19970616_Penalty Assessment SS 96-002 Response_19970205

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Winston-Salem Regional Office
February 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Forehand
Compliance Group
From: Mike Mickey
Subject: DOT/HWY421 - Fast Track (SS)
Watauga County
This is in response to your inquiry about the SS assessment for DOT. In regards to the
rainfall issue, please note the following timeline:
May 11, 1996 - DOT claims 2" rain in 30 minutes (See 6/21/96 DOT response ltr).
May 12, 1996 - Battle Ridge Companies (BRC) claims 2" rain fell in one hour (See
6/28/96 BRC response letter). Same rain event as above.
May 20, 1996 - BRC says they were substantially complete with repairs and
improvements to sediment structures (See 6/28/96 BRC letter).
May 30, 1996 - Turbidity samples collected by DWQ.
June 4, 1996 - Turbidity samples collected by DWQ.
Please note that the alleged 50 year storm occurred 18 days prior to DWQ's sampling.
In our opinion, the rainfall amount issue is irrelevant due to the time elapsed.
Your next question involved BRC's claim that the high turbidity values were due to
instream work. This excuse is also irrelevant. The high turbidity values were due to the failure
of DOTBRC to comply with the Sediment Pollution Control Act (SPCA). The Division of Land
Resources (DLR) found the waste pit/borrow site to be in violation of the SPCA during their
5/29/96 inspection. The NOV issued 5/30/96 required DOT to submit revised plans, install and
maintain adequate measures, reestablish the old channel and 25' trout stream buffer or stabilize
an appropriately designed and approved new channel (DOT relocated 800 LF of trout stream
without 404/401 permit approval). The waste pit/borrow site did not come into compliance with
the SPCA until sometime after 8/2/96.
Please be aware that DLR is attempting to get DOT to remove sediment from Stony Fork
Creek. The last meeting was held 1/29/97 in Raleigh. Harlan can check with Charles Gardner
for an update.
cc: WSRO
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Winston-Salem Regional Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder
THROUGH: Larry Coble -5-?4'?
Steve Mauney
FROM: Ron Linville
Mike Mickey
SUBJECT: Civil Penalty Assessment NCDOT (SS 96-002)
US 421 Project Watauga County
DATE: 970430
??? ®6 LSO
•, ql
?F„a+
Please be advised that the WSRO does not support the Department of Transportation
request for remission of the civil penalty of $1,752.52.
Primarily, the "facts" provided in the letter from Mr. J. D. Goins do not adequately
describe the severity of the conditions found at this construction site. It does not indicate that
DOT ordered the contractor to halt road construction on the project for approximately one week
to bring the sediment controls up to standard. Additionally, there is no mention that DOT
relocated 800 linear feet of trout stream without a COE 404 Permit or a 401 DWQ Certification.
Further, it is our understanding that the Division of Land Quality and DOT are negotiating silt
removal from the stream. However, DOT wants to perform the work with a backhoe instead
of the customary suction dredge.
The WSRO does not concur that many of the problems associated with this project were
"unforeseen" due to the mountainous terrain. DOT should have taken due diligence and
precautionary measures because of the terrain. The letter does not mention possible preventive
administrative measures that DOT will take to insure that similar situations do not occur in the
future. Nor does the letter indicate that DOT will avoid allowing a contractor to cause severe
environmental problems through tacit approval of field modifications to construction plans which
constitutes avoidance of environmental laws and regulations.
The fine assessed was minimal considering a DWQ macroinvertibrate study conducted
7/23/96 found "... a small but measurable, decline in habitat and water quality in Stony Fork
Creek." Also, it should be noted that DWQ's turbidity samples (only 2) were collected 18 days
after the alleged 50 year storm (See 2/5/97 memo attached) and that DOT was noncompliant
with the S.P.C.A. for over 66 consecutive days.
cc: Linda Forehand
John Dorney
i
From: "James Ronald (Ron) Linville" <niew331Owsro.ehnr.atate.nc.us>
Organization: WSRO DEMM
To: nlew507Odem.ehnr.atate.nc.us
Date sent: Fri, 16 May 1997 11:47:54 +0000
Subject: Re: 421
Priority: normal
Reference DWQ 960725, wilkes County Hwy 421.
It just doesn't make sense environmentally to me that DOT will run 4
more additional lanes through this area and not utilize the existing
roadway for the project. This will end up having 6 lanes of traffic.
I think that DOT could relocate some homes within the same area,
finish 1 new road section and then divert traffic to it and then
upgrade the old raod, then open up both when complete. This
cumulative roadbuilding is insane!
r*********r*********r*r*************rW**r***************r****« Ron
Linville @ WSRO 910/771-4608 x 265 "One of the penalties of an
ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.
Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An
ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the
consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the
doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself
well and does not want to be told otherwise." from Round River by
Aldo Leopold
ii
FHWA-NC-EIS-92-08-F
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
US 421
WATAUGA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(f) STATEMENTS
Federal Aid Project No. FR-86-1(6)
State Project No. 8.1750601, R-529BA & BB
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act
42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303
By the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

and
U North Carolina Department of Transportation
Cooperating Agencies
Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Department of the A
of En i rs
2
D to of Approval H. Franklin Vic , P.E., NCDOT
/Z ,/9/y
Date of App
roval
F-

Manager of Planning & Environmental Branch
Leon N. Larson, FHWA
Regional Administrator
The following persons may be contacted for additional information:
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
This statement documents the need for transportation improvements for US 421 from just
' west of the South Fork New River to just east of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
n

J

US 421
FROM JUST WEST OF THE SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
TO JUST EAST OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT FR-86-1(6)
STATE PROJECT 8.1750601
TIP R-529BA & BB
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(F) STATEMENTS
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY PIEDMONT OLSEN HENSLEY:
even L. Thomas, P.E.
roject Manager - Transportation
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
L. Grime , P.E., Unit Head
Cons tant En ' eering Unit
E. Michelle Wagone Fishburne, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

PREFACE
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Section 4(f)
Statements for the proposed transportation improvements to US 421 from just west of the
South Fork New River to just east of the Blue Ridge Parkway (T.I.P. Project R-529BA &
BB). See Exhibit 1. The remaining section of US 421 covered in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), from just east of the Blue Ridge Parkway to SR 1361 (R-529BC),
is addressed in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The FEIS was prepared in accordance with Federal Highway Administration
Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Section VI-C, as an abbreviated FEIS. Accordingly, only
those sections of the DEIS that required modification or clarification are presented in the
FEIS; hence, the DEIS is incorporated into the FEIS by reference.
The abbreviated FEIS is divided into eight sections and six appendices. Commitments for
mitigation of impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are addressed in the first
section of the FEIS. These mitigation measures are compiled from Sections IV, V, VI, and
VII of the DEIS and from agency correspondence received throughout the study process.

The second section includes errata sheets for those portions of the DEIS that were revised
or expanded. References to the specific portions of the DEIS being modified are provided
to assist the reader. Entire paragraphs from the DEIS are included in this report. The new
or revised information within the paragraphs and tables is highlighted for clarity. Material
may have been omitted from the DEIS text and will not appear in the FEIS paragraph.
The third section of the FEIS identifies the Preferred Alternative for the proposed project.
This section includes justification for the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
The fourth and fifth sections of the FEIS are the Final Section 4(f) Statements for the Blue
Ridge Parkway and W. S. Moretz House, respectively. The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluations
were circulated with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, approved on June 10, 1992.
' The sections revised from the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluations are highlighted in the final
statements. These revisions reflect updated information and responses to comments on the
draft evaluations.

i

Sections VI and VII of the FEIS detail the wetlands and floodplain findings for the '
Preferred Alternative, respectively.
Public and agency comments concerning the DEIS are addressed in Section VIII of the
FEIS. Information concerning the Corridor Location Public Hearing is presented along with
summaries of verbal and written comments. In addition, each of the comments made by
various review agencies concerning the DEIS are addressed with specific responses. The
agency letters are included in the Appendix of this document.
The final section of the FEIS includes six appendices. Appendix A contains the entire
corrected tables from the DEIS that required revision due to updated information or revised
policies. Appendix B contains exhibits from the DEIS that were revised or added as
necessary. Appendix C contains appendices from the DEIS that were revised. Appendix
D contains the correspondence received from federal and state agencies and local officials
concerning the DEIS. Appendix E contains additional Agency correspondence concerning
the Preferred Alternative at Deep Gap. Appendix F contains the Memorandum of '
Agreement between the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and FHWA for the
mitigation of effects to the Section 106 properties.

1

1
ii I

E'er! ow

NN

D
D

?'?'T?
? )
W ?'T1
? r = c)
D D
o
? l
,

Z
O m°
.u 7C' m M ?
Z
D Cl
u %• •-?..•
VI i
00 c < 112
2
x %

r
u ••
A
u N
r mm .D cr- 1,
?Z ?m 0
a m
<o
0
G7
? u /

I

'
Q o
<
r
m /
Db N
?.
4
? I ?
C ? r
uDi
' w
°
m

LTI _ o
.
v • 0
o
N
.0
u w
m W
a
?
I
Mr

m
"o,
° )
o4
°
f w r 3>0
m
O
0 r
?. 1 r f
-?
N
t? -n

N
.D /

u
/ N TO H. JEFFERSON---

O
/ -,,.
N
D

Z;
r

w
m
N
A
0
y

?O
?O

z
0

C)
D

o
-q C: :
D-
z
C- D cn
M

D=

°
O C a
> N
! z Q
O o

tr
x

t
t
t
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface i
Environmental Commitments I
Errata Sheets II
Preferred Alternative III
Final Section 4(f) Statement - Blue Ridge Parkway IV
Final Section 4(f) Statement - W. S. Moretz House V
Wetlands Finding VI
Floodplain Finding VII
Public and Agency Comments VIII
Appendices
A. Revised and Additional Tables
B. Revised and Additional Exhibits
C. Revised Appendices
D. Agency Comments on DEIS
E. Agency Comments on Preferred Alternative at Deep Gap
F. Memorandum of Agreement

Section I

L?
1

t

Environmental Commitments
1

1

t

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following summarizes the commitments for mitigation measures offered by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the Preferred Alternative.
1. NCDOT will reevaluate the need for and feasibility of noise barriers during the final
design phase of the project based on final alignment and grades as well as cut and
fill locations.
2. NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters as practicable.
3. NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
4. NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the relocation
of a tributary to Gap Creek.
5. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the NCDOT will coordinate
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Department of the Interior
- National Park Service (NPS) to continue assessment of archaeological site
31Wt301 (Stoneman's Fort). The fort, constructed of earth and materials from a
dismantled house during the closing days of the Civil War, was impacted by the
construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP). Current plans indicate between one
to 20 feet of land will be used in the area where remnants of the fort may remain.
Should these fort remnants be impacted, a qualified archaeologist will assess the
National Register eligibility of the site, prior to right-of-way acquisition, by several
methods which may include archival research, site mapping, and site testing. Since
the integrity of the fort was compromised, preservation in place is not anticipated
at 31Wt301. The FHWA and NCDOT will transmit the results of this work to the
SHPO and NPS for review. Should additional archaeological work be required to
mitigate impacts to 31Wt301, a mitigation plan will be developed in consultation
with the SHPO and the NPS prior to construction.
I-1

6. NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division of Highways Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
7. The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will
be evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC.
8. NCDOT will minimize the loss of forested areas through limiting clearing and
grubbing within the construction limits 10 feet beyond slope limits and by using 2:1
or steeper side slopes, where allowable.
9. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will ensure all the
stipulations in the Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT, FHWA Eastern
Federal Lands Highway Division, and NPS will be fulfilled.
10. If any of the underground storage tank (UST) sites are impacted by the Preferred
Alternative, a complete investigation of the UST site will be undertaken to
determine appropriate disposal procedures prior to right of way acquisition.
11. To facilitate the South Fork New River as a possible Wild and Scenic River, a
canoe access and parking area at the US 421 crossing of the South Fork New River
will be studied prior to right-of-way acquisition.
12. Prior to right-of-way acquisition, the salvage yard located on Old NC 60 in the
community of Rutherwood will be investigated to determine appropriate disposal
procedures.
r
13. The final wetland mitigation plan will be developed in coordination with the
appropriate regulatory and resource agencies during permit application. ,
14. A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed
by the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement
to perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD).
The research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on
r
I-2
r

BRP property prior to construction and continue through and following construction
for a minimum of five years.
1
15. The Federal Highway Administration (Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division)
shall develop design plans and administer the construction contract for the bridge
and related construction where US 421 crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP).
16. A dual-arch bridge as depicted in Exhibit IV-6 of the DEIS will be constructed to
replace the existing BRP single-arch bridge. Final bridge and roadway design plans
will be submitted to the North Carolina SHPO and NPS for review and comment.
FHWA shall coordinate with the NPS throughout the design and construction of the
' project as stipulated in the MOA among FHWA, NCDOT, and the NPS.
17. The rock face of the existing BRP bridge over US 421 will be salvaged by the
contractor. The salvaged rock will become the property of the NPS and will be
stacked at a location designated by NPS and approved by NCDOT.
18. NCDOT shall document the existing bridge in accordance with the Historic
' Structure and Landscape Recordation Plan included in the MOA prior to and
during construction.

19. In consultation with North Carolina SHPO and NP
S, NCDOT shall develop and
' implement a landscape plan for the land within the NPS boundaries at the crossing
of US 421 and the BRP. This landscape plan will specify plants indigenous to the
Blue Ridge Mountains and compatible with the historic landscape plan for the BRP.
The plans will be submitted to the North Carolina SHPO and the NPS for review
and comment prior to construction.
r
20. NCDOT may erect directional signs pertaining to the BRP in the vicinity of the
' US 421/BRP interchange. Any signs that NCDOT and FHWA consider to be
essential for reasons of safety will conform to NPS standards and will be submitted
' to the North Carolina SHPO and NPS for review and comment.
21. NCDOT shall acquire adequate protective buffer lands on both sides of US 421 to
rote
t th
i
h
d
f
h
BRP
d
p
c
e v
ews
e
o
t
e
an
to prevent non-conforming development in the
vicinity of the US 421/Blue Ridge Parkway interchange. Areas NCDOT proposes
r
I-3
r

to acquire for buffer lands will be reviewed and approved by the FHWA and NPS
prior to purchase.
1
22. NCDOT shall deed additional right-of-way acquired for construction of the ramp in
the northwest quadrant of the US 421/BRP interchange to the NPS in fee simple.
This land will not be considered compensation/mitigation for the NPS property
required for roadway construction.
23. NCDOT shall develop and implement a landscape plan to landscape US 421 along
its border with the W. S. Moretz Farm. This landscape plan will plant material
indigenous to the area and be submitted to the North Carolina SHPO for review
and comment prior to construction. '
24. NCDOT shall document W. S. Moretz Farm prior to construction in accordance
with the Historic Structure and Landscape Recordation Plan included in the MOA.

25. During construction and following completion of the project, access to the W. S.
Moretz Farm from US 421 will be maintained along the existing driveway.
r
26. Utility lines relocated by the construction of the US 421 improvements will not be
routed through the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Mountain Bog.
27. Design plans for the construction of the retaining wall in the vicinity of the US 421/
BRP Interchange will be submitted to the NPS and North Carolina SHPO for
review and comment.
28. The traffic control plans in the vicinity of the US 421/BRP Interchange will be
submitted to the NPS and North Carolina SHPO for review and comment.
29. Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design '
phase with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated
into runoff ditches. '
30. Should the Preferred Alternative impact Site 31Wt289, site testing will be conducted
to determine the eligibility of the site for the National Register. Preservation in
place is not anticipated for this site.
r
I-4
r

31. The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior
to construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.

1
P
I-5

Ij

?
1

1

Section II
Errata Sheets
1

ERRATA SHEETS
I Summary, Subsection C, Pages S-5 and S-6.
Revise to read:
BRP Crossing Alternative 1 involves widening existing US 421 from two lanes to five
' lanes. The existing stone facade arch bridge would be replaced with a similar stone
facade arch bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkwav would be maintained.
.....................
BRP Crossing Alternative 2 involves construction of a two-lane roadway parallel to
and north of existing US 421 to carry westbound traffic while existing US 421 would
carry eastbound traffic. The existing stone facade arch bridge would remain intact,
and an approximately 900-foot long tunnel would be constructed to pass westbound
US 421 traffic under the Parkway. No access would be provided between US 421
' and the Parkway at Deep Gap. '':Sf#1 ?,c t fic?t t?1SCt1ttrjEilt b,
BRP Crossing Alternative 3 involves construction of a two-lane roadway parallel to
and north of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. East of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. Existing US 421 would carry
eastbound traffic while the new roadway would carry westbound traffic. The existing
stone facade arch bridge would be maintained and a new structure would be built
just north of the existing bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be
provided T a st mat0 total Mst f0. + 0' 3T coon Svc ul?l b pt`t? t tely ;4
XXX -X
:..:. .
MI I'n
BRP Crossing Alternative 4 involves construction of four new lanes to carry US 421
under the Parkway, two for eastbound US 421 traffic and two for westbound US 421
traffic. East of the Blue Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. The
existing stone facade arch bridge would be removed and replaced with two similar
stone facade arch bridges. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be
provided. :.
sued.. t0 cost ..nstxttct?n?
BRP Crossing Alternative 5 involves the construction of a two-lane roadway parallel
to and south of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. East of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. Existing US 421 would carry
westbound traffic and the new roadway would carry eastbound traffic. The existing
stone facade arch bridge would be maintained and a new structure would be built
just south of the existing bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be
provided ii
X ela
W:
ted tat1 mgt £ctxtarro 'vt?p ro?ia
tey .iD
M: 0
alit

II-1

BRP Crossing Alternative 6 involves construction of a two-lane roadway parallel to
and south of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. This alternative is
similar to BRP Crossing Alternative 5, but with different horizontal and vertical
alignments and no access between US 421 and the Parkway. Existing US 421 would
carry westbound traffic and the new roadway would carry eastbound traffic.
Section I, Subsection C, Page I-3, second paragraph. I
c P rar a t ny the year lulu, the ADT volumes a
US 421 are projected to range from 10,900 to 24,600 vehicles per day.
Section II, Subsection B.2.1, Page II-7, first paragraph.
\?YA;; W GN7 V ?jt
existing
Table II-2 lists the eight segments eliminated and the reasons for their elimination.
X.: ix
..... x... ....r.... x ''?.:: ....,...... The
l?
Section II, Subsection B.2.3, Page II-10, first paragraph.
Build Alternatives A, B, and C share a common corridor in the area of the crossing
of the Blue Ridge Parkway over US 421 at Deep Gap. Because of the uniqueness
of this area, seven preliminary improvement alternatives, Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP)
Crossing Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6A were developed independent of Build
Alternatives A, B, and C. .:...VMS l~...??.::th+?
II-2

1

remaining segments were aggregated into three alternatives referred to as the
"reasonable and feasible" corridors. These alternatives are designated as Build

J

1

rotxanu ttI tie eX3stm 04Sei ettt areetrzent. The final selection of the
Preferred Alternative will include a reasonable and feasible BRP Crossing
Alternative. Included in Section V of this report are exhibits showing a plan view
of each of the BRP Crossing alternatives. Each alternative is described as follows:
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 1
BRP Crossing Alternative 1 involves widening existing US 421 from two lanes to five
lanes. The existing stone facade arch bridge would be replaced with a similar stone
facade arch bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be maintained.
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 2
BRP Crossing Alternative 2 involves construction of a two-lane roadway parallel to
and north of existing US 421 to carry westbound traffic while existing US 421 would
carry eastbound traffic. The existing stone facade arch bridge would remain intact,
and an approximately 900-foot-long tunnel would be constructed to pass westbound
US 421 traffic under the Parkway. No access would be provided between US 421
and ;.::::: ;:.;:;;.:::.:;.;:
the Parkway at Deep. Gap.
.:.... ? post fCtt ?otx?te?o? 'VV?tLt?d ?e
ppxximty mil4.
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 3
BRP Crossing Alternative 3 involves construction of a two-lane roadway parallel to
and north of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. East of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. Existing US 421 would carry
eastbound traffic while the new two-lane roadway would carry westbound traffic. The
existing stone facade arch bridge would be maintained, and a new structure would
be built just north of the existing bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkway
would be provided. SImalVe It e for e?rtGr+puld b`'a?mtey
............... .
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4
' BRP Crossing Alternative 4 involves construction of four new lanes to carry US 421
under the Parkway, two for eastbound US 421 traffic and two for westbound US 421
' traffic. East of the Blue Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. The
existing stone facade arch bridge will be removed and replaced with two similar stone
facade arch bridges. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be provided.

