appalachian State University
� Foundation. It serves 6,000 consumers, including the university
' campus. Its primary distribution system is 7,200 volts.
� Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation is a cooperative owned
by its consumers. The Watauga District Office is located on US
� 421 South, and the corporate headquarters is located in Lenoir,
North Carolina. The Watauga District provides service to 15,500
jmeters, including the New River system. Its distribution system
� is supplied at 7,200 volts. Two 100-kV transmission lines are
the primary sources for the area, which has a 46-kV transmission
� network.
� 3.4.2 Fuel Oil
Fuel oil is available from several local distributors. Bulk
� supplies are available at competitive prices, primarily from the
' Charlotte, North Carolina area.
, 3.4.3 Natural Gas
Although natural gas is not available in Boone or Watauga County,
' there are three local distributors of propane gas. Suburban
� Propane on Meadowview Drive is the principal supplier within the
town of Boone.
�
'
3-19
lJ
'

3.4.4 Telephone Service
Telephone service is provided by Southern Bell in Boone and
Skyline Telephone Membership Corporation throughout Watauga
County. Al1 primary long distance carriers serve the area.
3.4.5 Water
The Town of Boone's Municipal Department provides water to
residential and commercial users within the town limits. Users
outside of Boone must rely on drilled wells. Exhibit 3.4 shows
the water lines serving the study area.
3.4.6 Sewer
The Municipal Department also provides residential and commercial
users within Boone with sewage disposal service. Some users
outside of the town limits are also connected to the centralized
sewerage system. Those that are not must rely on underground
septic systems. Exhibit 3.4 also shows sewer lines.
3.4.7 Railroads
There is no rail service directly into Boone; however, piggyback
service is available at Hickory/Conover, approximately 50 miles
away. Frequency of switching service is daily.
3-20
c

3.5 MINERAL RESOURCES
There are presently no operations for mineral extraction in the
study area. Existing urbanization and industrial land use are
prohibitive to rock quarrying. There are no significant
commercial sand, gravel, or clay deposits within the study area,
and the potential for future development of mineral resources is
low.
3.6 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The North Carolina Environment Policy Act established that all
major actions to be funded by the North Carolina State Government
must be assessed to determine their impact on the environment.
This includes noise levels, air quality, and water quality within
the study area and surrounding regions that may be affected
during and after construction.
3.6.1 Noise
' The principal source o�f noise within the study area is vehicles
from existing US 421. Other sources include construction,
farming, and yard work. Section 4.5.1 of this report presents
�
the anticipated impacts of the construction alternatives on
' existing noise levels.
�J
�
�
'
3-21

3.6.2 Air Quality
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (DNRCD) have established criteria to define air
quality. EPA has established two standards for air quality:
primary and secondary. Primary standards are those levels
required to protect the public health with an adequate margin of
safety. Secondary standards are those levels required to protect
the public health from any known or anticipated adverse effect of
an air pollutant. These criteria are designated as the Ambient
Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and are established for seven air
pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter (TSP),
particulate matter at or less than 10 microns (PM10), and ozone
(03). These standards and those of the DNRCD are shown in Table
3.11.
Neither EPA nor the DNRCD currently monitors levels of CO, 03,
NO2, TSP, or PM10 in Watauga County or the Town of Boone.
According to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, all areas
within the state are designated as either attainment,
non-attainment, or unclassifiable with respect to the AAQS.
Areas that meet the AAQS are designated as attainment. Areas
where the AAQS are not met are designated as non-attainment. In
non-attainment areas, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is
developed to bring the area into compliance with the AAQS.
3-22

Pollutant
TSP
S02
NO2
CO
03
��
, PM10
TABLE 3.11
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Time of Avg.
Ann.Geo.Mean
24-Hour
Primary
Standard
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
Secondary North Carolina
Standard Standard
None 75 ug/m3
150 ug/m3 150 ug/m3
Ann.Arith.Mean 80 ug/m3 None 80 ug/m3
24-Hour 365 ug/m3 None 365 ug/m3
3-Hour None 1,300 ug/m3 1,300 ug/m3
Ann.Arith.Mean 100 ug/m3 Same as primary 100 ug/m3
8-Hour 10 mg/m3 Same as primary 9 ppm
1-Hour 40 mg/m3 Same as primary 35 ppm
1-Hour 0.12 ppm Same as primary 0.125 ppm
Quarterly
Arith. Mean
Ann.Geo.Mean
24-Hour
1.5 ug/m3 Same as primary 1.5 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
Note: All standards with averaging times of 24 hours or less are not
to be exceeded more than once per year.
3
ug/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter of air
mg/m - milligrams per cubic meter of air
ppm - parts per million
Source: State of North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Environmental Management.
3-23

Finally, areas such as the study area where there are no
available data for classification are designated as
unclassifiable. Based on past monitoring, however, the area
should be well within all air quality standards.
3.6.3 Water Quality
Surface Water - The principal water course in the study area is
the South Fork New River. Surface runoff is also collected by
Hardin Creek and an unnamed stream that parallels US 421
approaching the river; both are tributaries to the river.
The South Fork New River is classified by the State of North
Carolina as a Class C waterway. Class C waters are fresh waters
suitable for fish and wildlife propagation, agricultural uses,
secondary recreation (boating and wading), and uses requiring
waters of lower quality. The river is used as a secondary source
of supply by Boone's municipal water company, which routinely
tests the headwaters for fecal coliform bacteria. Boone also
tests the Winkler Creek tributary for chemical properties,
temperature, and turbidity. Test results for 1988 are shown in
Table 3.12.
The Boone municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges
effluent into the South Fork New River 0.5 mile upstream of the
US 421 river crossing. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the
river is recorded upstream and downstream from the.plant. Test
results for July and August 1988 are shown in Table 3.12.
3-24

�
�
,
'
'
'
�
�
,
,
'
�
�
'
�
�
'
'
'
TABLE 3.12
QUALITY OF SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER HEADWATERS
JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 1988
1988 (Units in Parts Per Million, Unless Otherwise Noted)
Months O1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Parameter
Temperature (°C) 5 5 7 10 13 16 19 20 16 10 8 5
Turbidity (JTU):
Range 0.4- 0.5- 0.5- 0.7- 0.7- 1.3- 1.6- 1.6- 1.2- 0.6- 0.6- 0.4-
17 4.3 3.5 25 62 19 46 17 40 4.0 80 3.2
Median 1.4 0.9 1.0 2.5 4.2 3.1 6.2 3.8 4.5 1.1 3.8 0.8
pH 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0
Iron 0.21 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.24 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.07
Manganese 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02
Fluoride 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02
Carbon Dioxide 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.4
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml 22 22 10 62 74 88 166 158 102 70 54 20
BOD:
Above Wastewater
Treatment -
Plant -- -- -- -- -- -- 65 -- -- -- --
Below Wastewater
Treatment
Plant -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 -- -- -- --
3-25

On-site observations for pollution were conducted of streamflows
and their physical parameters within the study area. Readily
observable indications of pollution include odor, bubbles, oil
slicks, unusual color, siltation, and bed loading. Signs of
pollution were observed only in Hardin Creek at US 421; although
stream flow was clear, surface bubbles and an organic odor were
detected. Areas drained by the creek include a shopping center,
commercial properties along US 421, and the Boone Lumber Company.
Both the South Fork New River and the stream that enters it just
south of US 421 were observed to be clear, with little siltation
of the stream beds and no indication of pollution.
As shown in Table 3.12, levels of turbidity increase
significantly after a rainfall event. Turbidity refers to the
cloudiness of the water and, in the study area, is largely
dependent on runoff conditions as material is added to the water
from vegetation, surface litter, soils, and rocks with which the
surface runoff of precipitation comes in contact. It is measured
in Jackson turbidity units (JTU), which are equivalent to the
interference to light transmission caused by 1 milligram per
liter (mg/1) of a standard suspension. Turbidity restricts the
penetration of sunlight through water, thus decreasing plant
photosynthesis, and can also impair respiration in fish.
Ground Water - Ground water is found below the water table where
all openings in the soil or rock are completely filled with
water. The water table in the study area is usually found at
3-26

depths less than 40 feet in the saprolite overlying the fractured
bedrock.9 In the lowlands, ground water may be encountered at
depths between 5 and 20 feet. The base flow in streams and
creeks in the study area is from ground water discharge, which
occurs where elevations of the water table lie above the soil
surface.l� In the bedrock below the water table, water fills the
network of interconnected fractures. An idealized geophysical
cross section showing ground water storage is depicted in Exhibit
3.5.
The fractured character of the bedrock is conducive to the
existence of a water table or unconfined aquifer. Ground water
contained in water table aquifers is recharged (replenished)
locally mainly from precipitation infiltrating the overlying
soils.11 Ground water recharge in this area is shunted laterally
through fractures in the rocks to points of discharge less than 1
mile (commonly less than 0.5 mile) from their point of arrival at
the water table.12
Most domestic water supplies outside Boone's town limits come
from drilled wells, which draw water from fractures in the
bedrock. These fractures diminish in size and number with depth
so that drilling wells deeper than 300 feet will not
substantially increase well yields.13 An estimated fifty to
sixty wells and one spring lie within the study area. The wells
range from 100 to 200 feet in depth and intersect the water table
at an average depth of 40 feet.
3-27

3.6.4 Floodways and Flood Plains
The floodway width and boundaries are as indicated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and by Boone's municipal
planning department's Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. One
ingression of right-of-way within a 100-year flood boundary was
identified and is shown on Exhibit 3.6. The affected area is
adjacent to the existing crossing of Hardin Creek by US 421 and
is common to all alternative alignments.
3.6.5 Hydrology and Drainage
The study area is located within the watershed of the South Fork
New River. The drainage area of the watershed above the bridge
on US 421 is 34.8 square miles.14 Drainage patterns are closely
related to topographic relief. Stream channels are well defined
and carry significant flows following normal precipitation.
During dry periods, they may carry a base flow of discharging
ground water or have dry bottoms.
The western section of�the study area is drained by Hardin Creek
to the South Fork New River. Present runoff conditions
frequently overload Hardin Creek, causing the creek to overflow
its stream bed and flood adjacent residences. The northeastern
section drains to the river via an unnamed stream. The remainder
of the study area drains directly to the South Fork New River,
which borders the area to the east and south.
3-28

Runoff conditions durinq base flow.
Seepage th�ough saprolite and bedrock
/ ' / � j / ' �
.
� � /
/
� � ./'Well ,/, � / �/ RAIN � � �
. /
, , / / �
0 o v � ,' , � i .
O o�oo o .o o / / , � / / '� /
� �
d� ° ° /
o'� � � � � �
� o �' `i. Q � � �
Ta bl
/
Froctures
. O a � , / ' ; /
�TO� � '
o , � ,' � , � � /
� , i
8 Qe � � � ,
� �
� Sqp• � � Overland Flow
9F� \/r�c • /
O �
Roc � °. � Well � / �
� �o o � ,
.�
o • � —a �
o � Water Table
O .� • .
o.
o ° o °
o �y e
� � o � � ° � • °
Casing � �p� ao �
o a °
� d � � e
\ \ �� Y �
Hole
Runoff conditions during sTorms
�Seepaqe through surface litter and soil zone.
Seepage through lower part of saprolite and bedrock.
�
Geophyslcal Cross-sectton Showing Idealized Runoif Conditions. EXHIBIT 3.5

`J
,
�
,
,
,
'
'
�J
'
'
'
�
,
. '
'
'
�
'
3.6.6 Topography, Geology, and Soils
Topography - Watauga County lies within the Blue Ridge
physiographic province in the broadened inter-valley of the South
Fork New River drainage basin and is bordered by the river on the
east and south.15 The project area is generally characterized by
moderately rolling uplands with localized steep slopes. Small
areas of nearly flat terrain are present in the lower elevations
at the east and west boundaries.
Elevation averages approximately 3,200 feet above sea level. The
highest peak contiguous to the study area lies to the north and
rises 3,640 feet above sea level. The lowest point, located at
the westernmost portion of the study area, is at Elevaton 3150.
Geology - Land within the vicinity of the study area is underlain
by a layer of disintegrated (weathered) rock referred to as "sap-
rolite" or "residuum" and bedrock that is a lower unit of the
Grandfather Mountain Window geologic group.16 Well logs indicate
that saprolite depth varies from a few inches to approximately 50
feet. Positioned 2 to 3 miles north of the inactive Grandfather
Mountain fault line, the area's bedrock is broken in an intricate
network of fractures, as represented on Exhibit 3.5. The
dominant rock type is Cranberry granite gniess, which is
intermixed and interlaid with hornblende gneiss, mica gneiss, and
mica schist.l�
3-29

The Blue Ridge province is underlain by a complex assemblage of
metamorphic and igneous rock types. As a result of the variable
nature of lithologies within the province, compositions,
textures, and structural features of mineral assemblages are
heterogeneous and anisotropic. Boundary transitions between rock
types are generally not well defined.l$ A geologic map of the
region is shown on Exhibit 3.7. There are no known major active
faults within the province, and the seismic activity of the study
area is low.
Soils - Soils in the study corridors for US Route 421 between
Boone and the South Fork New River have been mapped into six soil
series: Halewood, Porters, Perkinsville, Tusquitee, Hatboro, and
Chewacla.l9
The Halewood series is the most prevalent and comprises approxi-
mately 40 percent of the study area. These soils are found on
the tops and sides of mountains, ridges, and hills at elevations
up to 4000 feet. They are residuum of'granite and low micaceous�
acid schist and gneiss. Halewood soils are classified as
moderately drained, moderately permeable, strongly acidic, and
with medium to high surface runoff. Erosion potential is
moderate if unprotected.
Porters series soils represent approximately 60 percent of the
study area north of US 421 and 10 percent of that area south of
US 421. Porters soils are residuum of the same weathered, low
3-30

micaceous igneous and metamorphic rocks as the Halewood series,
and to some extent hornblende gneiss, hornblende schist, diorite,
and metadiabase.
Characteristics of Porters and Halewood soils are very similar,
mainly differing in the more friable medium-texture of the
Porters' subsoil. Due to this very friable subsoil, which has a
high capacity for absorbing water, Porters soils are less
erodible. Erodibility is slight to moderate for unprotected
slopes with less than 30 percent grade.
An estimated 45 percent of the area south of US 421 consists of
soils from the Perkinsville series. These soils are derived by
disintegration of the same bedrock as the Halewood series and
differ mainly in color, being more yellow. The surface soil
contains some rock fragments (mostly quartz), and the subsoil
contains a few partly decayed rock fragments up to 2 inches in
diameter. Perkinsville soils are moderately erodible when not
protected by vegetation or other means of erosion control.
Tusquitee soils are present in two small areas traversed by all
corridors� These colluvial soils occur adjacent to areas of
Porters and Halewood soils on the foot slopes of mountains and
hills, from which they have washed. They are moderately well
drained and have medium to� strong natural acidity. Surface
runoff is medium to low, with a slight hazard of erosion on
steeper, unprotected slopes.
3-31