Fill

L
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 5
BRP Crossing Alternative 5 involves the construction of a two-lane roadway parallel
to and south of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. East of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, a center left-turn lane would be added. Existing US 421 would carry
westbound traffic and the new roadway would carry eastbound traffic. The existing
stone facade arch bridge would be maintained with a new structure built just south
of the existing bridge. Access between US 421 and the Parkway would be vrovided.
II-3

Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 6
BRP Crossing Alternative 6 involves the construction of a two-lane roadway parallel
to and south of existing US 421 and would pass under the Parkway. This alternative
is similar to BRP Crossing Alternative 5, but with different horizontal and vertical
alignments and no access between US 421 and the Parkway. Existing US 421 would
carry westbound traffic and the new roadway would carry eastbound traffic.
ii:•i:•i:•:i:•::::::L;J:{•:i{.y:;•;.:{vvvt<::•:6::??:::::: :.:::.v: :.::::::::::::::::::: u:.: ?:. ?:: ::::::::::•..:...::...:::: ............................................................................. ...........
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 6A
BRP Crossing Alternative 6A is similar to BRP Crossing Alternative 6, but with a
different horizontal and vertical alignment. i,lq# #ct#1t
XXXX
??!,
Section III, Subsection F.1.2c, Page III-31, second paragraph.
The general methodology employed in the investigations for protected species for this
project included a thorough analysis of pertinent literature and an extensive field
M. It should be noted that care was taken that no protected
or disturbed during the field study.
Section III, Subsection 17.12c, Page III-45, second paragraph.
This species habitat requirements include high elevationi" '<`pn 0M. X
the moss-sedge-grass mantle that carpets moist to
wettish, black humified find sand over outcrops of granitic rock; steep slopes and
bluff ledges; or the rocky detritus around outcrops. The Roan Mountain bluet is
presently known only from the North Carolina side of Roan Mountain.
Section III, Subsection G, Page III-59.
UST 3: Three-Way Grocery and Exxon
US 221 (in Deep Gap)
Owner: Jack Wellborn
Facility No.: 0-023388
Three 10,000-gallon gasoline tanks, installed 1985
One 10,000-gallon diesel tank, installed 1985
One 4,000-gallon tank, installed 1985
II-4
[l

I

11

J

All Tanks:
Material:'` a#C
Interior Protection: Interior lined
Exterior Protection: seceiast
.6 P
Section IV, Subsection F, Page IV-17, second paragraph.
Build Alternative B would incur the most displacements of the build alternatives. It
would involve the displacement of 57 residents, 10 businesses, and two non-profit
organizations for a total of 69 relocations. Build Alternative A would incur the
fewest displacements of the build alternatives. It would involve the displacement of
37 residents, 14 businesses, and two non-profit organizations, for a total of 53
relocations. i .. or iv ct?rnri urt?[tips> ?c rill:>I <tl ?s .1 MY:1i? Frefer.r.0- A: U*"M?i?We
Section IV, Subsection H.2, Page IV-29. Add the following.
Section IV, Subsection I, Pages IV-29 - IV-32.
The project area is located in the Eastern Mountain Air Quality Control Region,
Region I for the state. `i8b t>a>tttar>tn3e
.......................
tom..:..: Traffic input parameters included peak hour volumes, speeds, vehicle
types, and roadway conditions. Meteorological inputs included conservative values
for wind speed (1 meter/second), wind direction (worst direction for each receptor),
and atmospheric stability (Pasquill Class F).
The one-hour CO background level was assumed to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm)
and the eight-hour CO background level 1.2 ppm. Additional details of the modeling
may be found in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum - May 1990, available from
the Department of Transportation
II-5
1
Potential "worst case" location sites for the build alternatives and for the No-Build
Alternative were selected for analysis. Selections were made on the basis of
anticipated traffic volumes, operating conditions, and proximity of sensitive receptors
to the proposed roadway. The potential "worst case" location for the build
alternatives was adjacent to the right-of-way boundary at the western terminus of the
study area where the alternatives share a common corridor. Two receptors were
placed, one at each side of the right-of-way, 50 feet from the centerline of the
roadway.
In order to evaluate the air quality effects of the proposed project, design year CO
projections were calculated for both the Build and the No-Build Alternatives and
compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This
comparison revealed the projected CO concentration levels, presented in Table IV-9,
would not be expected to violate the one-hour or the eight-hour standard, 35 ppm
and 9 ppm, respectively. The one-hour CO concentration would not be expected to
exceedri (including background contribution) and the eight-hour CO
concentration would not be expected to exceed.
In summary, no violations of either the one-hour or eight-hour NAAQS for CO
would be expected under either the Build or No-Build Alternatives.
The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be
substantial. During construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition or other operations would be removed from the project, burned, or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning would be done in accordance
with applicable local, state, and federal laws and ordinances and regulations of the
SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAQ 2D.0520. Care would be taken to
insure burning would be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and
in such a manner as to prevent a hazard to the public. Burning would be performed
under constant surveillance. Measures would also be taken in allaying the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust would be necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and no additional reports are
required.
Section IV, Subsection J.4, Page IV-51, first paragraph.
4. Noise Impact - The activity category most affected by noise in the design year was
residences. Each receptor was identified by activity and was compared to the noise
abatement criteria established for that activity category. By the design year, under a No-
Build scenario, approximately 141 receptors would experience noise levels in excess of the
noise abatement criteria. #}aXtriAltvttfuI!>h €tiatt<trital
II-6

I''

n
Section IV, Subsection J.S, Page IV-52, third paragraph.
The reasonableness of barrier installation, as defined by the Department of
Transportation, should show that common sense and good judgment were used in
arriving at a decision. In determining the reasonableness of noise barrier installation,
the following criteria are considered:
• The cost effectiveness of the abatement measure. Cost effectiveness is
defined as $25,000 per effectively protected (four dBA or more reduction)
residence.
' The exposed height of the wall does not exceed a maximum of 25 feet.
• Unless special conditions exist, it is not considered reasonable to provide
' noise abatement for impacted businesses or isolated receptors.
• Based on NCDOT post project experience, it is considered unreasonable to
' provide abatement for isolated residences, due to the cost of abatement versus
the benefits provided.
Section IV, Subsection L.2.1, Page IV-80, fourth paragraph:
The height of the terrain within the proposed area is 400 feet with the base line at
3,100 feet above mean sea level. No balds exist in the proposed project area, and
corresponding "high" elevation steep rock faces or ledges are also nonexistent.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the proposed action will result in any impacts to
this species.
1
Section IV Subsection L.2.1 Page IV-81. Add the following:

L

L I
I
L
II-7
1

Section IV, Subsection L.2.2, Page IV-82, second paragraph.

Bog turtles have been reported in approximately 14 counties of the piedmont and
mountain provinces of North Carolina. Although no specimens were sighted during ,
field investigations, four areas of potential habitat were located. Only cursory
attempts were made to locate the bog turtle, such as quiet observation time
(approximately two hours) of suitable habitat. Potential habitat areas identified ,
include the Pine Run Branch crossing of Alternatives A and C (Site 8) and the 3.3-
acre mountain bog site at the tributary to Wildcat Branch where the BRP Crossing
Alternatives cross (Site 10, Table III-8). There are also potential habitats at Sites 3A
and 6C (Table III-B, Exhibit III-4).
Section IV, Subsection M, Page IV-85, first paragraph.
II-8
1

CJ

Section IV, Subsection N, Page IV-86.
>:,:.,um. .:::::.>::<
t! Thi
' f;? tt tbe. ultd atlThis evaluation is based on the
results of the 1988 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) detailed flood
' insurance study of the incorporated area of Boone and the FEMA Federal Insurance
Rate mapping for the unincorporated portions of the study area. The mapping
indicates the only major stream and corresponding flood plain involvement would be
the South Fork New River, with a drainage area of approximately 34.8 square miles
above the existing US 421 crossing, and Gap Creek with a drainage area of
approximately three square miles.

Section IV, Subsection N.2, Page IV-88, second paragraph.
' As indicated on Exhibits IV-3 and IV-4, all the build alternatives would cross the
'St<Q of the 100-year flood lain of Gap Creek and the South
Fork New River. The f lo' od plain boundaries are classified as Zones for
Gap Creek and the South Fork New River, respectively, in the Flood Insurance Rate
maps. ? indicate the boundaries are where the 100-year base flood
' elevations have not been determined by FEMA.
Under all the build alternatives, bridge crossing for the main channels of the South
Fork New River and Gap Creek would require the placement of piers in the
floodway. Reaches of the South Fork New River and Gap Creek will be crossed with
culverts and pipes. All hydrologic structures will be designed so any increase in
backwater elevation will not result in a significant increase in 100-year flood
elevation.
r Section IV Subsection S Page IV-95.
Add the following to the end of the first paragraph.

r?
J

II-9
1
1
Section IV, Subsection T, Page IV-96, first paragraph.

Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be controlled '
in accordance with the NCDOT Standard Specifications, Provisions for Highway
Construction, and NCDOT Best Management Practices forProtection of Surface Waters.
.......... .............. :.::... .....................:.:.........
:. A
Section IV, Subsection T, Page IV-96.
Add the following paragraphs at end of section.
II-10

J
11
f

Section III

I 7-7
I'
L?

r-J,

Preferred Alternative

FJ
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Three build alternatives and the No-Build Alternative were evaluated in detail in the DEIS.
' The No-Build Alternative is described and discussed in Section II.B.1 of the DEIS. Based
on the results of this evaluation, the No-Build Alternative was eliminated from consideration
' because it did not adequately meet the purpose of and need for the project. Of the three
build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, Build Alternative A was selected as the Preferred
Alternative. Build Alternative A is shown in Exhibit II-2 of the DEIS and in Exhibit 2 on
the following page. Of the seven Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) Crossing alternatives
evaluated, BRP Crossing Alternative 4 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. BRP
Crossing Alternative 4 is shown in Exhibit V-5 of the DEIS and in Exhibit IV-5 of the FEIS.
Consequently, the Preferred Alternative for this project includes Build Alternative A and
' BRP Crossing Alternative 4.
' The Preferred Alternative begins just west of the South Fork New River bridge as a five-
lane curb and gutter section and proceeds easterly approximately 1,500 feet along existing
US 421. The alternative then diverges from existing US 421 and transitions to a four-lane
' divided facility with a 46-foot grassed median. Turning south, the Preferred Alternative
continues in an easterly direction for approximately three miles. The alternative then turns
' north, crosses existing US 421, and continues in an easterly direction, passing north of
Rutherwood and Laxon and through the eastern portions of the community of Deep Gap.
The alternative converges with the existing US 421 corridor approximately 0.5 miles west
of the US 421/US 221 intersection in Deep Gap. The Preferred Alternative then continues
along the existing US 421 corridor for approximately one mile, terminating just east of the
Blue Ridge Parkway. The Preferred Alternative is approximately nine miles in length.
The bridge over the South Fork New River will either be widened to five lanes, or another
two-lane bridge will be constructed parallel to the existing bridge. At-grade intersections
for the Preferred Alternative will be provided at SR 1514, existing US 421 (three locations),
SR 1355, SR 1357, SR 1359, and US 221. A grade separated interchange providing access
for all movements will be provided at the Blue Ridge Parkway crossing.

III-1
Build Alternative A and BRP Crossing Alternative 4 were selected as the Preferred
Alternative based on being the environmentally preferred alternative. Table S-1 in
Appendix A of the FEIS summarizes the impacts of the Build and BRP Crossing
Alternatives. The advantages of the Preferred Alternative are as follows:
• fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Alternative C);
• lower cost -- approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8
million less than Build Alternative C;
• fewer noise impacts -- 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
• fewer wetland impacts -- (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55 acres less
than Build Alternative C;
• lesser impacts to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• no impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
• provides safety and capacity to meet future traffic demand;
• improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by Department of the Interior - National Park
Service.
The estimated construction cost of the Preferred Alternative is $37.7 million. Estimated
right-of-way cost is $8.9 million, for an estimated total project cost of $46.6 million.
III-2
mm m m mm m m 0 m m mm
r
r r
N N

. -J ?m
. mm
Y:
CC,
r =
9p N
... a0
o
?• I
w
? p
CD m /.
o ?.
p i?
m
C ..
U
C;a
/ •• OD tl
,. U
N ?
v
m -'
N •
/ a.
c a :,
ii •
sX yy • ••
Q 9 :
a
• *-J" xo
m?
{± cm
9-6
m
W ?.
A
j
t r
.ay a
o co
N
TO

m C,
N

i m m
0 A Z
O =
O m
• N

o

., a7

N ?

I II
¦
I
fD' X X O NI O
r m m ? N a
MM Z i
- I X r-
m
zm D
-A z
0 z
0
r CO
?
D°
"n <
m c
w
o z
m
cn
mM o o
., m
C3
D m

J7 o
m
^r
Ji
z
O

r- ?
L
Section IV
Final Section 4(f) Statement - Blue Ridge Parkway

1-1

11

0
FINAL SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT FOR BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
A. PROPOSED ACTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve US 421,
partially along new alignment, from just west of the South Fork New River to`iast east a£
exu Ridgy'rky'' T' :xa?et S?A33. The project extends in an west-
' east direction for approximately 0e miles. US 421 serves as the primary transportation
route linking Watauga County to eastern North Carolina and is part of the proposed North
Carolina Intrastate System.
' A portion of the proposed project lies within the property boundaries of the Blue Ridge
Parkway, a national park currently the subject of a historic structures survey to determine
' its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. For the purposes of
this project, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will consider the Blue Ridge Parkway eligible for
' the National Register. Because the proposed improvements to US 421 will be constructed
with Federal-Aid funds and because the construction will require the use of publicly owned
' lands from a park, a recreation area, and a historic site; this project will comply with the
requirements of Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act.
B. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY
The Blue Ridge Parkway is a 469-mile elongated park within the southern Appalachian
' Mountains that connects the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia with the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park in North Carolina (Exhibit IV-1). Owned and administered by the
' United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, the primary purpose of the
Blue Ridge Parkway is recreational driving and sightseeing. It also abounds with places to
camp, fish, hike, and picnic. Visitor centers, naturalist talks and walks, self-guided nature
trails, and numerous roadside exhibits provide the park visitor with information on the
history, geography, and plant and animal life of the area.
1

IV-1

There are more than 300 scenic overlooks along the Parkway. Near the project area are
Thompkins Knob, which includes a trail to historic buildings, Elk Mountain, Stoney Fork
Valley, Osborne Mountain View, Carroll Gap, and Grandview. Further north on the
Parkway, a short hike affords visitors an overlook of the Roanoke River Gorge. The route
also crosses Daniel Boone's famous Wilderness Road less than 10 miles south of the project
area.
The Blue Ridge Parkway provides access to adjacent state parks along the way and to the
Cherokee Indian Reservation at its southern extremity. It is the most visited unit of the
national park system in the United States, with 25 million visitors per year in 1990 and over
600 points of access.
Its breathtaking scenic beauty and unique historic sites make it the showpiece parkway of
the National Park Service, but the Blue Ridge Parkway is also notable as a remarkable civil
engineering achievement. The roadway winds between and across ridges and summits and
through the gaps and hollows of the mountains. More than 50 years in the making, the
Parkway was completed in 1987 with the construction of a 7.5-mile section that traverses the
rugged and winding terrain of Grandfather Mountain, less than 25 miles south of the project
area. Within this section is the Linn Cove Viaduct. An engineering and construction
achievement costing almost $10 million, the viaduct is 1,243 feet long and contains 153
segments weighing 50 tons each. It was built from the top down using pre-cast sections to
minimize the impact to one of the world's oldest mountains.
The states of North Carolina and Virginia acquired the rights-of-way for construction of the
Blue Ridge Parkway. Title for the portion of the parkway within the project area was
conveyed to the United States on November 10, 1943, fee simple. "l"ie<x;` `>CI
......................
'. ':::: :". i:ii :.:: • •>::: .., •: • :; ' ; ..:. ... : .....:.::::a....>r...........:. n:..; r` s:>:.:'.;:::i:.:::::.,:.::..:: :::::.,,.: y:::: •:::: ?.;' :;:..;•::::::::: :::.; .
?..u± Fakra:>..rcv b...ascis mint. The
easement provides for a 26-foot wide crossing of the Parkway and extends 1,100 feet to the
northwest and 750 feet to the southeast. The provisions of the deed-reserved easement will
be modified through a supplemental agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and
the State Highway Administrator of the NCDOT to provide access for the improvement of
US 421 through the Blue Ridge Parkway.
US 421 intersects the Parkway property at Milepost 276.4 through a natural mountain pass
known as Deep Gap. The Parkway at Deep Gap is located along the Eastern Continental
IV-2

1

urnsville 22
4z 194 194 Z
0 Oaks Micaville Newland 1.11 141, MOAN p O one (wl^ ?.Galan
inville ve' •RRIa 721 Sparta C? ?? •
l9! MFM oSEPARK Glendale Laurel Springs ,? ? .?
Clossllore Springs
$Q Spruce 19! . 71 ? rl oNF M ? Rn Deep 770 750 jg 18
19E HlowinR Rock r n e. .ll ? 89
mows Little ?'t? Plneola 1f '` • c.,h,,?
? SwitZerlaf?l Mi- -j, . A. RlJ r' W 'I j!AHK oli Ul •11'n11+K I)e 71? ' `
v l . , IN VILLL K???,1?
-1? .,,,. ?:?.dl< Kuti 8 ??? ?
jb llp 16 ?
?N? UM II- NO ?`
) i 1`
171
I Lake 13
Tahom 71) 1Huanny Gap
??L 7,?I?ir It,,, 89
_. -_, ?? Lit' la•nl (M ?? 1 ?i (71 Bottom
0 204,00
bar a o a I e
(feet)
11 //
1 I'
/! s ''`? II _BLUE RIDGE
II I, j PARKWAY
4100?
LEGEND
STONEMAN.S FORT
BOG
\ ? ? \ \ ?? \\ / - - EXISTING ROADWAY
/)/` ?? \•___ BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
PROPERTY LINE
J / \\ ARCHTBRIDGEONE
RESIDENCE
BLUE R I DGE / US HIGHWAY 421
PARKWAY BOUNDARY \ WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
STUDY AREA
EXHIBIT IV-1

r
t

1

1

1
1
t

Divide and is one of the area's few east-west crossings. The gap is formed by an inclining
escarpment to the north and a declining escarpment to the south.
The Blue Ridge Parkway/US 421 interchange at Deep Gap is surrounded by a mature,
mixed hardwood and hemlock forest. The forest has not been logged for many years and
the only disturbances in the forested area are two dirt roads cut through the tract to provide
access to private homes. As a consequence, the stand contains many large, mature
hardwood trees; indeed, this forest is one of the best examples of mature forests in the study
area.
Although the Parkway provides no recreational or parking facilities within the project area,
it does contain the following historically and biologically important features:
• Stoneman's Fort. One of the major events of the Civil War in Watauga County was
Stoneman's Raid, which took place near the end of the war. In 1865, Federal cavalry
under Major General George H. Stoneman, based in Tennessee, moved eastward
through western North Carolina and Virginia with the assignment to destroy
Confederate rail traffic. The advance guard attacked the town of Boone on March
28, 1865. After General Stoneman and the First Brigade moved on to Wilkesboro
through Deep Gap, General George Kirk and the Second and Third North Carolina
Mounted Infantry replaced him in Boone. Kirk's task was to hold the county and
fortify the roads and passes in the area against counterattacks by Confederate
cavalry. Under Federal Brigadier General Tillson, the Second North Carolina
Mounted Infantry built fortifications at Deep Gap. According to local tradition, the
main fortification was a stockade, an encircling trench enclosing about one acre and
breastworks to the east along the road through the gap. This entrenchment was
largely destroyed by the construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway around 1959.
(VanNoppen, Ina W., 1961, Stoneman's Last Raid. North Carolina College Print
Shop, Raleigh, North Carolina.)
As currently planned, little if any of the reported archaeological sites (Stoneman's
Fort) will be impacted by the proposed project. The FHWA and NCDOT will
coordinate with the SHPO and the Blue Ridge Parkway/National Park Service to
continue assessment of the archaeological site. Should the site be impacted,
additional archaeological work will be conducted which may include archival
IV-3

research, mapping any existing earthworks, and site testing to determine the eligibility
of remnants of Stoneman's Fort (31Wt301) to the National Register of Historic
Places. Since the integrity of this resource has been compromised by construction
of the Blue Ridge Parkway, preservation in place is not anticipated for this
archaeological site.
• Mountain bog. This uncommon topographic phenomenon is located in the southwest
quadrant of the Blue Ridge Parkway/US 421 intersection. The word "bog" refers to
the wet spongy ground that mainly consists of decayed mosses and other vegetation.
In this water-logged and oxygen-deprived environment, decomposition slows down.
Leaves, branches, and other partially decayed organic matter build up over time,
resulting in accumulated layers of peat. Sphagnum moss, the glue which holds the
bog together, provides a physical base on which other plants grow and maintains the
wet environment by absorbing tremendous amounts of water.
€xxierviceis idatet tieatthernppalachiait
iii:
;ainr?untattg
?r pre ex,t aye; of the am. habitat types to artt? Cart3S?na wYtb
state. Scientists are just beginning to study mountain bogs, which are as
different from one another as they are from the surrounding terrain, and each is
important to the understanding of the bog environment.
Valued for the unique habitat they provide, mountain bogs are often home to
numerous rare and endangered plant and animal species. Likely bog inhabitants
include Gray's lily and the bog turtle. The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest
turtle. Many naturalists consider it to be the United States' rarest turtle species.
The bog turtle prefers very muddy habitats where springheads send cool water
trickling through the bog in slow moving rivulets. A biological survey conducted for
this project did not detect the elusive bog turtle, but specimens of Gray's lily were
found in the bog, and the habitat there was judged to be conducive to turtle
population.
• Parkway bridge. Built in 1963 of concrete with a native Grandfather Mountain
granite veneer, the existing bridge was designed by Region 15 of the Bureau of
Public Roads (now FHWA). The monolithic, rigid arch, frame bridge, whose
construction is typical of Parkway bridges, spans approximately 65 feet with a
minimum vertical clearance of 14 ft.- 6 in., and took nearly a year to complete.
IV-4

1

1
1
1

1?

Massive footings were necessary to support the structure under existing soil
conditions. Including the footings, the bridge extends almost 200 feet along the
Parkway.
1. BRP Crossing Alternative 1 (Exhibit IV-2)
Existing US 421 will be widened symmetrically from two lanes to five lanes while
maintaining its current design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). The existing stone
facade arch bridge will be replaced by a new structure with a span of approximately
110 feet xnd t izxtmum'vertzcal ciearanee l" 6` t 6 in. Temporary detour routes
will be constructed for both Parkway and US 421 traffic during demolition and
removal of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge. The design speed
for the detours will be 20 mph. It is estimated the temporary detours will be
required for approximately six months.
Approximately 9.1 acres of Parkway property will be cleared for construction, most
above the Parkway elevation; thus, the visibility of US 421 from the Parkway will be
substantially increased. However, the total visual intrusion of US 421 will remain
less than one-quarter mile. The existing access between the Parkway and US 421 will
be maintained.