Hatboro loam is found in the stream bottoms of Hardin Creek and
its feeder branches. Formed from young alluvial material, its
texture ranges from loam through loamy fine sand to gravel, and
its organic matter content is medium to low. Surface runoff is
low, with slow internal drainage.
A stream bed roughly paralleling the existing US 421 highway west
from the South Fork New River consists of Chewacla loam.
Occurring on nearly level alluvial flood plains, this soil
consists of material originating chiefly from gneiss, schist, and
granite. Surface runoff and internal drainage are slow.
Substratum may consist of sand, gravel, or cobbles. Above the
water table, permeability is moderate to moderately rapid.
3.6.7 Hazardous Waste
Disruption of hazardous waste sites during roadway construction
could have a detrimental effect on surface water, ground water,
soils, vegetation, wildlife, human health, and human welfare.
Hazardous waste is generally defined as any waste material that
has or, when combined with other materials, will have a dele-
terious effect on people or the environment. Characterized as
either reactive, toxic, infectious, flammable, explosive,
corrosive, or radioactive, hazardous wastes may be solids,
sludges, liquids, or gases. Potential hazardous waste sites
include landfills, dumps,
storage tanks.
pits, lagoons, salvage areas, and
3-32
,

�I
' The following sources were used to identify potential hazardous
' waste sites within the study area:
- Field inspection and evaluation of existing land use.
' - Aerial photographs and topographic maps.
' - Local representatives of agencies responsible for pollution
control, hazardous material regulation, and public safety.
, - Records of state and, local agencies regarding hazardous
material use and disposal.
' - Government publications of known hazardous waste sites.
, North Carolina's hazardous waste management program is primarily
directed by the state's Department of Human Resources (DHR),
' Division of Health Services - Solid and Hazardous Waste Manage-
' ment Branch. Other agencies consulted in the identification
process were the Town of Boone's public utilities and fire
� departments and a local waste management company.
' One known and three potential hazardous waste sites are located
within the study area. The name, address, and a brief
' description of each are given in Table 3.13; Exhibit 3.8 shows
the locations of the sites. All are sites of storage tanks for
�petroleum products. Underground and aboveground tanks used for
' petroleum product storage are not generally considered signifi-
cant hazardous waste sites; however, hydrocarbon contamination of
' soil and ground water can result from leakage or spills at these
locations.
'
'
3-33
'

�
H ��
H >+
� 3�
� �
`� � rn
� �a
H � �
� �
�z
H
x
W H
� 3
�
O
.,�
�
�
v
C
O
z
�
c
a�
E
�
� �
v a� v
'U � C
� � 2
� �
C C
2 z
� � � � � �
(n H � H ] H
b•� b ro•� ro ro
° a�'i � ° a�i � a�.,
� � � � � � �
O � 3 � � 3 � �
� .�'u � � � v .�'u .�'u
�� a � �'., c�' � a c'
� � o � � o �° c
� a
A °`� c �.°, s.°, b c ° s°�
tr o tr o� o tn �+
a�', ,� �+ a�', x a�', + a�, x � x�
� � � �� �� � �� ��
�
.� . .� N
� rn �
•� •� �
x � ,� cn
v a,
� o � o � c
� v'�i � � v� x
a w � w � �
� � �
�d� �� s,
� � d� v d� � `n a;
..��. 3 � c� � 3 � N
ia
� •� O �
•� .fLS.�i �4 U �-�I �
zv°'i �n c� a�'i t!� a ;�
C •� N Vl C � U�
U� a•�-Ui p•� p t'�� r-roi b
1.�i b � S�.i �� U E� � E�
v�v� Ct+v�] 3c] �U QU
�
N
� �—I N c'7 d' tfl
�
3-34

� � � � � � � � m � � � � � � � � � �

'
' This survey of potential hazardous waste sites within the study
, area may not be all-inclusive. Pre-existing and illegal dump
sites may be undocumented and lack surficial evidence to
' determine their existence. Any additional hazardous waste sites
identified during the public and agency review process will be
' considered in the selection of recommended alternatives and
, incorporated in the Final EIS.
3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES
r
The flora and fauna study was conducted by an ecological team
' using records search, field review, and determination of land use
using aerial photographs. The team's inventory of natural
' systems is included in the report US Route 421 Flora and Fauna
' Inventory and General Overview appended by reference.20 The
following is a report summarization.
'
' 3.7.1 Flora Survey
' The vegetation within the proposed project area is a mixture of
three general types: urban plantings, pasture land and open
, fields, and small secondary growth forests. The secondary growth
forests are composed of agricultural coniferous plantings, pine
' forests of various ages, and mixed hardwood stands of varying
' composition and age. There are no tracts of virgin woodland or
wetland in the project area. Floral species that are endangered,
' threatened, or that deserve special attention were not
encountered.
'
' 3-35

3.7.2 Fauna Survey
Much of the project area has been disturbed by man's activities;
however, the biological requirements necessary to sustain
wildlife populations (food, shelter, and water) are available.
The Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) and the cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridenus) were observed in the area. Other
mammalian species reported to be in the area, including big game
species, were not observed. Avian species observed were the
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottis), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), cardinal
(Richmondea cardinalis), robin (Turdus migratorius), and turtle
dove (Zanaidura macroura). Other non-game birds were heard, but
were not observed.
None of the reptiles or amphibians believed to exist in the
Pisgah National Forest, or its immediate environs, was observed
in the project area. A field study of fish in the South Fork New
River was n,ot conducted for this study. However, in prior
studies conducted on the New River and its tributaries, 3
species of trout, 16 species of minnow, 2 species of suckers, 5
species of sunfish, 4 species of darters, and 2 species of
sculpin were identified. None of these species are considered
endangered, threatened, or of spe.cial concern; however, all
efforts should be made to maintain undisturbed the
state-supported fishery of Ambloplites rupestris and Micropterus
dolomieui that exists in the South Fork New River.
3-36

3.7.3 Wetlands
Wetlands are important natural resources that benefit the total
physical environment. Potential functions of wetlands include
habitat for wildlife, recharge areas for ground water, inter-
ception and mineralization of organic runoff, hydraulic baffling
and mediation of downstream currents, and sedimentation of
turbidity in runoff waters.
The definition of wetlands is given in Executive Order 11991,
Section 7(c):
The term "wetlands" means those areas that are
inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency
sufficient to support and under normal circumstances
does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or
aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally
saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows,
river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.
The DNRCD has classified wetlands as areas having hydric or
� predominantly hydric soils. Hatboro loam and Kinkora loam are
1 classified as hydric �soils. Hatboro loam is conjunctive to
Hardin Creek at the western edge of the project corridor;
, however, this area is in commercial use. Alternative B crosses
an area of Kinkora loam less than 1 acre in size, which is
� presently in residential use. Other potential wetlands areas are
� adjacent to the South Fork New River; however, these areas have
been converted to row cropping and pasture land.
�
1
�J
3-37

3.7.4 Prime and Important Farmlands
Prime and important farmlands are identified by the following
soil types provided by the Watauga County Soil and Water
Conservation Service of the USDA: Evard .(formerly Halewood),
Porters, Ineyville (formerly Perkinsville), Tusquitee, and
Kinkora.21 Exhibit 3.9 shows portions of the study area
representative of these soils. Most of the study area is
classified by soil type as prime or important farmland; however,
existing urban, commercial, and industrial development of the
area precludes agricultural use. Current agricultural production
is limited to Christmas tree farming on the hills south of US
421.
3.7.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild river areas are defined as "rivers or sections of rivers
that are free of impoundments, and generally inaccessible except
by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and
unpolluted." Scenic river areas are defined as "rivers or
sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines
or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely
undeveloped but accessible in places by roads." According to
officials at the DNRCD, there are no state or federally
designated wild and scenic rivers in Watauga County.
3-38

� � � � � � � � m � � � � � � � � � i

�I
1
�
CHAPTER 3
REFERENCES
1. Watauga County Planning Implementation Policies, 1988,
' Watauga County Planning Board.
2. Ibid.
, 3.
t 4.
East Charlotte Outer Loop Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Greiner Engineering, 1987.
Watauga County Airport Master Plan Study, The LPA Group,
August, 1987.
' 5. North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract,
Research and Planning Services, North Carolina Office of
State Budget and Management, Fifth Edition, 1984; and North
1 Carolina Office of State Budget and Management - 1985 County
Population Estimate.
'
�
1
LJ
,
t
6. Ibid.
7. Memorandum to Nate Benson from the Environmental Unit, State
of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, September
30, 1981.
8. An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed US Route
421 Improvement, Archaeological Research Consultants, 1989.
Historic Structure Survey and Evaluation Report for US Route
421 Environmental Impact Statement, Margaret Long
Stephenson, 1989.
9. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Map of Watauga County,
North Carolina, 1948-51, Sheet 25.
10. M. D. Winner, Jr., An Observation-Well Network Concept as
Applied to North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations 81-13, 1981, Page 24.
11. P. A. Erickson� Environmental Impact Assessment, Academic
' Press, Inc., 1979, Page 151.
1
�
CJ
'
12. H. E. LeGrand, "Chemical Character of Water in the Igneous
and Metamorphic Rocks of North Carolina," Economic Geology
5_3:2, March-April, 1958, Page 179.
13. USGS and NCDWR, Geology and Ground Water Resources of the
Morganton Area, North Carolina, 1967, Page 5.
3-39

14. USGS, Water Resources Data for North Carolina, 1987, Water-
Data Report NC-87-1, Page 501.
15. USGS and NCDWR, Geology and Ground Water Resources of the
Morganton Area, North Carolina, 1967, Page 5.
16. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development,
Geologic Map of North Carolina, 1958.
17. Ibid.
18. USGS and NCDWR, Geology and Ground Water Resources of the
Morganton Area, North Carolina, 1967, Page 9.
19. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Map of Watauga County,
North Carolina, 1948-51, Sheet 25.
�
1
'
'
'
'
20. US Route 421 Flora and Fauna Inventor and General Overview, '
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., June, 1989.
21. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Map of Watauga County�
North Carolina, 1948-51, Sheet 25.
3-40

3" � .
" "f .�

'
,
'
4.1 LAND USE
'
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
�
Using information discussed in Section 3.2 and aerial photographs
' at a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet, an approximation of the
number of acres by land use type required for each alternative's
' right-of-way was calculated and is shown in Table 4.1.
C�'
C
1
,
'
�
4.1.1 Economics
The improvement of US 421 will have the following economic
effects:
- Increase construction-related employment.
- Eliminate some property tax role lands.
- Alter property values.
- Reduce travel costs due to a safer and less congested
roadway.
' All of the alternatives will have a positive employment impact.
Construction costs for the improvement construction of US 421
' from NC 194 to just west of the South Fork New River ranges from
$2,603,000 to $4,553,000. Using a common multiplier of three
' times the initial construction cost, the improvement of US 421
' will contribute aetween $7.8 million and $13.6 million in
additional income over the life of the pro�ect.
'
1
'
4-1

TABLE 4.1
EXISTING LAND USE BY
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT
LAND USE TYPE (BY ACRE)
Open Field/Pasture
Developed�l�
Utilities
Natural
ALTERNATIVE
A B E
4.2 6.1 1.9
6.0 5.4 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.9 0.4 0.4
(1) Includes both commercial and residential.
4-2

LJ
1
'
'
'
'
L��
'
'
,
LJ
'
�
'
'
'
,
'
'
Property values could increase or decrease. Residential
properties adjacent to the improved road that experience
increased noise levels or negative visual impacts will probably
decrease in value. Commercial and industrial properties adjacent
to the new roadway should rise in value, however, due to their
increased accessibility.
4.1.2 Relocations
Relocations and displacements will be necessary under all of the
alternatives; however, the estimated number of displacees is
different for each, as shown in Table 4.2. Alternative A should
result in the fewest family and business displacements, while the
other two alternatives will require about the same number of
displacees of both families and businesses. Alternative E will
have an estimated gravesite displacement of apporoximately 100.
A detailed Relocation Report is included in Appendix B.
The NCDOT has determined that adequate residential and business
property is available to relocate those displaced and offers
several programs designed to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation. Under the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced
NCDOT staff would provide displacees with information on
availability and cost of homes, apartments, and businesses for
sale, as well as financing and other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses incurred during relocation.
4-3

TABLE 4. 2
RELOCATION REPORT
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DISPLACEES
ALTERNATIVE TYPE OF DISPLACEE
Families Businesses Total
A 10 3 13
B 23 6 29
E 24 4 28
. .