IV-5

BRP Crossing Alternative 1 will result in improved air quality due to a more
efficient, less congested highway and will produce no increase in noise levels.
Additional disturbance of the Stoneman's Fort archaeological site will be minimal
and approximately 0.2 acre of the mountain bog will be negatively impacted. The
estimated construction cost of BRP Crossing Alternative 1 is approximately $3.1
million.
Because of the safety hazards which would be introduced by the detour period `(?
...:.,..,.
use ? ..t ... .+ c to t? t t itx b BRP Crossing Alternative 1 is not
14
considered a reasonable and prudent alternative.
2. BRP Crossing Alternative 2 (Exhibit IV-3)
Existing US 421 will be maintained for eastbound traffic and two additional lanes will
be constructed to the north for westbound traffic. The 45-mph design speed of
existing US 421 will remain unchanged, while the new lanes will have a design speed
of 60 p The existing stone facade arch bridge
car will remain above the eastbound lanes and an approximately 900-foot-long
tunnel will be constructed to pass westbound US 421 traffic under the Blue Ridge
Parkway. A temporary detour route will be required for Parkway traffic. The
existing access between the Parkway and eastbound US 421 will not be maintained.
Approximately 5.8 acres of Parkway property will be cleared for construction. This
alternative will avoid disturbance of the mountain bog; however, the outer fringes of
the Stoneman's Fort archaeological site could be impacted. The estimated
construction cost of BRP Crossing Alternative 2 is approximately $31.6 million. I
The geology of the site, which consists of rock extensively intruded upon by granite
dikes and sills, renders construction of a 900-foot shallow tunnel impractical from an
engineering standpoint. Due to area rock formation, the extensive use of retaining
walls to fortify the slopes would be required, thereby increasing the cost of
construction. For these reasons, BRP Crossing Alternative 2 is not considered a
reasonable and prudent alternative. I

IV-6

1

1

I

11
1
0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)

i
I l
l
i
•l

II
?
?
II ,?

FI l

BLUE RIDGE ?\?? / I \\ LEGEND
PARKWAY BOUNDARY / , I \ 11
f ?,j II 'I 11 A STONEMAN.S FORT
j I II 11 4 ,•l•';•4 BOG
i
II I' _ = EXISTING ROADWAY
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
II -? PROPERTY SLINE
II _ ARCHTBRIDGEONE
II E=7 RESIDENCE
/ I) PROPOSED ROADWAY
\ I _ PROPOSED SINGLE
i ARCH BRIDGE
III
N
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
SECTION 4(f)
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 1
EXHIBI

1

1
a

M
r

1

r
1

1
11
0 300 600 II /
II ?
SCALE (FEET) n cv QP? j
1i II j
- IV
-----PC
1??i? II? % ?I LEGEND
BLUE RIDGE D / J \? 11
PARKWAY BOUNDARY /
,`co°?? I \ 11 A STONEMAN. S FORT
-f / I I I I 11 Rts;:?. BOG
EXISTING ROADWAY
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
II PROPERTY LINE
II _ ARCHT GEONE
RESIDENCE
II PROPOSED ROADWAY
? I
lz? PROPOSED TUNNEL
N
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
SECTION 4(f)
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 2
EXHIBIT IV-3
r
t

LJ
t
1
e

1

A

1
0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)
400?
BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY BOUNDAR'
I ,

I I ?
I I
Py
I11 ? QP??
I I J? -x
II ??
II ,?
A II
LEGEND
?/ I 11 11 / A STONEMAN,S FORT
?? / II 11
BOG
II I' _ = EXISTING ROADWAY
I
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
II PROPERTY LINE
II I = ARCHTBRIDGEONE
II p--l RESIDENCE
II PROPOSED ROADWAY
\ I
PROPOSED SINGLE
ARCH BRIDGE
I
N
`US HIGHWAY 421
I WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
SECTION 4(f)
1 BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 3

A

1
r
e

r
[l
1
1e
t
1
0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)
Zooll"
BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY BOUNDAR'

i
I
Py
Il 1 P QP?%
I e? i
I
?I? ? ? ?:.}?::}• `: iii
J //' A I

LEGEND

11
A STONEMAN.S FORT
11
II ;.•': f:;?. BOG
I' _ =
I EXISTING ROADWAY

{- BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
OPE
RT
Y
L
INE
P
R

_
I GG
I
I
g
TT
XX
ARCHTBRIDGEONE
RESIDENCE
PROPOSED ROADWAY
_ PROPOSED DOUBLE
ARCH BRIDGE
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
I I SECTION 4(f)
1 BLUE RlbGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 4
(PREFERRED) EXHIBITIV-5
N

t

w
LI

t

3. BRP Crossing Alternative 3 (Exhibit IV-4)
Existing US 421 will be maintained for eastbound traffic and two additional lanes will
be constructed to the north to pass westbound traffic under the Blue Ridge Parkway.
East of the Blue Ridge Parkway, a center left turn lane will be added. The 45-mph
design speed on existing US 421 will remain unchanged, while the new lanes will
have a design speed of 50 mph. The existing stone facade arch bridge i :
::::;:;::::A ..........:.....:::::::.
S''f will remain above the eastbound Ian es. A new stone facade
arch bridge will be constructed to
span the proposed westbound lanes.
Approximately ten acres of parkway property will be cleared for construction. This
alternative will avoid disturbance of the mountain bog but could impact Stoneman's
Fort archaeological site. BRP Crossing Alternative 3 will result in improved air
quality due to a more efficient, less congested highway and will produce no increase
in noise levels. The estimated construction cost of BRP Crossing Alternative 3 is
approximately $2.4 million. Because this alternative does not improve the deficient
vertical clearance for the eastbound lanes of US 421, this alternative is not
considered a reasonable and prudent alternative.
4. BRP Crossing Alternative 4 - Preferred Alternative (Exhibit IV-5)
Existing US 421 through the Blue Ridge Parkway property will be removed. Four
new travel lanes, with a design speed of 50 mph, will be constructed to pass US 421
under the Blue Ridge Parkway. East of the Parkway, a center left-turn lane will be
added. The new lanes for eastbound traffic will be constructed along the alignment
of existing US 421; the new westbound lanes will be located to the north. The
existing stone facade arch bridge will be removed and replaced with dual stone
facade arch bridges. > ::
IV-7

5. BRP Crossing Alternative 5 (Exhibit IV-7)
Existing US 421 will be maintained for westbound traffic and two additional lanes
will be constructed to the south to pass eastbound traffic under the Blue Ridge
Parkway. East of the Parkway, a center left-turn lane will be added. The 45-mph
design speed of existing US 421 will remain unchanged, while the new lanes will have
a design speed of 50 mph. The existing stone facade arch bridge ?W
Z.ttk`t:15:;X will remain intact above the westbound lanes. A new stone
facade arch bridge ?mxnzmuctt ?exYa?trace will be
constructed to pass the proposed eastbound lanes under the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Fj
LI
IV-8

t
1
t
t
a
r

e

t

f
?M I I
1 i
rl+
?r
ter, . _ ^ t,'' U U 9
.rrttY ? it ? ? ? w
v ,? bA U
cn u
4
1 h s ,11',
? • r?'? MIpsyyLV
US HIGHWAY 421
UT i WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
ARTIST'S RENDERING OF
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY BRIDGE
r ?EXHIBIT W-6
f

1
1
t
1
IF]
?J

1

0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)
400?
BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY BOUNDAR'

ni
i
FIB"
:6 :6
:6 ;6

r

A
/ IV

II/ /
ID2 LEGEND
? I ??i 11
II 11 11 / A STONEMAN.S FORT
II 11
•:"s;:`i?:`' BOG
II I' _ = EXISTING ROADWAY
II '? I {___ BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
II PRIOPEIRTGGY LITINE
II _ ARCHTBRIDGEONE
II ?? RESIDENCE
II PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SINGLE
ARCH BRIDGE
US HIGHWAY 421
I WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
SECTION 4(f)
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 5
EXHIBIT IV -7
? Py
Q Phi
i
III i ?J? ti
II ??

Approximately six acres of Parkway property will be cleared for construction. This
alternative will negatively impact approximately 0.3 acres of the mountain bog and
could impact Stoneman's Fort archaeological site. BRP Crossing Alternative 5 will
result in improved air quality due to a more efficient, less congested highway and will
produce no increase in noise levels. The estimated construction cost of BRP
Crossing Alternative 5 is approximately $4.0 million. B 8n '`t` <#?''
#c?#xrt#nbsternnv+s n? ?cox?5idr a ree5oxbSendixuideittt
6. BRP Crossing Alternative 6 (Exhibit IV-8)
Existing US 421 will be maintained for westbound traffic and two additional lanes
will be constructed to the south to pass eastbound traffic under the Parkway. East
of the Parkway, a center left-turn lane will be added. The 45-mph design speed of
existing US 421 will remain unchanged, while the new lanes will have a design speed
of 60 mph. The existing stone arch bridge tyitf? x''14 f't; it#.?rtleal clran; will
remain intact above the westbound lanes. Anew structure with atfu#?at t,#tun#satim
exticax ate"rat#s ?f 6 i't - t*: will be built to pass eastbound US 421 traffic under
the Blue Ridge Parkway. A temporary detour route will be required for Parkway
traffic. The existing access between the Parkway and US 421 will be eliminated due
to physical and geometric constraints.
Approximately 6.7 acres of Parkway property will be cleared for construction, most
below the Parkway elevation. BRP Crossing Alternative 6 will result in improved air
quality and no increase in noise levels.
This alternative could impact the Stoneman's Fort archaeological site; eastbound
lanes will traverse the area where the original site of the fort is thought to have
existed. Approximately 1.6 acres of the mountain bog will be negatively impacted.
The estimated construction cost of BRP Crossing Alternative 6 is approximately $3.8
million.
Because of the substantial impact to the mountain bo BRP Crossing Alternative 6
is not considered a reasonable and prudent alternative.