'
LJ
.'
�J
'
'
'
'
.'
CI'
'
,
'
'
l_�
,
,
'
'
Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or
rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement, the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate owners who are eligible and
qualify up to $4,000.
When families cannot be relocated within their financial means,
and/or cost of replacement housing falls outside these limits,
the law provides for Last Resort Housing. This program allows
broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
safe, decent, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not believed that this program will be necessary.
The gravesite relocations will be handled by officials with the
NCDOT staff. A search will be conducted to locate family members
of those buried in each gravesite and a suitable relocation will
be found.
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.2.1 Schools
The only school close to any of the corridors, Hardin Fork
Elementary School, would not be impacted by any of the
alternatives.
4-5

4.2.2 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
Section 4(f) is not required of an exclusively North Carolina
State funded project such as this. Regardless, none of the
alternatives will require the use of any park, wildlife refuge,
or recreational land as defined in Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S.
Department of Transportation Act, as amended.
4.3 UTILITIES
4.3.1 Electric Power
All alternatives cross the transmission lines that run north-
south through the project area, and minimal impacts are expected.
Utility relocation is included in the costs estimated in Section
2.4.
4.3.2 Water and Sewer
All alternatives cross areas now served by both water and sewer
lines. Utility relocation is included in the costs estimated in
Section 2.4.
4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES
No existing mines or sites favorable for mining of any mineral
resource are known. If, however, an underground mine were
encountered during construction, a detailed survey and
investigation should be conducted to determine proper abandonment
techniques.
4-6

'
' 4.5 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
' 4.5.1 Noise
, A preliminary noise analysis was conducted to determine existing
and anticipated noise levels and possible mitigation measures for
' sites exceeding the noise abat�ment criteria. This analysis
was conducted using the methodology outlined in Title 23 of the
' Code of Federal Regulations.l
' Noise Abatement Criteria - Noise abatement criteria guidelines
' are established by the FHWA and are shown in Table 4.3. These
levels represent the upper limits of acceptable noise conditions
' and are applicable to places of regular human activity, not to an
entire tract of land upon which a particular activity is based.
' Exceptions include areas where serenity and quiet are considered
' essential even though the areas may not be subject to frequent
human use. An area is said to be adversely affected if a
' predicted noise level is within 2 adjusted decibels (dBA) of the
criteria established in Table 4.3, or if the predicted noise
' impact is equal to or exceeds the existing noise level by 15 dBA.
' Existing Noise Levels - Noise measurements were taken at 12 sites
within the existing corridor using standard data collection
' techniques outlined by the FHWA.2 The sites chosen represent a
' mixture of rural, residential, and commercial areas. Exhibit 4.1
shows these noise monitoring locations.
,
�
'
4-7

�
H
a
w
H
H
M U
d' E1
z
ww
�w
H �
ao
�
W
�
H
0
z
�
0
�
N
�
ro
V
?
+�
.,i
�
.,-i
�
U
�
w
0
c
0
.r.,
�
C!,
.,1
L
U
m
a�
A
L
�
v
a
�
+� �
•� o
�
•ri �
1-1 J-J
U b
� U
� a, ro v� � c �
s, �, a, +� v� -� m
�vs� �v �
�.� ro o� � o
•� 3 na � v o
� � � � � �
L r� � � � U
o � � v ,� ,� �n
Sa � 4a � U V
� � � •.i C
J-� � • � Ul
v v� ro� �, o •
c .ro o o � �
`�-' � • ' .� [ a
�•�a�iu�i '�� � [i,
�,�mo 0
� A cn C)., � � •� •'"� �r
� N s.i 0 U] � '�'� •r-t
O�
i+ •� N
a� � �;' •� ��
a..i � • rd
'� rd O �
•� � �� �,� � ��
tJ' s-i ''i � � rt1
p +� � � vl S.r .Q
� •'i .4-� UI rl O � �
���� roa, a�n
c .'., ro •� a� � r,
b a �, o � , �s
� ay u� ro e �, � �.,
� r� � .,�� . '�' � �
=� U� p U� Ul � � � U)
O 41
v .,�vr, �v o0
� � .c � „ � ro Q, � ,� ,�
�u��, �c� o0
s.� � � � � .,� � � ,
v�wm �,z3a �,ro ��n
� O V •� Ul • � �
O � c!� O c� U] '� •rt
� C� 1� � N.� � Z3 v�
O S.i � � C � rtf
.�b•�v , � 'ao ro �s�
� � � c � � �.Q
�a,roc ��nro roa •�
3 � � •,� b x ,-+ � , �,
C S.� -t� � S.a � U] N U]
�rovc �ra�n �a, a a� �
p U U] O b L2, N �•� O D U1
•�-i N U •� f2, l.i � C N
4-I S.� U� L O O � N.�
Ul •�-I Cl, O •� U� rt1 �—I O� � Z3 U
'i7 G +� C N Sa N N � •� L
C�� U N 1i �+� ''� Ul �
b•� � m •�+ s.� •� o� ro c v.�
a �n�•� a ro� Q� � a �
s, i.� i, � s.�
O O O I O
•'-I •�-1 • r-I � • r-I
�J L! S.J � �!
v a� v i w
� � � i �
>C k >C I C
fs7 W W I H
v v ...i � ..,i
I
l� l� N N
� � � �
� a1 U A W
i ;
�
b
�
C N
b �
E �
�
E
r� �
�rn
�
o .0
� �
a �
rn
�a
b�
3
� �
��
•r�l �
x c+�
��
•.i rtl
� �
�
r-� •ri
ro �
�, � .
a, c
� ro
a, �,
wH
a�
U
%-1
�
O
�

N
W W
� �
N N
C�3 J
Z W
� �
O W
�,,, J
Z W
O N
� o
W Z
N �
� 0 W
W Z F-
�, a
W Z J
J W �
V
m J
� Q
Q C)
o � N�
- -- -- -- — -- --- — 0
` '
� �• �
e.. � �� f• �—� `� �
7 �
�• �
I
� � �
��/� ° � ��%i� �
N
�
- N
LL�
� � I
/
�'
' � I . e
/ •
i
,
r �
' L[7 .
00. • �,
�.
�
�
e, ".. �..s�
' .. �a., C.O�
�
�.. �
.. � CY _'� LC]
�-.. l � :•(,p..
n � �
. M._
e
.
_` '
1"�
� �
�r^�
vJ�
i%�
w
� r
� d'
E-
� m
Z =
� X
O W
�
Z
�
W
�
�
Z
o �N �o � o �'� ::�.:�: � �
� � :: : .::::::.:. ::' ����;�:�
� � M M I:i::�:`.iii[i:::" Cp
N � ..�::::::.: �
_ � � .: ����;.�.: •r" ,.,��..�����
� � 1 °�°�� /
d � .�: •�
� � .`.:��rr:. ii.'j?::1 Z W
W � '�..:�. � �
L.L � ':.�.'� Q U
��::+.. ' _• .
�..'.M � :C�`.�
� � /� �"�.�„ �f'ii.t;.. � '•`r:�i�
OO r:;:.;>�irl::::::?.�.:::.'.'.!�:!�..�._ ��
— �'..... ... . .. ... �. �.'.'��.'�� � `i�:..i.�
...•�:.�''�':.':�:-ii::,..::�.'_';'.',?:'j.:.i.'.;...!ir'::;.';::�.�:�:_:.i�.:..:: :�i.�•.�,::.It�';'• V �
Q // � ... �QQ-J � o�� ' :{:' ;.r:�
a � :.•:.:.:
U 1..;.::: z � �, �:;�
� ��.• • O � N � Q ..:.:+
: ;�
a � p� r,s;�
�':?>;, o� g� . �
/ z>:`r.` ' \�c�
�� "` '" � pQ`� pQ`� : �:�
�:: : . ' _ � �` r� ': :�;:;i�.
�� ��
O I.7:r` � :
/:i:;:'` ��v � :::`<?`.��
/�:::`: � :�.''`�
� :. .
�� ..
� /�:�:;::::.
� �
v :::�::
:LS 3�Oa O � :`.:.��.•;;�
/:.::;:: � 2 Z �`�
/..:;::;:.`: �n v QQ :� :�1
f:_?:::;�-�. O
' •�'` Ns S�� � � � o :. ::�
�
f� PERK� �
4.`: �..': � `
� � `.;� :1
,`�.' :�::: —.. pR.
�:�: : .: . . � HI LL
l�:::;:`:.. ��L
� N
�'...... u' d .'..:;`.�
`� � o
0� ,':`:�'�..: CECIL �N rN � ':..`•:::I
� �a �W S
�:::�.:: � O � ;`:;I
1:::;.;�.::::: W ::�1
Y�:�::.. � :�:::�
;::�: Z
~����`��`� o .:�:�
U;;:::;:. � �
�:�::::: s�. `�:1
�?.;:.::. cN�s.�N � ��'`i
� � � � � � � ! � � � � � � � � � o �

The descrip�or selected for noise monitoring and a�alysis of
potential noise impacts is the hourly equivalent sound level
(Leq) that in one hour would contain the same acoustic energy as
the time-varying sound level during the same period. This
measurement of Leq is based on energy averaged, A-weighted
decibels of dBA. Measured noise levels ranged from 46.5 to 73
Leq, as shown in Table 4.4. The three highest Leq sites--30, 38,
and 52--are located along existing US 421. The quietest area
measured was Site 59, which is located far from any major
roadway.
Generalized Future Traffic Noise Levels - The impact of each
proposed alternative, as well as the No-Build Alternative, was
determined by comparing probable future traffic noise levels with
existing noise levels using approprxate FHWA noise abatement
criteria for receptors along each project. The computer program
STAMINA/OPTIMA 2.0 was used to predict future noise levels.3
This information is shown in Table 4.5.
' The 67- and 72-dBA noise level contour, which is established by
the FHWA as the maximum Leq value for residences an� commercial
' property, respectively, was determined for each alternative for
the design year. The predicted extent of the 67-dBA noise level
' contour for each alternative is approximately 155 feet from the
, roadway centerline. The predicted extent of the 72-dBA noise
level contour for each alternative is approximately 80 feet from
, the roadway centerline.
,
' 4-9

m
+�
c
a�
�
W
�
ra
�
�
a
c
�
c
O
.,1
�
a
.r.,
s� s,
a� a� v o
c c
b ro �, a �
� r--� N •� b
f]a CL 3 � s.i
�+ s+ O U +�
�C � C Z3 �
3 O s�
� �C rt7 O rtJ
c� � a � w
�
�,
m .�
J-� U
v s,
� �
v �
U U
� �
ro m
-� .,�
� �
�+ �+ o n,
fZ U
£ N � GQ
� C� � �-1 �-I � �—I � � U] �
� rd rd rt � � r� C r[S � ?� rt
U) N •� •� •r-t -� b •� C 3 •� rd Li •�
� +� +� .0 � �� +� c ro +� •.� o �
� •�+ c � c c � c H a c u �, c
H cn a� v a� v �, v v s, v
� � z3 � ra v � o +� zs a� m ro
r� •� •�, •� •�, � •� c c •� � v •�
�n m �n cn � �n o � m E s� �n
c� v v v v o a� u o v o � v
d�z a a a a � a w � x � H rx
• H
� �i
�
W H
�.] H • r(j •-•
W 2 +� N x I I I I ul I �l � I I tc� I
� o �n v a i i i i �r i � � i i �r i
H � w a�
� --
w
�
H
O O N
z v +� c
U rd
c� c+� a o i o o i i o i
z r� a� i i i i �o i r� �n i i �n i
H �, v �, ,-,
E-+ u� �, b
v� •� a�
H A cz
�c •�
w
s x I i � i i �n i c� �n i i � i
�
�
0
�> Ei I � i � � d' � � d� � � d� �
� E I I I I � I � � I I � I
ia N
� �
O U
� •� r-I Ol a0 Ol
�� I I I I M I d' d' I I N I
N tc1 �l' d' iCl
}
� � �n �n �n u� �n tn �n Lrl
� . . . . . . . .
a o M o � rn � c.i rn ao N M �
� � � � � � � � � � � �
a�
J-1 tn tI1 �--I Ci' O l0 CO N Lfl l� N dl
•rl '—I N N M c'� M � � [r tc1 �c1
U�
4-10
,
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
�
,
'
,
'
'
,
'
,
'
,

,
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
r
,
'
'
Activity/
Receptor Land Use
1 Commercial
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
5,
58
59
60
61
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
NCDOT
Cemetery
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Cemetery
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Church
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
TABLE 4.5
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Alternatives
Ambient Alternative Alternative Alternative
Exterior No Build A g g
� -------------------------- Leq ------------------------------)
69.3 69.3 68.4 68.7 69.3
73.3
67.9
72
63.2
60.6
61.3
71.1
74.2
71.7
76.9
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
60.5
60.5
74.8
77.5
60.5
60.5
69
73.9
66.5
55
55
55
65
71.1
74.7
59.7
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
62.6
71
74.9
66.5
64
67.6
86
74.3
58.5
58.5
62.5
79.9
58.5
79.6
58.5
75.9
77.4
79.1
68.7
58.5
58.5
60.5
46.5
69.5
69.5
67.3
@ 73.3
67.9
@ 72
63.2
60.6
61.3
@ 71.1
@ 74.2
@ 71.7
@ 76.9
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
60.5
60.5
@ 74.8
@ 77.5
60.5
60.5
@ 69
@ 73.9
@ 66.5
57
57
57
@ 65
@ 71.1
@ 74.7
59.7
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
62.6
@ 71
@ 74.9
@ 66.5
64
@ 67.6
@ 86
@ 74.3
58.5
58.5
62.5
@ 79.9
58.5
@ 79.6
58.5
@ 75.9
@ 77.4
@ 79.1
@ 68.7
58.5
58.5
60.5
46.5
@ 71.1
@ 77.5
@ 72
--- Receptor will be taken in Right-of-Way aquisition
@ Exceeds or approaches noise abatement criteria
# Exceeds ambient noise levels by 15 dBA
4-11
@ 71.1
68.8
@ 68.3
@ 65.4
@ 68.4
63.8
63.6
61.9
@ 65.2
@ 75.3
@ 65.2
@ 68.2
64
62.3
61.5
59.8
61.1
60.7
61.4
57.7
57.8
@ 66.5
@ 52.3
@ 52.3
52.3
@ 65
56.5
57.8
60.9
@ 68.2
@ 68.8
@ 70.5
@ 66.1
@ 65
60.5
59.3
@ 66.5
64
58.8
@ 65.8
62.2
SB.S
58.5
@ 70.1
@ 70.4
58.5
@ 73.1
58.5
@ 74
@ 77.4
@ 79.1
@ 68.7
58.5
58.5
@ 73.5
46.5
56.5
61.1
@ 78.1
@ 70.2
@ 70.1
64.6
61.5
62.2
@ 68.5
@ 78.2
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
60.5
60.5
@ 74.8
60.5
60.5
59.9
59.8
59.6
@ 76.4
@ 71.6
63.3
57.4
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
55.1
58.2
59
63.4
62.9
57.6
@ 65.8
58.4
63
@ 68.6
62.5
60.1
64.1
60.7
58.3
62.5
@ 66
@ 68.7
@ 65.7
62.0
60.5
59.4
@ 71.6
@ 74.8
@ 73.3
67.9
@ 72
63.2
60.6
61.2
@ 71.1
@ 74.2
@ 71.7
@ 76.9
63.5
63.5
63.5
63.5
60.5
60.5
@ 74.7'
60.5
60.5
@ 68.4
@ 73
@ 66.5
57
57
57
@ 65
@ 74.2
59.4
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
62.2
@ 70.8
@ 74.5
@ 66.5
63.8
@ 67.1
@ 86
58.5
58.5
62.5
58.5
@ 79.6
58.5
@ 75.9
@ 79.1
@ 68.7
58.5
58.5
60.5
46_5

Noise Impact Analysis - The two major land uses most affected by
noise in Design Year 2008 are residential and commercial. As
shown in Table 4.5, each receptor is identified by land use
activity and compared to the noise abatement criteria established
for the different land use activities.
Those receptors that exceed their respective noise abatement
criteria are identified in Table 4.5. By Design Year 2008 under
a no-build scenario, approximately 29 receptors would experience
a noise level in excess of the noise abatement criteria, as shown
in Table 4.6. The majority of receptors that exceed the noise
abatement criteria for all of the construction alternatives would
a.lso exceed those criteria under the No-Build Alternative. In
some instances, there would even be a reduction in the predicted
noise levels under the construction alternatives.
The following preliminary evaluation of various noise abatement
measures was conducted with respect to the proposed alignment
alternatives using federal guidelines on noise abatement:
* Noise Barriers - The use of noise barriers appears to be
impractical at all locations for the following reasons:
- 90-foot right-of-way
- Partial access control
- Commercial sites lining US 421
- Impact on site distance, drainage, access, and future
development.
However, once the final alignment is chosen, the use of noise
barriers will be reexamined.
4-12

�
W
H
�
£
H
N
� �
. Crj
d'
W
w rx
a�
w cn
�C O
Ha
x
W
W
�
H
�
z
�
� �
� U dl [� tf') rl
JJ rd N N �-1 N
O
Ei E
H
Ul fd
Ul 41 •�
v � s,
+� Ul U v
-� � ro �
�n a, o •�, �
vs��,
'a U CL U
� SC Q,
� W �C FC
U 3
� � x
Q. o w
�
H
W
O
N
� � �
� (� r�-1
.f� N �
E L � a)
� U v S-i
z � a o
H �
�
� C S.i
ro v o
.r., .r.,
���
C E W
RJ�`D
�
U] Sa t11
�a v �
� �
�n o
�
�
.r.,
�
�
c
s�
v
�
�
�
rn � � �
N N �--I N
i
I O O O
i
� w w
v v v
� � �
.r., .r., .�,
� � � �
� b b �
•� c c c
� s, s.� s,
04 a� a� a�
i +� � +�
o � � �
z � � �
4-13

* Acquisition and Relocation - Acquisition (fee simple or
easement) and relocation in impacted areas for noise abatement
shall be examined after the selection of the recommended
alignment. Roadway alignment development is planned to
prevent or minimize the necessity of these actions.
* Land Use Controls - One of the most effective noise abate-
ment measures is proper land use controls. Once an alignment
is selected, local jurisdictions should limit the growth of
noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed roadway
using setback requirements, building codes, and zoning.
4.5.2 Air Quality
An air quality assessment was made to determine the air emissions
associated with existing US 421 and/or improvements. Motor
vehicles are known to emit CO, NO, hydrocarbons (HC), TSP, 502,
and Pb (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Different
assessment procedures are required for each of these pollutants.
Carbon Monoxide - Two concentration components make up the CO
levels: background and local. The background component is due
to CO emissions from cars on other streets or other sources. The
local component is due to CO emissions from automobiles on the
study highway. In the absence of site-specific or recent actual
measurement of background CO, default CO concentrations were used
as directed by officials at the DNRCD. These background CO
values were added to the calculated local one-hour and eight-hour
4-14

'
�
e
�
�
�
'
'
�
,
�
�
�'
�
'
,� �
'
1
,
CO results. The one-hour and eight-hour background CO
conceritrations used are 2.0 parts per million (ppm) and 1.5 ppm,
respectively.
An indirect source analysis was used to calculate local CO
concentrations. This analysis was conducted first on the worst-
case scenario, the location that has the highest traffic volumes
for all of the alternatives. The premise of this approach is
that local CO concentrations elsewhere along the project corridor
will be lower when compared to this potential worst-case
scenario. The indirect source analysis was performed in
accordance with guidelines issued by the DNRCD.4 The analysis
was conducted at the locations of highest estimated average daily
traffic under both no-build and construction scenarios for Design
Year 2008.
Receptors of CO concentrations were taken at the rights-of-way
boundaries. Two receptors at each side of the right-of-way,
which is 45 feet from the center of the road, were used as
measurements for the alternative construction corridors. The
No-Build Alt2rnative's two receptors were located at the existing
rights-of-way, which are 50 feet on each side of the centerline
of the existing road. The dispersion of CO for both the no-build
and alternative construction corridors was simulated using the
FHWA CALINE4 line source dispersion model.5 Input parameters
provided by officials at the DNRCD are summarized in Table 4.7.
4-15

TABLE 4.7
DATA PARAMETERS FOR USE IN THE INDIRECT SOURCE
DISPERSION ANALYSIS MODELING
Model Parameters
MOBILE3 Region
Tapering rate
Inspection/Maintenance
Ambient temperatures
Vehicle mix
Vehicle speeds
CALINE4 Stability class
Surface roughness
Wind speed
Wind direction
Mixing height
Receptor height
Receptor locations
Persistence factors
Link traffic volumes
Background concentration
One hour
Eight hour
Settling and Deposition
Velocity
4-16
Value
Low altitude
No input
None
26° F
Default
50 mph
F
125 cm
1 meter/second
0°-350° @ 10° intervals
400 meters
1.5 meters
Rights-of-way �
0.75
Peak hours
2.0 ppm
1.5 ppm
�

Motor vehicle emission rates were computed using the MOBILE3
emissions model developed by the U.S. EPA.6 Input parameters
received from officials at the DNRCD are also shown in Table 4.7.
The analysis was conducted under simulated worst-case
meteorological condition, including low wind speed, stable
non-mixing atmosphere, and low ambient temperature.
The computer simulation of future traffic and meteorological
conditions was conducted for peak one-hour conditions. To
account for the variation in traffic and meteorological
conditions over time, a persistence factor was used to convert
the worst-case, one-hour resul�ts to the corresponding worst-case,
eight-hour results. A one-hour to eight-hour persistence factor
of 0.75 was used for this purpose as dictated by the DNRCD.
Table 4.8 presents the one-hour CO concentration results of the
worst-case scenario for both the no-build and construction
alternative alignment corridors. As shown in Table 4.8, neither
the no-build nor the alternative alignment corridors' highest
one-hour CO concentration exceeds the AAQS for CO (35 ppm), as
shown on Table 3.11. Thus, based on these data, neither the
one-hour nor eight-hour AAQS is likely to be exceeded at any
point along any of the corridors throughout the design year.
Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides - Automobiles are generally
regarded as significant sources of HC and N0. HC and NO emitted
from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with
sunlight to form 03 and NO2. It is the resulting 03 and NO2 that
are of concern.
4-17

TABLE 4.8
ESTIMATED WORST CASE ONE-HOUR AND EIGHT-HOUR
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENT?ATIONS
No-Build Alternative
One-Hour Eight-Hour
Receptor (ppm) (ppm)
1 5.2 3.2
2 5.4 3.4
AAQS for CO:
One-Hour 35 ppm
Eight-Hour 9 ppm
. �
Alternative Alignment
Corridor (Build)
One-Hour Eight-Hour
�APm) �PPm)
3.6 2.6
3.9 2.8

Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to
decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. No
appreciable changes in area HC and NO automotive emissions are
expected with either the no-build or alternative alignment
corridors. Watauga County and the Town of Boone are unclassified
for 03 and NO2, but are considered to have a relatively low
concentration of both.
Particulate �9atter and Sulfur Dioxide - Automobiles are not
generally regarded as significant sources of TSP and S02.
Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent
of TSP emissions and less than two percent of S02 emissions. TSP
and S02 emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway
sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Air
quality standards for TSP and S02 are unclassified for Watauga
�County and the Town of Boone. Because emissions of TSP and S02
from cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that
traffic on the No-Build or alternative alignment corridors will
cause air quality standards for TSP and S02 to be exceeded.
' Lead - Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to
' increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic
Iconverters burn unleaded gasoline, eliminating lead emissions.
Also, the U.S. EPA has required the reduction in the lead content
,
�
4-19
�

of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon and is expected to be
0.05 gram per gallon by 1990.
Air quality standards for lead are unclassified in Watauga County
and the Town of Boone. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. Therefore, it is not
expected that traffic on the no-build or alternative alignment
corridors will cause the AAQS for lead to be exceeded.
4.5.3 Water Quality
Surface Water - Impacts to surface water quality associated with
this project would result from suspended solids and dissolved
minerals transported by storm runoff from the completed project
and possible erosion and sedimentation during construction (see
Section 4.9.1). Suspended solids cause turbidity in surface
waters and sedimentation in stream beds. The risk of potential
impact varies directly with the following:
- Depth of right-of-way cuts.
- Surface area of cut and fill slopes.
- Steepness of slopes.
- Erodibility of soil type.
- Proximity of affected areas to surface waters.
- Increase in paved surface.area.
4-20

�
�
,
�
'
�
�
�
'
'
'
�
'
a
�
�
,
'
1
Alternative E would require the least increase in impervious
(paved) surface area. Alternative A would require a lesser
increase than Alternative B. Although none of the soil types in
the study area is highly erodible, erodibility of soil types
encountered in the eastern half of the study area differs with
right-of-way alignment. The Porters series soils, associated
mainly with Alternatives A and E, are less erodible than the
Perkinsville series, the soil type mainly associated with
Alternative B.
Saprolite, which underlies l,and in the study area, is less
leached at increased depths; therefore, saprolite e.xposed in cut
sections will contain a higher percentage of soluble materials
than surface soils. Runoff passing through freshly exposed
saprolite will have increased dissolved solids concentrations.
This impact will not be significant as the rock group underlying
the study area is not highly soluble and yields a soft, slightly
acidic ground water with low concentrations of dissolved
constituents.�
Stringent erosion control measures are mandated by the FHWA and
the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
The law requires that an erosion and sedimentation control plan
be approved before land-disturbing activities begin. The plan
must include temporary and permanent control measures to prevent
accelerated erosion and off-site sedimentation. These control
measures must ',� designed to provide protection from a rainfall
4-21

event the magnitude of the 10-year storm (5Z inches of rain in a
24-hour period). Specific requirements of the law limit the
angle of cut and fill slopes, restrict runoff velocities, and
specify that permanent ground cover sufficient to prevent erosion
be provided.
Where design constraints allow, grass medians with swales may be
used as drainage areas. These would provide detention of runoff
and promote infiltration. If necessary, detention ponds,
excavated sediment traps, or vegetative filters could be used to
prevent degradation of the present water quality. With proper
implementation of these pollution control measures, storm runoff
from the completed project is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on the quality of surface water in the area.
Ground Water - The probability that any given alignment will
affect the existing ground water ecosystem is relative to the
depth of its cut sections. Ground water tables in the vicinity
of deep roadway cut sections may be lowered. with a maximum cut
of 20 feet, Alternative E is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on ground water elevation. The approximate
40-foot cut section in Alternative A may result in a slight
lowering of the water table. Alternative B, requiring
approximately an 80-foot cut section, would be the most likely to
adversely affect shallow wells close to the project.
4-22
'

1
�
�
�J
'
�
,
�
,
�1
Any effect on domestic water supply could be mitigated by the
availability of municipal water service. A 16-inch water main
from Boone currently crosses Alternative A to serve the
industrial park. Water lines also extend approximately 1,000
feet east beyond Boone's town limits on US 421. Tentative plans
for future expansion include extension of a 16-inch water main
along US 421 to Bamboo Road, east of the South Fork New River.
4.5.4 Floodways and Flood Plains
One ingression of right-of-way within the 100-year flood boundary
has been identified; however, with proper drainage design, the
impact will be minimal. The only regulatory floodway crossing
will be at Hardin Creek, which is presently crossed by US 421 at
the same location. Final design of, the culvert structure must
ensure that the floodway will carry the 100-year flood without
increasing the water surface elevation by more than 1 foot at any
point.
�
'
�
�J
,
�
�
�
4.5.5 Hydrology and Drainage
One major stream, Hardin Creek, and one unnamed stream of lesser
significance are unavoidably crossed by all alignments. At each
hydrologic crossing, natural drainage patterns will be maintained
and culvert structures used. Final design will ensure. that
restriction of stream flow through these structures will not
cause significant increases in flooding.
4-23

Discharge rates are anticipated to increase due to higher per-
centages of impervious areas; however, any increase in flow rates
will be attenuated by use of detention areas. Detention areas
promote sedimentation of solids in addition to reduction of peak
flows. Such an area may be necessary for discharge to Hardin
Creek, as residents downstream frequently report flooding from
present flows. Stream crossings and modifications will require
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the
North Carolina DNRCD.
4.5.6 Topography, Geology, and Soils
The effect of the project on the study area's topography,
geology, and soils varies with the amount of earthwork necessary
for each of the alternative alignments. The greatest amount of
earthwork is required by Alternative B and the least amount by
Alternative E. Soil properties are common to all alternative
alignments. Their non-cohesive and friable nature limits the
angle of slopes and requires proper roadway design.
Blasting for rock excavation may be required with Alternative B.
Damage to adjacent properties from ground vibrations, tlyrock,
and air pressure waves can be minimized by use of proper blasting
procedures.
4.5.7. Hazardous Waste or Petroleum Storage Tanks
The following hazardous waste or petroleum storage tank sites
have been identified within the proposed right-of-way of the
alternatives.
4-24

,
�
e
�
�
'
�
�
'
�
�
Alternative E- One identified and three potential hazardous
waste sites are located close to the existing US 421 alignment.
The known site is:
l. A previous gasoline service station, known as Fire Lines,
on the northwest corner of US 421 and Grove Street.
The potential sites are:
l.
��
Two gasoline service stations, Servco and Wilco, adjacent
to and north of US 421, east of Highway 194.
The aboveground storage tanks of the Appalachian Oil Company
approximately 150 feet south of US 421 at SR 1596.
The site of the converted service station at US 421 and Grove
Street contains an underground storage tank and has been listed
for remedial action funding from the North Carolina Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) trust fund. At this time no
schedule has been established for this funding action.
' Alternative A- The two-service stations on existing US 421 east
of NC 194 and the converted service station at US 421 and Grove
� Street are likely to be affected by this alignment. No
additional sites in the vicinity of the northern alignment have
obeen identified.
'
iJ
�
�
Alternative B- Potential hazardous waste sites associated with
the southern alignment include the service station at the inter-
section of US 421/NC 194 and an underground petroleum storage
4-25

tank, formerly used by the Coca-Cola distributor at the present
location of Anchor Supply Company. The latter is close to the
centerline of the proposed southern alignment. The hazardous
waste site presently under assessment on US 421 at Grove Street
is also common to this alignment.
Conclusion
Following alternative alignment selection and during right-of-way
plan stage, the extent of disruption to the identified potential
hazardous waste sites for the proposed highway construction will
be determined. A site assessment will be performed (if
necessary) to determine levels of contamination and evaluate
corrective measures along with the necessary costs. Resolution
of problems associated with hazardous materials will be
coordinated with regulatory agencies.
4.6 NATURAL RESOURCES
4.6.1 Flora and Fauna
The proposed project will result in some negative impacts to
habitats within the alternative corridors. Although a signifi-
cant amount of the surface area is composed of urban setting,
loss of open area and field�and forest cover will reduce habitat
for all animal species. There are no endangered, threatened, or
special-concern plants in the area, but loss of older tree
specimens subtracts from the seed source for future generations.
This in turn reduces those biological factors required by all
animal species. Biological impacts to be expected from
vegetation removal within highway right-of-way include:
4-26