1 IV-9
11

7. BRP Crossing Alternative 6A (Exhibit IV-9) i,
BRP Crossing Alternative 6A is identical to BRP Crossing Alternative 6 with the
following exceptions: I
• The two proposed eastbound lanes will have a design speed of 50 mph.
• Approximately 5.2 acres of Parkway property will be cleared for construction.
• Approximately 0.6 acres of the mountain bog will be negatively impacted.
• The estimated construction cost of BRP Crossing Alternative 6A is
approximately $3.4 million.
Because of the impact to the mountain bog and Stoneman's Fort archaeological site,
BRP Crossing Alternative 6A is not considered a reasonable and prudent alternative.
D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES I
The No-Build Alternative would not impact Parkway property, Stoneman's Fort or the
mountain bog, nor would it require capital expenditure for new construction. However, as
discussed in Section I of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1988 traffic volumes
on US 421, estimated at approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd), exceed the acceptable
capacity for this section of US 421. Between 1988 and Year 2015, traffic volumes are
projected to grow approximately 3.5 percent annually. This annual growth translates into
projected design year traffic volumes of approximately 9,100 vpd. The current accident rate,
which is greater than the national average, is likely to increase as traffic volumes increase.
In addition, tourism and economic development in the county would be discouraged because
of inadequate transportation facilities.
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative consists of limited construction
activities designed to maximize the use and energy efficiency of existing US 421. These
activities include widening shoulders, providing additional warning signs and turning lanes,
improving intersections, and reducing the speed limit. However, implementation of TSM
measures will not adequately address the needs of the project; in particular, reducing
congestion, lowering the accident rate, and improving the restrictive roadway geometrics of
US 421.
IV-10 I
11
11

1
r

I

1

1

0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)
Zooll"
BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY BOUNDAR'

i

/

i
LEGEND
X
II 11 11 A STONEMAN.S FORT
I I?s•..s; BOG
EXISTING ROADWAY
I
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
?- PROPERTY LINE
= ARCHTBRIDGEONE
I
II E? RESIDENCE
II PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED SINGLE
ARCH BRIDGE
N
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
II SECTION 4(f)
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 6
EXHIBIT IV4
t

J
I

t

11

1
0 300 600
SCALE (FEET)
y?
BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY BOUNDAR

I /
I ?
Py
111 a QP??
I 0? i
I '

? I
I

III /
LEGEND
II 11 11 A STONEMAN,S FORT
I Il
I I •:?s;:` ?:" BOG
II II = = EXISTING ROADWAY
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
PROPERTY LINE
_ IHTBRIDGEONE
I I
?-1 RESIDENCE
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED 31NGU
ARCH BRIDGE
N
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
I I SECTION 4(f)
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
CROSSING ALTERNATIVE 6A
EXHIBIT IV -9

There is no feasible alternative in cost or engineering practicality for a new alignment of US
421 that will not cross the Parkway. The Parkway crosses all east-west transportation
facilities in western North Carolina.
I E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

1
`i••:<;?ii:L;i: ':i' 'iy: y :':y' +' :i' Sy:::::; ":+'( :::: :<j:: i': :i: •i;•i}:. Y li <vy .... . .. Y..:' i.: :.' ;::... iiii:'t4FS: L: "•Ilt.iii'•i::: .. ..
.............................................................................

1....' H:::' ':', 'i:i:i .'+'! '.. ' '•: at ry:'?.1 ;y'?Yp??v4p' t'Y li:i+i??'
:,,..;
;:%:::: ;:::•::•:;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;,;;;;;•:: ':ay:.?:.;?•:+?:?:; ??,:y:::.:.y:.::::':.:f;{..;::':.+:::y;:{:,:>••.::,:f:;:':}::':y::::<.::::::y.:::.y:::;':::: ..;: ;::.....:;••:::.::::::;:;::::;..,:;fi:; ::::::::<::c:;•:;:::;<:?;;.:::::.:.:.?:;: ..:..:.....::.:•': .::: •
'?:54,:??R??'...,??', 17 ::.. ;i: ? ?41:i??'Lk:iii?k?ki.?i? ?F.iY?i?:::?i?:`A'k??i::F'.4i4??''. '' :: :i:; . ' : : ' ?.: i : .'?yyi .::::. ' ; : . ' : ' ' :pi,,:,,??vv: r :??.++it?;. ?'•? :¢i ..:'. ?`.
}:;:i,,:...::,Y:;:;:;:;:::2ti!fx:.:i:f4?iF.:i:i:i:i .qq• .....::i:i: , :????{{ . ::.;:11LI . ..: .??yy??:yy ; . '. ;:?'Q
b `..??yy'

?ir4/M!??;:;: ? •.?V.i:;;?;:?:fi!.,V',..,??ff?R;lti;

F. COORDINATION
This project was coordinated with the Department of the Interior, National Park Service and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), both of which are designated cooperating
agencies for the US 421 Environmental Impact Statement. Meetings were held with
representatives of these agencies throughout the study process. It was agreed by all parties
that no avoidance alternatives were possible. Each alternative's impacts to Section 4(f)
property were presented to the National Park Service and the Corps of Engineers, and their
recommendations for measures to minimize harm were
Vol
<t r
.

IV-13
?l

H. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE I
The Preferred Alternative (Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4) is the feasible and
prudent alternative with the least harm to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Of the seven Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) Crossing Alternatives studied, BRP Crossing
Alternatives 1, 5, 6, and 6A would impact the unique Southern Appalachian Mountain Bog
located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, fewer than 500 acres of mountain bog habitat remain in North Carolina.
BRP Crossing Alternative 2 involves construction of a 900-foot-long tunnel to pass
westbound traffic under the Blue Ridge Parkway. Because the rock in this area is
extensively intruded by granite dikes and sills, construction of a tunnel is considered
impractical. I
BRP Crossing Alternative 3 would retain the existing stone facade arch bridge to pass
eastbound traffic under the Blue Ridge Parkway. A new stone facade arch bridge would be
constructed to the north to pass westbound traffic under the Parkway. The 45 mph design
speed for US 421 and the substandard vertical clearance at the bridge would remain r
unchanged for the eastbound traffic. Although the new bridge would be similar in design
to the existing bridge, the appearance of the bridges would be very different due to
weathered condition of the stone facade. In addition, the difference in ages of the bridges
would result in the bridges being replaced due to deterioration at different times. I
IV-14

BRP Crossing Alternative 4 will not encroach upon the Southern Appalachian Mountain
Bog. The existing stone arch facade bridge will be removed and four new travel lanes, with
a design speed of 50 mph, will be constructed to pass US 421 under the Blue Ridge
Parkway. The existing bridge will be replaced with dual stone arch facade bridges with a
minimum 16 ft. - 6 in. vertical clearance. The stone facade of the existing bridge will be
salvaged by the contractor and become the property of the National Park Service (NPS) for
use at future construction sites. Retaining walls will be constructed along US 421 between
the highway and Blue Ridge Parkway property to reduce the impacts of highway
construction on the Section 4(f) property.
For the reasons listed above, Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4 is the Preferred
Alternative. The National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway and the State Historic
Preservation Officer have concurred in this selection.
I. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COORDINATION
Comments were solicited and received for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
for the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation from the Director of the Office of Environmental
Affairs, U.S. DOI.
J. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY
The following comments were received from the circulation of the Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation.
United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary
' Comment #1: We object to Alternative 4 because there is no need to connect the existing
parkway ramp to U.S. 421 with a T-intersection. Since the ramp will only
serve eastbound traffic, the existing Y-intersection with acceleration and
deceleration lanes added would serve much better.
Response: The Parkway ramp for eastbound US 421 is maintained as a "Y"
intersection to minimize harm to the adjacent bog. Acceleration and
deceleration lanes will not be constructed since it would require the
I IV-15

construction limits to extend into the bog. The median will be I
extended to prevent left turns.
Comment #2: It should be noted that the artist's rendering depicting this alternative does t
not show a design element offensive to the Parkway's aesthetic quality,
that being, the construction of steel W-beam guardrail at not only the
medium pier of this structure, but also at the abutment walls. Although
the state is obligated by standards to construct guardrails when adequate
clear zones do not exist, we recommend that liberal design criteria, such
as a longer bridge, be used to create the necessary clear zones. The same
problem exists for Alternative 3.
R
esponse: NCDOT has requested assistance from the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) for
designing and administering the construction contract for the US 421
improvements in the area of the interchange with the BRP. The
Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT, FHWA EFLHD, and
NPS states, "The NPS shall be a cooperating agency in the project
development, and shall (1) approve the final design standards for the
Blue Ridge Parkway, ..."

Comment #3: We note that the National Park Service (NPS) is a cooperating agency as
it manages the Blue Ridge Parkway and has legal jurisdiction in the area
where construction alternatives cross the Parkway. While there has been
some coordination with NPS, we are concerned that the NPS preferred
crossing, Alternative 3 (as stated in Superintendent Everhardt's letter dated
May 31, 1990, page E-5.1) has not been adequately addressed.
Alternative 4, preferred by the highway agencies, does not adequately
mitigate adverse impacts to the Parkway, will use more parkway land, and
will cost $1
2 million more
.
.
Response: BRP Crossing Alternative 4 was developed in cooperation with the
NPS. The NPS-BRP has concurred with the selection of BRP Crossing
Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative.
Comment #4: The NPS prefers the design and mitigation features of Alternative 3,
except for the design feature calling for maintaining the existing two lane
bridge structure. It appears infeasible from an engineering point of view
to preserve this structure. We note that this bridge structure, which was
built in 1960, would not appear to meet the criteria of eligibility to the
National Register of Historic Places. Replacing this bridge with a double
stone arch bridge would appear to be acceptable. Additional design of
the bridge needs to be developed to assure consistency with the historic
character of the Parkway.

IV-16

r_1
L
a
FJ
1
1

Ll
s

11
C
1

Response: The Preferred Alternative, BRP Crossing Alternative 4, does replace
the existing single stone facade arch bridge with a double stone facade
arch bridge. The design and construction of the bridge will be
coordinated with NPS to insure its compatibility with the historic
character of the BRP.
United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Comment: In the EIS, your agency states that a sheet pile wall may be installed between the
new road and the bog in order to prevent siltation and other damaging runoff
from reaching the bog. We commend your agency for this idea. We would like
to see this decided upon and have detailed plans provided for the structure in the
final EIS.
Response: Detailed plans for a sheet pile wall, if implemented, will be developed during
final design. The wall will be designed based on information obtained from
the Bog Research project to be performed by the NPS and funded by
NCDOT and FHWA. See Section IV, Subsection E, Page IV-11.
K. CONCLUSION
Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of land from the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the proposed action includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to the Blue Ridge Parkway resulting from such use.
IV-17
1

a

LI

Section V
1 Final Section 4(t) Statement - W. S. Moretz House
I
t

I]

jl

L1

1

s

FINAL SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT FOR W. S. MORETZ HOUSE
A. PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve US 421,
partially along new alignment, from just west of the South Fork New River to just fast o
e Hued Paxkwa? ctZ The project runs in a west-east
direction for approximately nine miles. US 421 serves as the primary transportation route
linking Watauga County to eastern North Carolina and is part of the proposed North
Carolina Intrastate System.
A portion of Build Alterrattves ) and C fall within the property boundaries of the W. S.
......................
Moretz House located near the US 421/US 221 intersection. This property, shown on
Exhibit V-1, is listed as Structure Identification No. 21 in the Historical Architectural
Resources Survey Technical Memorandum available from the NCDOT, and is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Since the proposed improvement will be constructed with Federal-Aid funds and will involve
a taking of Historic Property lands for highway use, this project will comply with the
requirements of Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act.
B. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY
1 1. Name:
L