- Habitat modification from destruction of flora and fauna.
- Loss of biological productivity in affected areas.
- Imposition of physical barriers resulting in increased road
kills.
- Decreased percolation due to loss of biological surface
area.
- Increased surface runoff and erosion potential.
Using aerial photographs and field measurements, the approximate
acreage of wildlife habitat loss for each alternative corridor's
right-of-way is estimated as shown in Table 4.9.
Immediate, short-term impacts will result from the removal of
vegetation and the rearrangement of the topical geography to
accommodate new road cuts and roadbeds. Therefore, construction
work areas should be restricted where practical, and proper
precautions should be taken to limit erosion to the immediate
work area.
,
Long-term impacts can be diminished by the use of selected
� plantings as replacement of flora along highway rights-of-way.
' Rapidly growing indigenous species with good ground cover, varied
understory, and varied crown cover will provide ample food and
' natural cover for the indigenous wildlife during all seasons of
the year. Secondary succession will eventually replace unwise
1 selection of floral species.
�
�
i
il
4-27

TABLE 4.9 -
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF WILDLIFE HABITAT LOSS
FOR THE ALTERNATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Alternative
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative E
Woodlands
1.9
0.4
0.4
. �
Fields
4.2
6.1
1.9
Total
6.1
6.5
2.3

e
�
�
�
,
'
lJ
�
lJ
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
�I _J
�
'
�A major environmental impact will be the encroachment upon the
South Fork New River in connection with relocation and expansion
of the US 421 bridge. Strict adherence to erosion control
standards must be a primary concern in this area. There are no
known endangered, threatened, or special-concern species within
the immediate construction area of the South Fork New River;
however, any disturbance to this aquatic habitat will have
repercussions for a significant distance downstream.
An increased BOD load could result from disturbance to, and
distribution of, bottom or bank organic materials accumulated
through time and natural processes. This in turn may affect the
dissolved oxygen levels available to the immediate downstream
fauna. Increased siltation resulting from improperly controlled
erosion within the project area will definitely adversely impact
all gill-respiring species, both in the immediate area and for a
significant distance downstream. Displacement of bottom-dwelling
species is bound to occur as a short-term impact that will be
mitigated through natural stream succession. Stream bank impacts
resulting from vegetation removal can be resolved with
replacement plantings of the appropriate indigenous species.
4.6.2 Threatened or Endangered Species
Review of Federally Listed Species - Consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that two threatened plant
species and one threatened avian species may occur in the project
!��%7

area, although the agency gave no indication of the locations of
critical habitats. The species at issue are Heller's blazing
star, Liatris helleri; the Blue Ridge goldenrod, Solidago
spithamaee; and the American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus
anatum. The following Status Review species may also occur in
the project area: New England cottontail, Sylvilagus
transitionalis; hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis; bog
turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergi; Kanawha minnow, Phenacobius
teretulus; bent avens, Geum geniculatum; spreading avens, Geum
radiarum; white-leaved sunflower, Helianthus glaucophyllus;
Gray's lilly, Lilium grayi; and Gray's saxifrage, Saxafraga
carolinana. Other species listed for the State of North Carolina
are not critical to the area of study.8
Review of State Listed Species - There is no official listing for
the State of North Carolina, instead the state agencies use the
federal lists. However, the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program has listed two plant species for special concern that may
occur in the area of study: the wild mock cucumber, Echinocystis
labata, and the crested shield fern, Dryopteris cristata.9
4.6.3 Prime and Important Farmlands
Land currently available for agricultural use that would be taken
for project construction was inventoried for each alignment.
Table 4.10 shows the approximate acreage required for each
alternative.
4-30

TABLE 4.10
PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND
Alternative
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative E
�
4-31
Acres
4
4
1

4.7 VISUAL IMPACTS
The construction of a new roadway or the upgrading of an existing
road to additional lanes will have some visual impact on adjacent
areas. It is necessary to provide adequate right-of-way that
complies with required design criteria while disrupting the areas
surrounding the right-of-way to the minimum extent possible. The
issue is further complicated by the steep terrain and related
limitations on construction in a mountainous area where it will
be necessary to cut into mountain sides while filling other
areas. Ridges and slope support will also be involved. This
activity will create visual barriers and, should the design not
receive proper attention, visual degradation. Therefore, it is
important that the areas where cut/fill/bridges are required be
studied, designed, and detailed to ensure an aesthetically
acceptable visual quality. '
Visual impacts would be greatest along Alternative B because it
would require the greatest cut at its eastern terminus. The
other alternatives, with proper landscaping, should have minimal
visual impacts.
4.8 ENERGY
Construction of any of the improvement alternatives will consume
energy; however, in the long-term, total energy utilization is
expected to be reduced dramatically over the No-Build Alternative
due to decreased vehicle delays and more efficient reliable
operating speeds.
4-32

�
�
�
4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
4.9.1 Water Quality
' Water quality may be temporarily affected by construction activi-
ties at stream crossings and by erosion of unprotected slopes.
' The North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
prohibits visible off-site sedimentation from construction sites.
' The law requires implementation of an approved plan, which
' includes temporary control measures for compliance. Erosion and
sediment control measures that may be used to minimize
� construction-related impacts are described in Federal Aid Highway
Program Manual (FHPM) 6-7-3 and by the North Carolina DNRCD.10
, Those measures include scheduling construction activities to
' minimize the extent and duration of erosion hazards and use of
temporary vegetation, mulching, sodding, sediment catch basins,
' silt fences, and diversion berms. Erosion control measures will
be retained as permanent roadway design features whenever
� possible.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4.9.2 Air Quality
Particulate matter or dust caused by heavy construction equipment
and denuded earth can have an impact on local air quality, as can
smoke caused by burning of cleared debris. Some measures to
control air quality impacts from construction include:
4-33

- Implementation of sound erosion control measures to ensure
that denuded earth is promptly covered with stabilizing
material such as grass, mulch, or asphalt.
- Covering of haul trucks.
- Use of water as a dust controller.
- Minimization of actual denuded areas.
- Strict control of construction burning.
CO and other pollutants contributed by automobiles may increase
during construction due to resulting traffic delays. If proper
traffic control measures are implemented, this should not be a
significant problem.
4.9.3 Noise and Vibration
Construction noise and vibration can be reduced through the
development of a construction noise plan limiting the use of
certain heavy vehicles during non-traditional work hours and days
and enforcing the presence of properly working mufflers on
construction equipment. Due to the urban setting in which this
project is located, the use of blasting materials should be
restricted.
4.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The construction of the preferred alternative of US 421 would
require the following irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources:
4-34

'
S- Use of land within the right-of-way exclusively for trans-
� portation.
- Possible encroachment on the biotic communities.
O- Noise from construction and actual use of alternative
corridor for nearby properties.
' - Commitment of manpower and resources for construction.
'
'
'
�
'
,
�
�
'
�
e
'
�
'
However, a long-term savings in resources, particularly fuel and
amount of motorist time spent traveling, would be realized due to
the more efficient roadway. This roadway improvement would also
enhance long-term access opportunities and support the local and
regional commitment to encourage the growth and economic
viability of the Boone-Watauga County area. Thus, the commitcnent
of resources to the building of the roadway will be exceeded by
the savings in resources over time.
4.11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM
BENEFITS
The short-term impacts would be limited to the actual
construction of the roadway. During this time, traffic would be
affected by temporary construction detours. Noise and vibrations
from heavy construction equipment will be noticeable, especially
from sites adjacent to the roadway corridor. Particulate matter
and air quality impacts could be a short-term by-product of the
construction. With a proper construction noise plan and erosion
control measures these impacts will be minimized.
4-35

Existing homes and businesses will be displaced due to right-of-
way requirements of the roadway. However, an analysis of the
area showed that there are adequate replacement housing and
business relocation opportunities. Even those workers in any
businesses that are relocated should be able to retain their work
but at the new locations.
Water quality could be adversely affected on the short term.
During construction, turbidity would be anticipated to increase
in the small creeks that all of the alternatives pass through.
This turbidity would also increase in the South Fork New River,
into which these creeks feed. However, through the use of water
quality control and erosion control measures, water quality would
return to preconstruction levels.
Construction of the preferred alternative improvement of US 421
would in the long term stimulate economic growth, save fuel and
travel time, and reduce accidents.
4-36

,
'
�
'
'
�
,
'
CHAPTER 4
REFERENCES
l. FHWA, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic and
Construction Noise, Title 23 CFR, Part 772, 1982.
2. FHWA, Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise,
1980; and Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise:
Final Report, 1981.
3. FHWA, Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure STAMINA
2.0/OPTIMA User's Manual, 1982.
4. State of North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Data Report,
DNRCD, 1985.
5. AQAT - 2 Air Quality Analysis (CALINE 4), State of
California Air Resources Board, 1987.
6. MOBILE3 - Mobile Source Emissions Model, U.S. EPA, June
1984.
� 7. USGS, Water Quality of North Carolina Streams, Water Supply
Paper 2185A-D, Page B17.
�
�
'
�
'
'
�
'
'
8. US Route 421 Flora and Fauna Inventory and General Overview,
Hensley-Schmidt� Inc., June, 1989.
9. Ibid. ,
10. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design, North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, DNRCD, Chapter 4;
August 1, 1985.
1 4-37

CHAPTER 5
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS� AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT
State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
State Clearinghouse
Local Governments
Region D Council of Governments
Town of Boone Town Manager
Chairman, Watauga County Commissioners
' Local Agencies
Town of Boone Department of Planning and Inspections
' Watauga County Department of Planning and Inspections
Watauga County Schools
Town of Boone Police Department
' Town of Boone Chamber of Commerce
Town of Boone Fire Department
Libraries
Town of Boone Public Library
5-1

,
'
,
'
'
�
1
'
'
'
'
'
�
'
�
�
�
'
�
CHAPTER 6
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.1 COORDINATION
6.1.1 Agency Coordination
A Notice of Intent was distributed on October 19, 1988, for
inclusion in the Federal Register.
Before preliminary alternatives were chosen for further study,
the following agencies were asked to evaluate possible impacts
from each alternative:
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Services
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Health and Human Services
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Region.D Planning Agency
Chairman of County Commissioners
6-1

and the following North Carolina Department of Transportation
Divisions:
Hydrographics
Right-of-Way
Thoroughfare Planning �
Bicycle Coordination
Division Engineers
Board of Transportation Members
Comments received through the coordination process are summarized
on Table 6.1.
6.1.2 Steering Committee
A steering committee was established to review the progress of
the Draft EIS and to assist with comments and information
throughout the study period. The committee met on January 5,
and March 9, 1989. The following agencies were represented by
steering committee members:
- North Carolina Department of Transportation
- Watauga County Planning Department
- Town of Boone Planning Department
6.1.3 Public Officials Meeting
Before the first public meeting/workshop was held on January 17,
1989, officials of the NCDOT along with Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.,
made a presentation to local public officials to explain the EIS
process and alternatives under review at the time.
6-2

�
'
'
1
�_ �
�
�
TABLE 6.1
AGENCY COORDINATION AND RESPONSES
A enc
Region D Council of Governments
December 12, 1988
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community
Development
December 13, 1988
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
December 27, 1988
Response
Provided Economic Data Profile
for Watauga County.
Provided Ambient Air Quality
Report for 1986.
Provided a list of flora and
fauna species that are of
special interest in the study.
area
' N.C. Department of Transportation Noted significant numbers of
Bicycle Coordinator bicyclists from ASU on US
February 21, 1989 Route 421.
Town of Boone
February 21, 1989
Watauga County Departrnent of
Planning and Inspections
February 21, 1989
Town of Blowing Rock
February 21, 1989
N.C. Department of Transporation
Division Engineer
February 23, 1989
Department of the Army
February 27, 1989
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Provided general comments on
areas of special concern.
Noted the benefit that Alter-
native A would have on the
County Industrial Park.
Noted that the project would
be favorable to the economic
being of the area.
Recommended a five-lane curb
and gutter section
Requested a review of all
design plans once they are
complete.
Unable to provide specific
comments due to heavy work-
load.
� North Carolina Department of Noted that improving the
Natural Resources and Community existing corridor would pre-
Development sent the least impacts to
' North Carolina Wildlife flora/fauna.
Resources Commission
March 6, 1989
�J
C:�c3
,

North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community
Development
Division of Soil and Water
Conservation
March 6, 1989
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
March 22, 1989
. �
Noted that there would be very
little impact on prime and
important farmlands due to the
urban area of the project.
Noted that improving the
existing corridor would pre-
sent the least impacts.