2. Size:
3. Location:
4. Ownership:
W. S. Moretz House
The eligible property consists of a 19.3-acre tract.
Located at the intersection of US 421 and US 221 in the town of
Deep Gap, along the north side of US 421 and west side of US
221.
The W. S. Moretz House and surrounding 19.3 acres is owned by
Joyce Ann Bowman and Jimmy Dean Moretz. The property is
V-1

designated as Watauga County parcel number 352 and is found on
Watauga County Deed Book number 230.
5.
Summary of Physical Description:
This site is a farm complex located at the northwest corner of the
US 421/US 221 intersection. The house is a one-and-a-half-story
frame dwelling with steeply pitched hip roof with dormers on three
sides. There is a small shed-roofed addition on the right toward
the front, and a wing and additions on the rear. The porch retains
its original chamfered porch posts and its original board ceiling.
A large, frame bank barn with shallow-pitched gambrel roof is
located on the property to the east of the house. It is built into a
hillside that slopes downward from east to west. There are several
other outbuildings of more recent construction.
Date of Construction: Both the house and barn were constructed circa 1915.
Style: World War I period cottage.
Setting and Landscaping:
Exhibit V-1 shows the physical plan view location of the W. S.
Moretz house and property. The setting is rural. The house and
barn are approximately 450 feet and 200 feet, respectively, from
US 221 and both are approximately 600 feet from US 421. The
house is sited at the end of a long path that leads northward into
the site from US 421. A low hill rises behind the house. As the
path passes the house it turns northeasterly, goes past an
outbuilding, curves northward around the hill, and becomes the
earth ramp into the barn located at the end of the path. A
painted, horizontal-board fence separates the parking area in front
of the house from the front yard. The rise from the fence to the
house is terraced about halfway the distance from the fence to the
house. Mature boxwoods are located around the front of the
V-2

1

1

s

fl

0 200 SCALE (FEET) US 221
GAP CREEK /
'HISTORIC STRUCTURE
n\ \ // /
NO. 212
4-1
// .
1 U. S. POST \ /
OFF I CE
HISTORIC AREA
BOUNDARY
LEGEND
W
-- EXISTING R/W cc •I
EXISTING ROADWAY a
C.D
RESIDENCE
III ' [ J,C 1
I
0
°
Z
M
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
HISTORIC STRUCTURE NO. 21
EXHIBIT V-1

l7

porch. There is a high evergreen hedge row to the left (west) of
the house separating the house from the pasture land, and there
are mature shrubs to the right (east) of the house. The house and
yard are shaded by mature trees. Gap Creek runs along the
eastern end of the property. The entire property is used for cattle
grazing and thus is mostly open field.
Integrity: The site and the buildings retain their integrity.
Historical Background:
The house was built around World War I by Grover Cleveland
Moretz. His brother, W. S. Moretz, went west but returned to
Deep Gap. Then Grover Cleveland went to Dallas, Texas, and W.
S. acquired the house. They were both sons of Alfred Jacob
Moretz, who moved to Deep Gap in 1888 and built the oldest
house still standing in the Deep Gap area. W. S. was the Deep
Gap postmaster from the 1920's to the 1960's.
Evaluation: The house and site are significant according to Criterion C as they
embody the distinctive characteristics of a type or period of
construction, and they represent a significant and distinguishable
entity. The house is the only World War I period house of its style
in the study area, and the large barn is the only large, frame bank
barn of its period and style in the study area. The house and site
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
v-3

C. IMPACTS ON THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY

1
1

V-4 I

d

L

0 200 SCALE (FEET) '
US 221
GAP CREEK
..
H I STOR I C STRUCTURE
NO. 212
% ?
U. POST
OFF I CE
HISTORIC AREA
BOUNDARY
C I
R1 pRop
LEGEND
"r F Fo ??/ /
_PROPOSED R/W w
EXISTING R/W '
- - EXISTING ROADWAY
?-1 RESIDENCE
III [ j,C 1
o
Z
m
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
BUILD ALTERNATIVE A
EXHIBIT
1
TABLE V-1
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
DEEP GAP AREA
A
B C
Length (feet) 9,560 9,450 9,610
Total Cost $7,448,200 $7,617,000 $7,440,200
Construction Cost $3,920,000 $3,550,000 $3,950,000
Right-of-Way Cost $3,528,200 $4,067,000 $3,490,200
Relocatees
Business (Minority) 15(0)1 6(0) 7(0)
Residential (Minority) 9(0) 10(0) 9(0)
Cemeteries (Estimated number of graves) 0 0 0
Underground Storage Tanks 1 1 1
Wetlands (Impacted Acres) 0.1 0.9 0.1
Historic Properties Impacted (acres) 1.8 0 5.7
Archaeological Sites 0 1 0
Channel Relocations (feet) 1,900 1,900 0
Original Channel Length (feet) 2,0502 2,000j31 0
11) Includes Deep Gap Post Office.
(2) Original channel Is degraded perennial drainage ditch located in pasture.
(3) Original channel is tailwater for bog and is classified as a trout stream by DEM.
V-5

D. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES I
Three alternatives that avoided use of the Section 4(f) property were evaluated. These
alternatives are discussed below:
Build Alternative B
i
0 2 0 0
SCALE (FEET) US 221
GAP CREEK / /.
_ i
'HISTORIC STRUCTURE
NO. 212
U. S. POST
OFFICE
:77?lJ ['J
HISTORIC AREA Jy? // .
BOUNDARY
PR 1
LEGEND wqr
-_ PROPOSED R/W Lu
- -EXISTING R/W
EXISTING ROADWAY
E-7 RESIDENCE
-ij
° I I[J Cl
- ? o
/ Z
/ m
US HIGHWAY 421
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
BUILD ALTERNATIVE C
EXHIBIT V-3.

f'

'J

J

C

0 200 SCALE (FEET) US 221
GAP CREEK /.
'HISTORIC STRUCTURE
` NO. 212 n
U. S. POST
OFF I CE
H I AREA
BOUNDARY
L l LEGEND
C/
_PROPOSED R/W / T w
-EXISTING R/W
EXISTING ROADWAY IR??yRopo Q
E:?l RESIDENCE 0) k?q
i i I? CI
S HIGHWAY 421 \
WATAUGA COUNTY, NC
BUILD ALTERNATIVE B
EXHIBIT V-4

i Z xs the. o xzuans of the [7nited States Depar#merxt of the Inferior (DOI), F'ash' az
aexv c f SFWS); the North;Carolin. Department a£??nvix. C0. , lea tks
d Natural Res umes, 17xvisicrn of Et?virdnr>?cental Maria exuen# la'F the tpx't
arx%?a Wdli(etesurcQtnlsigWR! ar?d th'e Sops of
' n sneers

X that :ii the xelt?catiori ?f dap Creek dawt tream ?f the bad av
X.: cs > j
resu givers hydrological ehate to this rare, unique artd "£rt4rly understcd"
ecosystem. l~urthexmore? the Dlltrf has stand (see. Appendix xhibtti) that:a
recornrxtendatlon a£ denial for the .'pVa'tertiatity Certificariori for dap reef
would be zad0.:1 £ 13 iid Alternative B U chosen. For these reasons, Build Alternative
1 w.
h
d
i
S
4
"
'
ect
avar
att
s
lit
...O X
?f pro ert , got Ganstd
ered px<adext sand feasible
artern$zve

Five-Lane Shoulder Section Alternative

'
..................................
:;.*r"`::.::, .:..:.:.:::
is alternative involves wid?ri?rs the ex#sting two lane roadway to a five bane
roadway, fa it travel, Zanes'with center ttirri lane '!with stan acrd sh0Wd?rs With nc
rnediari tct sepaxt tkae opposz Imes af.<trayel, vesicle safety; i$ drarnt£eaiiy
d
e
d t
`
n
"
r
r
ued
`a
ie no
xe w
clea
c?
axr?r grant otcorrung vhz?s tocavx,
uvl?ich caulk resultn a greater fxegtxency cif head antallisions in 'YearIl
1.i ..pxaj ctcd t carry an average dally traffic YQ MM pf 1 ,30Q e cl s per dad
_.: .
at speedy ctf m?Ies per 'hoUr,
.. 77

°fiveilane shottlder;sect??ort would not e consistent with°the tie of,roadwsy desired
£o ill 42 corridor...,15,1...in Watauga County is principal ruxal arterialn
the Nati'oal <ihway System and the North Carolina Intrastate Systerxt.vr these
xeasons tkxs aXtexnatxve i5 not cans dered a prtxet and feaxble altxnazve.
North Alternative
i is altrx€afiiv involves ;the cons rutian ca£ a fqur an divdedrecvay,.. ex±ssln

X X.
115::rtorth tsf the Stititi ?#(rQperfy: s alternative vtrulC rttri altar?g the

' irthern roc boiznda of the Section property; f ropertJ`' , hovirevr,o takes ih
t

eGttori property would be required geometric cons trixtts axtd cuts for lh
R: A

' roadwa in excess f 150 feet require this alternative to un#dereut the :Zue.l dge
'arlrvvay, est Deep Gap, for a ppz?ztiatelyp feet

W_ ' l ci addtttax a
*
........pprQxxxate
are cf...

'ax!y pxQperty" ?wauid tie 'w<txi tl?e''` costrtttia s........ T- ft
x X:
l
t
h
l
f
l
a
terna
ive wau
re±Iutre t
e use Q
c
an undesirable honzontal ,reverse curve and the

V-7

i iaatxa of access t t e ue icge .,,arl?vvay, 'ar these reasons,, aXterna ive
s nint a?rasxdered a `pxuden nc feas.1 alteraat v
E. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
•shall;docurner,r't. S Moretx;'arnaprztaro cc?strurrn accarciance+vrt
pr?da Ais4zactruture ac..asapctecarcation Phan;
• LltiriQT?IruCtin fl?v?ring Gmpetion t p?jecCss t
M z .a m rQm,tT 4 1 w iY be marnta ned alpn 'thy ex stln c riverv '
........ ..... ...... Y:
1v#rnprr?durif Arrant} fir?gtrtgn adverse imparts of the pjr, s
pxeaxe buveen the Mate istric'reservat an ?i'cerd tie Pderal:: thwy
: < ............::......
ctrnunstrtn, ands iz?cXuced theT, Ap?edi
F. COORDINATION
V-8

1

1

I?
u

?j

A, ' OR CONCI °C.l'SION Or N?'W' IBLE ANII)TR'C RN'' L.T.
,
' 0"T HE USE Ol''SEG SECTION $? LAN
H. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative A) is the feasible and prudent alternative with
the least harm to the W. S. Moretz property while not impacting the tailwater of the
mountain bog.
Build Alternative B would avoid the W. S. Moretz property; however, approximately 1,900
feet of the tailwater to the mountain bog would require rechannelization. The Department
of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DEM, North Carolina Wildlife Resources,
and COE have stated their opposition to this alternative due to this rechannelization of the
stream and its possible impacts on the mountain bog.
' Build Alternative C would require an additional 3.9 acres of the W. S. Moretz property to
be converted to highway use as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Because of the close
proximity of the proposed roadway under Build Alternative C and the amount of required
conversion of Section 4(f) property to highway use, this alternative is considered imprudent.