6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A comprehensive public involvement program was established to
inform and gather information from the public.
6.2.1 Computerized Mailing List
All individuals and organizations on the existing NCDOT mailing
list, as well as those that were collected or that requested to
be added to the mailing list, were placed in computer memory.
This mailing list was used to send newsletters and correspondence
concerning this Draft EIS. The names of approximately 90
individuals and organizations were collected.
6.2.2 Newsletters
Two newsletters were prepared for this Draft EIS and sent out in
February and April of 1989. Individuals on the computerized
mailing list and local public officials received each of these
newsletters, which are shown in Appendix B. The newsletters
present information on the progress of the study as well as maps
displaying alternatives under consideration. An additional
newsletter will be prepared after submittal of the Draft EIS.
6.2.3 Toll-Free Hotline Phone Contact
A toll-free phone number was established to make direct contact
available for those individuals and organizations with questions
C:�'�

or comments. The Project Engineer and Project Manager from
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., were available at all times to answer the
phone. Approximately 100 phone contacts were made through the
toll-free phone number.
6.2.4 Small Group or Individual Informational Meetings
Staff was available throughout the study process to meet with
individuals and organizations on a one-to-one basis at the study
area to answer questions. Several landowners in the study area
took advantage of this opportunity.
6.2.5 Public Meetings/Worksho s
Two public meetings/workshops were held at the Town of Boone
Council Chambers on January 17 and May 18, 1989. Approximately
100 people attended the January 17 meeting, where officials from
the NCDOT and Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., made a formal presentation,
explained the EIS process, and presented the need for the
project. At this meeting a written°questionnaire was distributed
and over 40 responses were received. This questionnaire is shown
in Table 6.2. The following comments were made through the
questionnaire:
- Thirty-nine individuals believed that an improvement to US
421 was needed.
- The preference for the alternative corridor was almost
evenly split among Alternative A, Alternative B, and
Alternative E.
. .

'
�
'
�
'
'
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
�
'
�
1
,
'
- The location of one potential historic site was brought to
the study team's attention.
The second public meeting/workshop was attended by approximately
50 people. At this meeting, preliminary results of the
alternatives chosen for detailed study were presented.
Construction costs and archaeological, historical, noise, and air
quality results were presented.
C:�7

�
r
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�

CHAPTER 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by Hensley-Schmidt, Inc., in cooperation
with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Town of
Boone, and Watauga County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Gail Grimes, P.E.
Dave Cochran, P.E.
Town of Boone
Samuel H. McDonald, AICP
Watauga County
Joseph A. Furman� AICP
8ensley-Schmidt, Inc.
Marble J. Hensley,, P.E.
Principal-in-Charge
7-1
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Highway Engineer responsible
for highway planning and
environmental impact analysis
for NCDOT. Fourteen years of
experience in transportaton
engineering.
Highway Engineer responsible
for highway design for the
NCDOT. 2'wenty-four years of
experience in transportation
design.
Masters degree in Regional
Planning. Director of Town of
Boone Planning and Inspection.
Five years of experience in
transportation planning.
B.S. in Geography. Director
of County Planning and Inspec-
tion. Ten years of experience
in transportation planning.
Chairman of Board of Hensley-
Schmidt, Inc. Thirty-eight
years of experience in traffic/
transportation engineering.
..

Paul H. Griggs, P.E.
Project Manager
Steven L. Thomas, P.E.
Project Engineer
Mitchell B. Russell
Transportaton Engineer
Maurice Bandy, P.E.
Hydrological Engineer
John W. Myers, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Dale Irwin, E.I.T.
Water Resources Engineer
Hydrologist, Geologist
A1 Pierce, P.E.
Ecologist
R. G. Litchford
Biologist
William Galchutt, AICP
Sociologist
Landscape Architect
Randy King, E.I.T.
Civil Engineer
Cynthia VanDerWiele-Evans
Engineering Technician
7-2
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Fourteen years of experience
in transportation engineering.
Master of Civil Engineering
degree in Transportation.
Five years of experience in
traffic/transportation engi-
neering.
Thirty years of experience in
transportation engineering.
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Twenty-one years of experience
in soils, foundations, and
dams.
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Over 10 years of experience.
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Over five years of experience
in civil engineering.
B.S. in Biology and Civil
Engineering. Over fifteen
years of experience.
Ph.D. in Parasite Physiology.
Over 29 years of experience as
a biologist.
Bachelor of Landscape Archi-
tecture. Fifteen years of
experience in planning.
B.S. in Civil Engineering.
Three years of experience in
civil engineering and site
design.
B.S. in Engineering Operations
Three years of experience in
transporation engineering.
�.

8.0 INDEX
Topic
Air Quality
Preliminary Alternatives
Construction Alternatives
Archaeological/Historical Sites
Costs
Economic Conditions
Endangered Species
Farmlands
Floodplain Involvement
Hazardous Waste
Matrix Evaluation
Hydrology
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Need for Improvement
Noise
Parks
Planning, Transportation
Planning, Land Use
Preparers
Population Characteristics
Public Involvement
Relocation
Safety
Section 4(f)
Schools
Traffic, Demand
Typical Sections
Utilities
Vegetation
Water Quality
Wetlands
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wildlife
;
Page No.
3-22, 4-14, 4-33
2-1
2-2
3-18
2-12, 2-18
1-2, 3-1
4-29
3-38, 4-30'
3-28, 4-23
3-32, 4-24
2-6
3-28, 4-23
2-10, 3-13, 4-1
3-21, 4-6
1-1
3-21, 4-7, 4-34
3-17
3-13
3-16
7-1
3-7
6-5
4-3
1-4, 2-14
4-6
3-17, 4-5
1-3, 2-5
2-6
3-18, 4-6
3-35, 4-26
3-24, 4-20, 4-33
3-37
3-38
3-36, 4-26

'
1
�
,
'.
�
�
�
,.
�
�
��
�
�
r
�
�
'
�
MAINLINE
Level-of-
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
I�TERSECTION
L�vel-of-
Service
A
B
�
0
�
F
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Description
Free flow, very low speed impedence with high driver
comfort.
Free flow with the presence of other vehicles
beginning to be noticeable.
Speed and ease of maneuverability restricted.
Platooning of vehicles becomes greater.
Borders on unstable flow with noticeable driver dis-
comfort becoming evident.
Operations at or near capacity with flow unstable.
Forced or breakdown flow.
Stopped Delay
per Vehicle
< 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
FZ:�i�
Description
Very low delay. Most vehicles do
not stop at all.
Still desirable with more vehicles
than LOS A stopping.
Individual cycle failures may begin
to appear but intersection still
operates at a desired level.
The influence of congestion becomes
more noticeable.
The limit of acceptable delay is
reached with poor progression and
frequent occurances of individual
cycle failures.
Unacceptable delay with severe
queuing occurring.
;

APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORTS

�����0`v/�9�IO(� ���0�"i' ".£� 1. 5� URRIDOR� DE�SIGN'^�;;t3�•�� �F
1:.•, r �ri • ti
(tircl� typ� r�port) NC Dept. of TranspiSttdtfon a,::i �� �,
r
1: D. M R— 529 A RELOCATION ASSISTANLE `' ��• 1CFJ
,
�
�
Nork Order �luinber F. A. Project Number County ALTL(t,�r/�T�vE f�" ^r�. r, y
'� ` ��89
N/A Alternate 1 of �T;Alt.�rnates
6.751008 .•. ur; ;�= ,,,.,, _
�escription of Project: ��� �„� � O
US 421 fram NC 194 in Boone to West of the outh Fork of the New River
ESTIMnTED DISPLACEES � t
TYPE OF DISPLACEE OWNERS TE?�ANTS TOTAI MINORITY 0-lOM 10-20M 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
INDIVIDUALS 0 � � � � Q � � O
FAMILIES $ 2 1 O
BUSINESSES 0 3 .3 O �ALUE OF OWELLINGS DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE NOW
ONNERS TENANTS FOR SALE FOR RENT
FArcMS O O O O
0-lOM 1 -5100 1 0-lOt1 � 0-5100 4�+
NON-PROFIT ORGAt�f2ATI0NS � O O O
-- -- 2
1. Nill project have significant impact YES -�t�0
2. Niil project be disruptive to community YES -
3. lJill community be cut off rrom services YES -
�. Will neighborhoods be separated YES
5. Will special relocation services be
necessary
6. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement
YES - NO
vES r�o
7. Will business relocation be detrimental
to community YES - NO
8. Will business services still be available
after project. YES NO
9. 41i11 any businesses be displaced
If so, indicate size, type, estimated
number of employees, minorities, etc. YES NO
10. Will relocation cause a housing shortage YES - NO
li. Source for available housing - list
i�. wi�i aaoin onai nous�ng programs be needeQ 1"ES � NO
13. Should Last Resort Ho:,sing be considered YES q0
� 14. Is there a significant number of larae
families, disabled, elderly, etc.
' on p�oject - YES NO
�
'
'
�
Af�SWER TfIE�E aLSO FpR prSlGil
15. Will public housing be iieeded for project YES - NO
16. Is pubtic housing available
YES - u0
17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS
housing available during relocation period YES - NO
18. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means YES - NO
19. Are suitable business sites available
(List Source) YES - NO
20. Number months estimated to complete Relocation
R�LOCATION AGEhT
J. F. Meade
FORM 15.4, Rei
S/86
lo- on p 5100-5150 1 io-2ow p S1oo-b15o p
20-40M 3"s150-5250 0 20-40F1 8 5150-5250 1
,.
40-60 SZ50-5400 40-60 525Q-S400
60-UP 2 j400-UP � 60-UP 5 �+ b400-UP 5
TOTAL $ 2 95+ 57
REPIARKS (Respond by Number)
8. Zhere are other similar businesses in the
� area which are not being displaced.
9. (A) "'Ibny's wash & Wax & Aliqnment Shop"
gnall local repair shop, tire sales, front
end alignment, etc. Not a minority.
Fstimated �loyees 5 full tiune.
(B) "City TV Service" - gnall local TV
sales and service shop. Not a minority.
Estimated rnunber of esr�loyees 1 full time
and 1 part time.
(C) "Fine Lines" - gnall local custom
cabinet and window shop. Not a minority.
Estimate rnuni�er of e�r�loyees is 3 full tim
and 2 part time .
11. Local newspapers, multiple listing service
and visual suzvey.
13. Iast resort housing program will be used
if necessazy.
Note -'Ihere appears to be sufficient
residential and business property available
to replace those to be displaced.
DATE APPROVED
-26-R9
DATE /, _�a,^� �
�f
Original b 1 Copy - State Relocation Agent
2 Copy - Area Relocation File

i �a��o���'oor�
[: o. a R-529 A
� Nork Order t�umper
'
�
�
l _J
��
�J
1
�
,
�
�
�
�
I
�I
6.751008
� �- ����y- ^e.l. 5. C4RRIDOR, DESIGN
(circl• typ• r�porf) NC Dept. of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANGE
F. A. Project Number � County I 4LTEp.LwTi� $
N/A
Watc�llga I Al ternate 2 of 4 Al ternates
1
Descrtption of ProjeCt:
US 421 fram NC 194 in Boone to West of the South Fork of the New River
ESTIMATED OISPLACEES
TYPE OF DISPLACEE OWNERS �EYANTS TOTAL MINORITY 0-lOM 10-20M 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
INDI4IDUALS � � 0 0 � � O 0 O
FAMILIES 16 7 23 0 0 3 12 $ 0
BUSINESSES 1 S 6 O VALUE OF DWELLINGS DSS DtdELLINGS AVAILABLE NOu
041NER5 TENANTS fOR SALE FOR RENT
FARMS Q O O O
o-ioM p -Sioo 2 o-iora p o-bioo 40+
NON-PROFIT ORGAtJIZATIONS � O O O
io-2on p Sioo-siso p io-2oi� p sioo-siso 0
N ER LL U 51 U��� ilU tX LH 1 HLL t�" H � t J
20-40F1 � 5150-�250 5 20-40t•1 8 5150-5250 1
1. Will project have significant impact YES �
40-60 $250-5400 40-60 5250-$400 �
2. Nill project �e disruptive to community YES NO
60-UP 5400-UP 60-UP b400-UP 5
3. Nill community be cut off fror.i servic=s YES - NO
TOTAL 16 � 95+ 57
4. Will neighborhoods be separated YES NO
REPIARKS (Respond by Number)
5. Will sPeciat relocttion services be g, There are other similar businesses in the
�necessary YES NO
area which are not being displaced.
6. Will schools or churches be affected by YES - HO
displacement
9. (A) "'Ibny's Wash & Wax & Aliqnment Shop"
gnall local repair shop, tire sales, front
end alignn�ent, etc. Not a minority.
Fstimated �loyees 5 full time.
(B) "City TV Service" - 9na11 local TV
sales and service shop. Not a minority.
Fstiznated ntunber of eirg�loyees 1 full time
and 1 part time .
(C) "Fine Lines" - gnall local custam
cabinet and window shop. Not a minority.
' Fstimate rnunber of enployees is 3 full tirr�
and 2 part time .
(D) "Print Craft"- �nall local independent
print shop.�Tot a minority. �loyees 2
full time and 1 part time.
(E) "Hiqh Mountain Auto Sales" - A small
local used car lot. Not a minority.
�loyees 1 full tiine.
(F) "Anchor Supply Co." - I�cal wholesale
pltunbing supply ccxr¢�any. Not a minority.
Eh�loyees 5 full time and 3 part time.
il. Local newspapers, multiple listing service,
and visual survey.
13. Last resort housing program will be used
if necessary.
Note - Zhere appears to be sufficient
residential and business property available
to replace those to be displaced.
7. Will business relocation be detrimental
to community YES -�
8. Will business services still be available
after project. YES NO
9. Will any businesses be displaced
If so, indicate size, type, estimated
number of employees, minorities, etc. YES - NO
1u. will relocation cause a housing shortage YES -�
1:. Se��rce for avaiiable housing - list
12. Will a�ditional housing programs be needed 1'ES NO
13. ShoulC Last R�sort Ho�sing be ccnsidered YES NO
14. Is the:e a significant numi�er of large
families, disabled, elderly, etc.
on oroject YES NO
P.(I::WER TIiE:E .1L`0 FOR Dr$1Gi7
15. Will public housing be needed for project YES - NO
16. Is public housir�g available
rES - r�0
17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS
housing available during relocation period YES - ��0
18. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means
19. Are suitable business sites available
(List Source)
YES - NO
YES - NO
20. Number months estima[ed to complete Relocation
K«u�Hiiun H�tn DATE APPROVED
J. F. Meade 4-
FORM 15.4, ev, 5/86
DATE/� _
Original, 3 1 Copy .= State-.Relocation Agent
2 Copy - Area Relocation File
�

,
,
'
�
i���O�/`9�fO� ���0� ,'`` 1��= �• 5• G4RRIDOR, DESIGN
R-529 A (circl• frp• r�port) NC Dept. of Transportation
I: D. p RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
Work Order �lumber F. A. Project Number County
6.751008
N/A IWatauga
?YY►PCa�C �XlST�uLCSS rtiVH �DES�L� s(�E1�1
/�rEK.✓�v-rw�' �'
Alternate 3 of 4 Alternates
Uescrtption of Project:
US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to West of the South Fork of the New River
ESTIt1ATED DISPLACEES � t
TYPE OF DISPLACEE OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITY 0-lOM 10-20M 20-30M 30-40 40 UP
� INOIV[DUALS
FAMILIES
BUSINESSES
� FARMS
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
��
e�a
e�a
��
1 FU�S�lER ALL QUc�T f1 I � L � L
1. Nill project have significant inipact
�'
i
'
�
�
'
�
'
�
�
�
�
2. 41i11 project be disruptive to community
3. Hill cormunity be cut off from services
4. Will neighborhoods be separated
5. Nill special relocation services be
necessary
6. Will schools or churches be affected by
__displacement
� 0 0 p p 0
24 0 0 10 12 2 p
4 � VALUE OF D41ELlINGS DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE NOW
OWNERS TENANTS FOR SALE FOR RENT
� o-ioM 1 -,ioo 0 o-ior� � o-Sioo
40+
w� � 10-20H � 5100-5150 1 10-2011 � 5100-$150 0
'LO-4oF1 4 5150-;2:0 20-4oh1 5150-5250
YES NO
40-60 3 5250-5400 2 40-60 5250-5400
YES NO
60-UP � 5400-UP � 60-UP 5 0�- b400-UP S
YES NO
TOTAL 8 1 95+ 57
YES NO
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
YES - h0 8• �ere are other similar businesses in the
area which are not being displaced.
YES NO
7. Will business relocation be detrimental �
to community YES - NO
8. k'ill business services stili be available
after project. YES NO
9. Will any businesses be displaced
If so, indicate size, type, estimated
number of employees, minorities, etc.
10. Will relocation cause a housing shortage
1�. Source for available housing - list
YES - NO
rES - no
12. 4:'ill additional housing programs be needed YES �10
13. Sl�ould Last nesort Ho�sing be considered YES NO
i4. ls there a significant numtr_r of large
families, 3isabled, elderl}�, etc.
on project YES NO
Af1;WER TNE:E ��SO FOR Di=SiG;7
15. Nill public housing be needed for project YES - NO
16. ls public housing available
YES - t�0
17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS
housing available during relocation period YES - t�0
18. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means YES - NO
19. Are suitable business sites available
(List Source) YES - NO
9. (A) "Zbny's Wash & Wax & Aliqrunent Shop"
gnall local repair shop, tire sales, front
end aligrunent, etc. Not a minority.
Estimated esriployees 5 full time.
(B) "City TV Service" - 9na11 local TV
sales and service shop. Not a minority.
Fstimated ntunber of e�loyees 1 full time
and 1 part time.
(C) "Fine Lines" - gnall local custom
cabinet and window shop. Not a minority.
Fstimate. rnunber of e�loyees is 3 full ti.me
and 2 part tilne .
(D) "Jeff's Gun Repair" — �nall local gun
repair shop. Not a minority. 1 full tiine
en�loyee.
11. I�ocal newspapers, multiple listing service,
and visual survey.
13. Last resort housing program will be used
if necessary.
Note#1 There appears to be sufficient
residential and business property available
to replace those to be displaced.
Note #2 "Nb�untlawn M�norial Gardens" Cemetery
will involve approximately 100 +- graves may
20. Number months estimated to complete Relocation �VO1VE'C� lri t�71S project alternate. .
R�LOCATION AGEtvT : DA7E APPROVED
J. F. Meade• 4_
FORM 15.4, Re�i. 5/86
DATE
� _ �'-26- 6
Original b 1 Copy - State Relocation Agent
2 Copy - Area Relocation File
..

APPENDIX C
AGENCY RESPONSES
1. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
2. Tennessee Valley Authority
3. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History
4. State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Soil and Water Conser-
vation
5. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
6. State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Forest Resources
7. Watauga County Manager
8. Blowing Rock Town Manager

�
,
�
J
�
�
,
,
�
,
L.
�
�
l_J
,
r ,
I I
�
�
�
�
,���`NT. �� O
a� ��"
w 2
a � �,'
.
.'s,,,OS��n � �n �,•``
IN fiEPLY REFEFi TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COFPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WI�MINGTON, NOfiTH CAqOLINA 28402-1890
February 27. 1989
Mr. J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Boz 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Greenhill:
�v� � � �' ��
��:�tY��
�`' �
�
^ 6 �� `�
�'�"� O c� :i
� 'r
v ot�°� � °g �Q�'�
� t�t�vNWA
i� � �EP�
�
�'
•;.
._ �
We have reviewed your letter of February 9. 1989. requesting
information for "US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to West of the South
Fork New River. State Work Order No. 6.751008 (R-529A)� Watauga
County" and offer the follawing comments,
The proposed project will require a Department of the Army
permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act of 1977. as amended, if any eacavated or fill material is
placed in waters of the United States and/or their adjacent
wetlands prior to the initiation of any construction activities.
Accordingly. our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity
to review the plans, when they become available, for a project—
specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questiona, please contact
Mr. Bob Johnson, Regulatorp Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
L
rely,
J
ence aundezs
f, P1 ing Division

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
NORRIS, TENNESSEE 37828
FEB 2 4 ���y
. �����,
i?,��,..` �_
1> .
Y�1• .
��
�
G
�
� i � `� �
i' \� �.y i9
Mr. J. H. Greenhill, P. E. .�';,� ��•, .�
� i.
Hanager, Planning and Research v ��
,� ..
North Carolina Department of '=� �-•i �
Transportation ``�--•-.-� �
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Hr. Greenhill:
U.S. 421 FROM NC 194 IN BOONE TO WEST OF THE SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER, STATE
WORK ORDER N0. 6.751008 (R-529A) - WATAUGA COUNTY
This responds to your February 9 request for TVA•s comments on the
State's proposal to improve U.S. 421 in Watauga County.
This project is located outside the Tennessee River drainage area and
TVA's power service area; therefore, we have no comments. '
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
KNS:SPP
(No Jurisdiction)
Sincerely,
��-!/� V /"l ' �
Truitt H. Fore, Hanager
Property Hanagement and
Administration Departsnent
Land Resources
An Equal Opportunity Employer
;�

' _ �--.
'
'
,
�
u
'
'
�
�
,
'
�
�
L
�
�
�
e ..a ST.�1T�
�. ° "� y��
� � ��
� d
� � -�'br
'�: a;,�.,�.d''
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
March 16, 1989
riErtoxarr�uM
T0:
FROrI:
�
'� ,, . �
�. ,t�.-
. L '_%�
•C_ ��.i _'. '
� .
•�
Division of Archives and History
�X/illiam S. Price, Jr., Director
J. M. Greenhill, rianager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation �--.,
-•��
David Brook, Deputy State 1,.: :%`' %``
Historic Preservation Officer G' J
SUBJECT: US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to west of South
Fork Ne�a River, No. 6.751008, CH 89-E-4220-0696
Watauga County
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
One archaeological site, 31Wt13, is located within the project area.
However, the site has not been evaluated for significance nor has a
systematic survey been conducted within the project.area to identify
additional significant archaeological resources. We recommend that a
comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted if Alternate B is
selected. If Alternate A is selected, a survey is recommended for the
eastern end only.
We understand that HensleySchmidt, Inc., the project consultant, will
conduct a cultural resources survey to identify and evaluate signif icant
historic and prehistoric resources. Since a historic structures survey
of Watauga County is currently under way, we sugoest that the project
consultant contact Deborah Thompson, Center for Appalachian Studies,
Appalachian State University, at 704/262-4089 (Tuesday or Thursday only)
for information on any structures surveyed within the area of potential
environmental effect. Our office looks forward to reviewing the survey
results in the near future.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codif ied at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
109 East Jones Screet • Raleigh, North Caroiina 27611
i

,
'
'
,
,
�
'
'
'
�
'
'
�
�
�
'
�
'
�
J. M. Greenhill
March 16, 1989, Page �ao
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
B. Church/E. Kirkland
Deborah Thompson •
��

100 � �,�, 6
��r�� � �
r` ' � `�s
J 4J' _�
✓� �, w �
•� P� N"•
_:�'.,�.: l ?' ; �.
:�
' _1 ��
��. .1 4�
Lr� �:,)
.^. ��1 .l
/`. _
.!' J�
n �)
State of North Carolina �'�` '
Department oF Natural Resources and Communi
ry Df
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Screet • Raleipft. NnrrF, r'�r,.�:.._ ���,.
)ames �,. Marnn, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
�
�
,
'
riEM�pUrq
�o.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
- -- ........ "���
March 6, lggg
?f71Bn ty��
`�
David W. Sides
�RECEIVED D�reaor
(`�?�!K 141989
Melba N,cGee
� ���x,���x�g pr�.�b -
, , _ aa�.
Larry Sink�
�
A-95/EIS REVIEW AND CO2�NTS ON PROPOSED U.S.
FROM N. C. 194 IN BOONE TO WEST OF TI� SOUTH FORiC1NEWPRI�T EMEINS
WATAUGA COUNTY, pRp�7-g�T NUMgER 89-0696.
' According to the letter from DOT, most of the area for this
urban development. Therefore, the major land use has
agricultural to urban use and there would be ve PrO�ect is in
statewide important farmlands. Pr�arily shifted from
� There is not a oderntsoilmsurveon prame and
County, and in order to determine prime and statewide
soils information would rave to be obtained throu h re y�f Watauga
important farmlands, the
� 9 quests.
The wetlands issue would also require soils maps in order to determine
soils. The letter from DOT also stated that no streams or wetlands will
crossed in this stud hydric
' would be noneto ver Y Therefore, the inclination of the impact on wetlabds
y little. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation
would recornmend that a wetland invento
locate any wetlands that ma �' be made in order to identify and
wetlands map. Y exist. This could be done with a soils map or
� LTS/cjb
'
r
'
�
'
'
�
P.Q Box �76&7, Raleigh, Norch Carolina 27611-7687 Tclephonc 919J33•2302
An Equal Op�����y q��acive Accion Employcr
;
i
i
i �
i
I i

'
E,
I�
tiT
5�
'R
i
�
���
'' �
.
�
'
I]
OJN — Ad07
'� _Y'�y'.�
�� � - .�..s� ' ; � �
�' � �� . � �=-=; �:' ���
��� : - �;. � , „;, �,�...
,� �• �,.vr.
: ;+
- `�-�� �` .-::�i1��-�;;.
�•,:.� �
���Q�r,� .�����,-� .��
. . ,�-:.N fr, ._ ;` i`',.�
�
�' �RECEIVED
���� :.��:
'�� ,,� �Ai,' 1 u i9
�' ��-� � �� - b'J
7� h�' � l�^y�� �Yn1i.C`i I..
:�,�,`;ti�=_.. p��:Pe_ �B.A
c.M'�'
�:�.e�-: � �
�.,
�� North Carolina Wildlife Resources ComT-r,;��;�„ �
------�..� �,,,
512 N. Salishury Strcet, R;ilci�h, Ncxrh Caro(ina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fulhti��c�d; Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
Dept. of Natural Resources & Community Dev.
FROM: Don Baker, Program Manag r��-%�
Division of Boating and Inlan Fisheries
DATE:
March 6, 1989
SUBJECT: US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to West of the
South Fork New River, State Work Order No.
6.751008 (R-529 A), Watauga County, N.C.
The Wildlife Resources Commission's biological field
staff has reviewed the scoping letter on the proposed road
project and can not make specific recommendations until
final plans are presented for each proposed alternative
route. However, in order to minimize impacts to the
environment and wildlife habitats, we recommend that serious
consideration be given to the alternative to improve the
existing highway 421 roadway.
Since the proposed project and alternatives will occur
� in an area of urban development, we feel that an EIS
addressing wildlife, wetlands and stream habitats will not
be needed. We agree that impacts to streams and wetlands
� will be minimal because the project will not cross these
types of habitats. No endangered species .are known to exist
in this project area.
' To pr�vent off-site damage to the South Fork New River
located at the eastern edge of the project, standard DOT
erosion control guidelines should be utilizeci. Erosion
' controls should be designed to withstand a 10 year storm (5
1/2 inches of rain in 24 hour period) as required by the
St�tes' Sedimentation Act. When planning establish�ent of
new vegetation, consideration should be given to utilizing
' some planting materials with greater benefits to wildlife.
Adding white dutch or ladino clover to fescue and sericea
lespedeza plantings will increase benefits to many wildife
' species. Some plots of shrub lespedeza would meet erosion
CJ
� ..__... „
0
�
,:

'
/
�,
1
'
�
'
�
'
�
'
�
�
�
'
�
�
�
�
Memo
Page 2
March 6, 198g
control requirements while providing excellent food and
cover�supplements for small game.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on
the scoping phase of this proposed project and look forward
to reviewing the final plan. If we can be of further
assistance, please advise.
DB/lp �
cc: Mr. Don Hayes, District Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Joe Mickey, District Fishery Biologist
�
,•

10 rv "-� ��' �
S %�.+� i
� 4,/ '�
�
.�„�; �,.
r�ECEIVED
��a� 1 � �gs�
��'n�cr��;-�'r Fl�c.-rQ _ ���
.¢ :
State oF North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division oE Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleig�h, North Carolina 27611
�ames G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM:
SIIBJECT:
February 27, 1989
Harry F. Layman
Director
�.� ,��
. � ,
�CF.' ���'%
J ',
Melba McGee �• ��
r "�'� �j
Environmental Assessment Unit ��� �`:.��:���•�.=. �.�
. J.., r.: . - ;,,
�„ .
Don H. Robbins ~' �-'
l7� �� `
Staff Forester �1�5,i����,�•�`'��
Proposed Combined State EIS/Corridor location Report on
Proposed US 421 Improvements from NC 194 in Boone to
West of the South Fork New River in Watauga County
Project � 89-0696
Due Date March 6, I989
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry and greenways
in the area of the proposed project, the combined Environmental
Zmpact Statement/Corridor� location report should contain the
following information concerning the-proposed.alternative routes
for the possible right—of—way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland ac.res that would be taken out
of timber production and greenways as a result of new
right—of—way purchases.
2. The acres kreakdown of this Woodland concerning present
conditions such as clearcut areas, young growning timber,
and fully stocked stands of very productive timber within
the new right—of—way purchases for disturbed and undisturbed
portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved
within the proposed right—of—way, so as to be able to
determine the productivity of these forest soils in the
area.
P.O. Box 27687, Ralcigh, North CarDlina 276II-7687 Te!cphone 919•733•2I62
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmadve Action Employ�r
..

�
'
�
S .
�
,
�
'
'
�
'
,
,
'
IOO�N — AdO�
The number of woodland acres that would affect any
watersheds in the�area, if the Woodland was removed.
If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could
be merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and
burning of debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EIS that the
contrac[or will make all efforts to salvage any merchantable
timber to permit construetion, once the contractor takes
charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that-Ghe�•contractor will take during the
constructiofl phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and
construction damage to�Ehe remaining standing trees outside
" of the right-of-way boundary and construction limits.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the
least impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR/tl
cc: Fred White
z
��

� . • 1047N — AdOJ �
. ��C�jV�,� ����:_
� r �- �
R�.QU�S � ��� ���J1L'�'.l �EO2�����
Please revieir the attached notification and indicat� �`fATq�l�� �
. a�ency requires additional information, contact Y°ur response. IfO`�yj =
f ��11 Re ion D
responsegto the aboveioff�ce byVthe duesdate1iarin 1'ouseaPplicant directly or
i g Please submit your
ndicated. Piione: (704) 2G4-5558_
SCH Number 89-,E-4220-0696 Date 2-Z1-89
' � ' Plea
. , se sign and return to:
�
Reviewers:
� �im Ratchford, Watauga County Manager
Len D. Hagaman, Jr., Boone Town Manager
Chris bfay, Blowing Rock Town hfanager
� Pat Baxter, Seven Devi�ls Town hfanager
George McMahon, Beech Mountain Town Manager
�
�
�
Response [?ate 3-8-89
Regzon D Council oF Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P• �• Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
.RECE(VED
f:�ak ? u i9�g
r'^�rr,;��+r•:c.
. / � � �,�n . ��•�
Response: �is agency has reviewed the notification and offers t
recommendation: (check a ro he following
Pp priate response/more than one can be checked)
�_ No Comment
,�_ Favorable.
�e project is in agreement with the goais and objectives
of this agency�s progrant5,
' Unfavorable. The project is not in agreement with tlie goals and ob'ec-
"tives of this agency�s ProgT�s. �
__ Potential Problem(s), Identify•
e Comments: � �
� (� L � l� Cv� �!� L°�,. y� r^ D -' / I�, �
. �t.��C l.Uo � 6� �(Jc° n� T� r�
� - -- -- . • -- ��-�. � CO�c v7 �
�y ���� s��-, �4 %
. � }" � c/ � � � Q P � r � i h �--L��� , ' � w U � /
�/ r�� C i� �1 /C{
' � � << `�SS /—o �L� �
,
�
Revie b
' Y
�' �2`�—�,_
--•-Name _ .. ... ...... .
aoPnr-v• `
����
�
/�O/
,.
;

: �
... , , _ ... __
1007N — AdO�
� ` .
�i � Q � i � �'
t V
a � � � �f � � ��.�
' Please revzeir the attached
agency requires additional �otification and indicate
��11 Region D information Your response.
response to Council of GovernmentS� �ontact the If your
the above office b Clearingl�ouseapPlicant directiy or
Y the due date indica[ed, please sitl�mit
Pt�one: Your
SCH Nur,�ber �704�2G`�-5558_
89-.E-4220-0696
Date Z-21-.89
� Please sign and return o
Revi��
Jim R,atchford, Watauga County Manager
Len D, Hagaman, Jr.,
✓Chris hta �oone Town Manager
Pat Baxter Bl�Wing Rock Town Manager
, Seven Devils Town Manager
George McMahon, Beech Mountain Town Manager
Response Pate 3-8'89
Region D Councij of �o�e
Clearingho�se roordinatornmeRts
P- �. Box 18Z0
Boone, North Carolina 2g607
0
'
Response; .rnis a .
, recommendation: gency h as reviewed the notification and o
(checic approPriate response/more than oneffers the
-� No Camment
can be checked)ing
' � Favorable, . _
�—' . The proj ect is in a
of this agency�s greement with the �
progra�, g°aIs and objectives
1 �_ Unfavorable. The
Project is not in agreement w'
' t�Ves of this ag , 1 th tlie goals a
ency s p rograms. nd objec_
Potent'
' �- ial Problem(S), Zdentify;
Comments: �
--� .
, Z�'`lS �p/'���,,5 ,�,�s�°
6c� , � 2�i-�',s�. ��
� � °� ��-�- -
' � .
'
�
'
�evi eued b
� Y
Na.1e • �%� —�
A , n /YJ, n .
������ ��
!I

'
'
�
J
1
APPENDIX D
L�J
NEWSLETTERS
��
�
�
,
'
�
'
�
'
��J
I
'
u

�-��� --�� ���a��� U. S. ROUTE 421 IMFRGV�::
, ��—.�� . �. . .
`�'��E"°'"..,..^°5or�r°�. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
�J
,
'
' ', , ': .. � .
i
'
'
L�
'
�
L J
,�
t:;.
� '. . .,.
� �.,. , .•'::
', :':.'� . ;
'
N CDOT
DIVISION OF MIGNW4Y5
P.O. 80% 25201
RALEIGN� HC 27611
V
Issue No. 1
February 1989
WHAT IS AN E.I.S. � �
E.I.S. is an abbceviation for Environmental.Impact Statement. In any proposed con-
struction of a new roadway or significant improvement to an existing roadway, an
analysis is needed to determine the relationship betveen the monetary benefits and
costs to be derived from such an improvement. In addition to the economic analysis,
a detailed assessment of the proposed development's impact on the environment is
required, including natural cesources, histocic and architectural resources,
archaeological conditions, socioeconomic and land use characteristics, displacement
and relocations, traffic, air quality, and noise.
� The North Carolina DepartJnent of Transpottation (NCDOT) and Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. are �
accomplishing an E.I.S. for the proposed upgrading of US Route 421" from the
; intersection of S.R. 194 and US Route 421 to just vest of the South Fork New River
Bridge. It vill be our job to determine what improvements are needed-to meet future
anticipated traffic volumes, whether a nev alignment or an improvement of the
existing roadvay will provide the most positive and least negative benefits, and the
environmental consequences of each.
Work is progressing and is expected to be rnmpleted on schedule, vith submission of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for reviev in mid 1989. The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement vill describe the possible alternatives for improvement of US Route
421 and theit respective impacts on the environment and economic benefits.
TELEPHONE HOTLINE
To better provide information and to ansWer questions concerning the proposed improve-
ments to US Route 421 and the Environmental Impact Statement progress, a toll free
telephone number has been established for citizens' direct comnunication to the
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. engineecs. The toll free number is available foc project calls
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday thcough Friday. Calls should be directed to Mr.
Steve Thomas, P.E., Project Engineec or Mr. Paul Griggs, P.E., Project Manager.
TOLL FREE NUMBER i— 800 — 242 — 0421
�9ritten inquiries, cortcnents, or suggestions can be addressed to:
Mr. James M. Greenhill, P.E.,
Managec, Planning 6 Research 8ranch
NCDOT Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
OC
Mr. Paul H. Griggs, P.E.
Hensley-Schmidt� Inc.
P. O. Box 30219
Raleigh, NC 27212
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
A public involvement program has been established not only to better infocm those who
are interested in the project, but also to help us accomplish this study. Feedback
ftom local public officials and citizens is very important in determining what
improvements are needed, possible locations for nea alignments, and the locations of
known environmentally sensitive areas, historic sites, archaeological sites, etc.
Following is the program as developed by the NCDOT and Hensley-ScFunidt, Inc. to
provide for public involvement in the US 421 improvements project:
- Preparation and distribution of fouc informative Newsletters thcoughout the
study.
- Establishment of a Post Office Box and Toll Fcee Telephone Number for direct
communication.
- Elected Officials informational meetings. �
- Public workshops/Meetings to be held at two strategic times during the study
process.
0

i
i
FIRST PUBLIC MEETING HELD
� On January 17, 1989, the first of tvo public meetings was held by the NCDOT and
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. personnel. Repcesenting-the NCDOT Were Dr. David Modlin, P.E.
and Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., both With the Planning and Research Bcanch, and Mr. Dave
Cochcan, P.E_ With the Design Services Dranch. Hensley-Schmidt. Inc. vas cepresented
by Mr. Paul H. Griggs� P.E. and Mr. Steven Thomas, P.E.
, .. .
� ` ,
' . !
'' 1�. `�:`.'
'
.�
�
'
�J
�
'
' .
' .!.
' ,. ' :' _
� . .� �' . :': ...
' :` �.;.:_.�:
l�'
At this first meeting the proposed alternative constcuction corcidors Were shovn. A
formal pcesentation uas made by the NCDOT and Hensley-Sclunidt. Inc. With the need foc
the improvements discussed, the process of the E.I.S. outlined, and a bcief
description of the proposed alternative construction corridors and the "Improve
Existing Alignment" alternative. Enclosed in this newsletter is a map showing all of
the possible corridoc segments numbered from 1 to 4. �
The success of this first public meeting is obvious by the infocmation learned by the
engineers. The location of several potential histocic and archaeological sites,
including cemeteries, was pointed out to us by local citizens.
WHAT NEXT �
Utilizing cortments and cecommendations received from the ficst public meeting the
many possible alternative alignment corridors as shown at that meeting Will be
reduced in numbec by eliminating those that are determined to be impcactical due to
enviconmental impact oc cost. The end result of this process Will be the
establishment of the preliminary alternatives. These pceliminacy alternatives would
then be studied in detail for environmental impacts, construc.tion costs, and traffic
handling characteristics. In addition to the study of these alternatives vill be the
"do nothing" alternative, and an upgrading and improving of existing US Route 421
alignment.
Once the study alternatives are established another neNSletter Will be sent out to
inform you of the ones vhich are selected. Another public meeting Will also be held
in late Spring for public presentation and feedback on the findings of the
environmental impacts, construction costs, and traffic handling chacacteristics of
each selected alternative.
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.
P. O. Box 30219
Raleigh, iVC 27612

U. S. ROUTE 421 IMPROVEMENT
' E"°'"""•"°S°"^�°"� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' NCDOT
OIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
' P.O. BOX 25201
� � . RAIEIGN� NC 276/11 L}
V
R-529A
Issue No. 2 Aprll 1989
� __. NEXLPUBLIC MEETiNG DATE ,SET
As part of the continued public involvement program, the NCDOT along with Hensley-
. Schmidt, Inc. have scheduled the second public meeting/workshop for May 18, 1989, at
' the Boone Council Chambers from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. This meeting is being held to
present the current findings of the Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) which
covers US Route 421 from the NC 194/US 421 Intersection to just west of the South
Fork New River. At this meeting the alternatives considered for further study will
also be presented.
� , , �.. ' '..'' .'
, . . ,.
'
'
� ,
' .
� I
, ,
�.
'
' : . ..- .' ..\.
'
' • '
�
It is important to realize that at this meeting the one preferred alternative
recommendation will not yet have been made. In a usual E.I.S. process the findings
by Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. (those same findings that will be presented at this upcoming
public meeting) will be used and documented in the preliminary E.I.S. submittal.
Upon review and approval by the public and the required public officials, a
recommendation will be made. The preliminacy E.I.S. submittal is scheduled for late
June, 1989.
PROGRESS OF THE STUDY ,
Work has progressed from our last public meeting in most aspects of the study. Fram
our last public meeting where all of the possible study routes were presented, we
have narrowed down the number to two Alternative Corridor Routes, Improve Existing
Corridor, and the No-Build Alternative. These routes are all presented in the
schematic on the back page of this newsletter.
Due to the unusually wet winter, some aspects of the study such as historic,
architectural, and archaeological field work have been delayed. The review of the
flora and fauna (plants and animals) must wait until the beginning of wacm weather.
Other than these aspects of the study, the remaining study topics such as the
economic analysis, socio-economic and land use characteristics, number of
displacements and relocations, traffic, air quality, and noise analysis are all
nearing completion with results to be presented at the upcoming public meeting.
Following is a brief description of selected study topics and what has happened in
each.
.NOISE -
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. personnel were in the Boone area during the week of April lOth
to measure existing noise levels at selected locations. The measurement of existing
noise levels is used to help detecmine future noise levels for each of the
Alternatives. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that noise
levels should not exceed 65 dBA for residences and 70 d9A foc Cortme[cial areas. To
help in understanding these levels the figure on the right below shows characteristic .
I10132 levels for different activities. [oMUON o�i000rt rqISELEVEL COMYpN iHOOOa
��—.�..m���-;"�� �. �5 �,�,� NOISE LEVELS IcBAI NOISE LEVELS
Ser�J� 3�
ifV �1y4' . . .'.�a�.� r.i.�"L..'- �-no noa.9ona
�1 ,
HENSLEY—SCHMIDT PERSONNEL TAKING NOISE MEASUREMENTS
J�1 Flyo��r el IppO ft
W� La.n Ne.�r at S fl
Di���l Trvet at 5p tl
nary urean Oar���n.'
cas Le.n wm ar 100 rt
Com�n..del a.ee
N�ov� Traftic el SOOrt
Oui�l UrDen �p�lim�
pui�l Wpen NiQ�tiim�
O��et Su0�r0en Nipl�nm
Ovit1 PurW Nipntli,M
90
b
10
W
�O
]O
i0
10
InaWt SuC�a� T'an (Mw�>!)
Fwa B�<naa m � n
caroep� O�aoesa m !n
snan:w m �n
Vetwm Cleavr a q R
Nervwl SMetn ol � fi
urw ers:�..s o�tic.
D�anrasM� Neal Reem
s�m rn.�.. �wa ta+e..�. a�
leac�prow�al
Liber7
8�a/OOm w Niqnl
COK�n NY� IBeC�pNVNI
BrOpO�pfl anC RemrYnp SIWiO
Tlv�f�oW o1lMminy
1 0
connoe �■000� �.o outoaa� ■o�st u.ai.

! AlR
The impact resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvement of an
existing highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. In order to ensure that any proposed improve-
ment or construction of a roadway will not adversely affect the health of the general
public, the FHWA has estatilished ambient air quality standards (i.e. allowable
pollutant parts per million) for all pollutants. The pollutants that are most
produced by automobiles are carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and nitrogen
oxides. Preliminary study results show that no adverse air quality should be
experienced from any of the alternatives.
_.OTHER _ _____
Results from other study topics are being finalized as of this newsletter. Within
the next couple of weeks you should see more and more of our personnel in your area
taking measurements and readings of every type imaginable. By the time of our next
public meeting all of our results shall be in for your review and comments.
REMEMBER—
- Our Toll Free Number is 1-800-242-0421
Hensley-Schmidt, Inc.
P. O. Box 30219
Raleigh, NC 27612