The Five-Lane Shoulder Section Alternative would involve the construction of a five-lane ,
shoulder section along the W. S. Moretz property. This alternative will not adequately
provide the proposed safety and increased capacity objectives for an improved US 421. '
The North Alternative would run along the northern property boundary of the W. S. Moretz
property; however, no takes of the property would be required. This alternative would
result in impacts to approximately 600 feet of the Blue Ridge Parkway and extensive
clearing of Parkway property (11 acres). This alternative would require the use of an
undesirable horizontal reverse curve and the elimination of access of US 421 to the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
For the reasons listed above, Build Alternative A is the Preferred Alternative. I
1. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COORDINATION I
Comments were solicited and received for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and ,
for the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation from the Director of the Office of Environmental
Affairs, US DOI. '
J. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY
The following comments were received on the Section 4(f) property. '
United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary '
Comment: We concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the Moretz
House, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We concur
that all means to minimize harm have been considered contingent upon approval '
of the mitigation plan by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Officer. This
plan and its approval should be included in the final Section 4(f) statement. ,
Response: A copy of the MOA between the State Historic Preservation Officer and the
Federal Highway Administration is presented in Appendix F.

"-10
21MOWWW'. 1

'7

State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management
Comment: DEM still believes that DOT should avoid the section of Gap Creek and an
unnamed tributary on the west side of US 421 in Deep Gap. Both streams are
classified as C-Trout and are high quality resources except for the degraded
section on the Moretz property. Gap Creek on the Moretz property has been
channelized and impacted by grazing. DEM believes that the alternative through
the Moretz property is a practicable alternative which would not require relocation
of 1,900 feet of Gap Creek and the unnamed tributary. Therefore, a
recommendation to the Director of DEM for 401 Water Quality Certification
denial would be likely made if an alternative is chosen which does not minimize
stream and wetland impacts.
Response

n

Build Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative, avoids the section of Gap
Creek and an unnamed tributary on the west side of US 421 in Deep Gap.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: Construction Alternatives
1. Mitigation - Highway construction on the south side of US 421 (under the
"avoidance" alternative), Build Alternative B, would require restoration of
the stream channels to natural gradient, width, depth, sinuosity, and habitat
structure. While the segment of Gap Creek involved could conceivably be
restored to its original function, it is likely that this area will be permanently
culverted. Restoration of the present value of fishery habitat would then be
impossible. Relocation of the unnamed tributary would require extensive
monitoring to ensure that the mountain bog wetland would not be affected.
This monitoring would include long-term measurement and modeling,
before and after construction impact, of surface, sub-surface, and
groundwater dynamics within the bog watershed. Such monitoring, while
possible, would likely be prohibitive in terms of time and monetary
expenditure required for the NCDOT to provide sufficient information to
resource agencies. If hydrologic impacts on the bog were detected,
remediation of these impacts would be problematic due to the limited
V-11

understanding of bog ecosystems. Successful mitigation could not be
assured, and it is the opinion of the NCWRC that mitigation is not a
prudent and feasible alternative to construction on Build Alternative B.
2 Minimization - Impacts on stream and bog habitat could conceivably be
minimized by complete bridging of the area containing both stream
channels. Length of such a structure would likely exceed 2, 000 feet, and
the NCWRC anticipates that such expense would be considered prohibitive
by the NCDOT. Minimization of impact by bridging is therefore not
considered a prudent and feasible alternative to the 'preferred" (Build
Alternative B) alignment by the NCWRC.
3. Avoidance - The original 'preferred" corridor (Build Alternative A),
developed in the environmental document, would avoid channel alteration
of Gap Creek and the unnamed tributary, virtually eliminating the
likelihood of hydrologic alteration of the mountain bog wetlands. Crossing
of Gap Creek would still be necessary, but the angle of this crossing would
be nearly perpendicular, the optimal condition in such situations.
Attending natural resource impacts, including loss of riparian wildlife
habitat, would also be minimized under this alternative. The NCWRC
considers the original 'preferred" corridor (Build Alternative A), which
involves marginal taking of the Moretz property, to be the only prudent and
feasible construction alternative.
Response: None required.
K. CONCLUSION
Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of land for the W. S. Moretz House and the proposed action includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to the W. S. Moretz House resulting from such use.
V-12
Ij

t

i
u
Section VI

Wetlands Findings

u

I

I
FJ

WETLAND FINDINGS
The proposed build alternatives were evaluated for impacts to wetlands using the 1987
Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetland Evaluation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. The
manual was designed to assist in making jurisdictional determinations using a multi-
parameter approach. This approach requires the positive evidence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to determine that an area is a wetland. Soils
information was obtained through the use of U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soils maps for Watauga County, North Carolina, and field
investigation. The soils hydric status was determined through both the SCS list of hydric
soils for Watauga County, North Carolina, and the Munsel Color Chart. The hydrophytic
vegetation status was determined using the National List of Plant Species That Occur in
Wetlands, Southeast Region (2), (Reed 1988). Hydrology was determined through field
investigation and observations.
During the field investigation, the wetlands areas were visually assessed to determine value
and function. The wetland function refers to the biological, chemical, and physical
characteristics of a wetland, while the value refers to those characteristics which are
beneficial to society. The functional value of a wetland lies in its ability to perform the
various functions. Based on the field investigation and the visual analysis of the functions
and values, the wetlands were divided into two categories: Riverine and Palustrian.
The categories Riverine and Palustrian are derived by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Classification of Wetland and Deep Water Habitat of the United States (Cowardin). Cowardin
describes the Riverine system as "all wetlands and deep water habitats contained within a
channel..." These Riverine systems are "bounded on the landward side by upland, by the
channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetlands." The Palustrian
system "includes all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents...".
Table IV-15 of the DEIS lists the eighteen wetland sites identified in the study area and
describes the function of each site. Table IV-16 of the DEIS lists the approximate acreage
of wetland impacts at each site. Both tables were updated and are included in Appendix A
of the FEIS.
VI-1

Among the build alternatives, Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative, impacts 2.4 acres of
wetlands; Alternative B impacts 3.05 acres; and Alternative C impacts 4.95 acres. Among
the BRP Crossing Alternatives, only BRP Crossing Alternatives 1, 5, 6, and 6A impact
wetland acreages. The wetland impacted by each of these alternatives is at Site No. 10, the
Southern Appalachian Mountain Bog.
Along the Preferred Alternative, 11 wetland sites were identified. The Riverine sites are
1, 2B, 3C, 5B, 61), and 9B. These Riverine systems are located on the South Fork New
River, Rocky Branch, Brown Branch, an unnamed tributary to Pine Run, an unnamed
tributary to Laxon Creek, and Gap Creek. All are generally characterized by wide stream
channels -- between 16 and 25 feet -- and have an unconsolidated bottom of rock, cobble,
and sand. The streambeds are incised deeply with the water surface four to eight feet below
the bank. These Riparian wetlands have been impacted by urbanization and farming,
particularly the area around Gap Creek.
The Palustrian sites occur at 313, 6A, 7, 8, and 10. These Palustrian systems are associated
with Brown Branch, Laxon Creek, Gap Creek, Pine Run, and the mountain bog. All occur
in riparian banks of varying width adjacent to the respective streams. While little mature
vegetation exists at the various sites, wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic
vegetation on the heilaceous layer are present.
The mountain bog is also classified as a Palustrian system. The word bog refers to the wet
spongy ground that mainly consists of decayed mosses and other vegetation. In this water-
logged and oxygen-deprived environment, decomposition slows down. Leaves, branches, and
other partially decayed organic matter build up over time, resulting in accumulated layers
of peat. Sphagnum moss, the glue which holds the bog together, provides a physical base
on which other plants grow and maintain the wet environment by absorbing tremendous
amounts of water. No impact to the bog is anticipated by the Preferred Alternative.
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands", impacts to wetlands
are to be avoided where practicable. If avoidance is not possible, then impacts should be
minimized and, finally, mitigated. For the build alternatives, the wetland areas were avoided
whenever possible; and impacts were minimized to the fullest extent practicable when
avoidance was not possible. Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there
are no practicable alternatives to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the
I

77
L

1

VI-2 I

Preferred Alternative includes all practical measures to minimize harm which may result
from such use.
In accordance with the February 6, 1990, Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, unavoidable wetland losses will be
mitigated. Mitigation may include: maintenance of historic hydrologic flows, wetland
replacement, and enhancement of degraded wetlands. Compensation by creation or
restoration of in-kind wetlands or out-of-kind wetland of equal or better value in accordance
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy is also an option.
A preliminary review of possible mitigation sites was conducted. The criteria used to select
candidate sites are as follows:
' • Characteristic wetland topography
• Proximity to impacted wetlands
• Suitable for enhancement, restoration, or natural creation efforts
0 Undeveloped in nature
The results of the preliminary search for mitigation sites is shown in Table VI-1.
' The final wetland mitigation plan will be developed in coordination with the appropriate
regulatory and resource agencies during permit application.

IJ
I1
r

VI-3

TABLE VI-1
SUMMARY OF WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Alternative
Site No.' River/Branch Name Traversed Creation of Wetlands
1 South Fork New River A, B, and C Little opportunity exists to
create wetlands in this
area.
2A Rocky Branch C Some opportunity exists to
lower elevation uphill of
stream to allow hydrology
to reach these areas.
Areas in pasture should be
allowed to return to
undisturbed status.
2B Rocky Branch A and B Minimal due to soil make-
up.
3A Brown Branch C Areas of pasture could be
allowed to revert to
wetlands. Some plantings
will facilitate the creation.
3B Brown Branch A and C None
4 Pine Run B None
5A Pine Run B Little opportunity exists.
5B Tributary to A and C Little opportunity exists.
Pine Run
6A Laxon Creek A, B, and C Opportunity exists to re-
vegetate the wetlands.
6B Laxon Creek B Areas adjacent to creek
could be lowered to allow
greater and longer period
of flooding. Revegetation
could also be done.
(1) Refer to Exhibit III-3 in DEIS for site location.
VI-4
1
1
TABLE VI-1
SUMMARY Or WETLAND CREATION/ENIIANCEMENT POTENTIAL
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Alternative
Site No. River/Branch Name Traversed Creation of Wetlands
6C Laxon Creek B Areas that are disturbed
could be allowed to revert
to natural conditions.
6D Tributary to A and C Area could be allowed to
Laxon Creek revert to natural con-
ditions.
7 Gap Creek A and C Wetlands vegetation could
be reverted and enhanced.
8 Pine Run A and C Wetlands area could be
enhanced and expanded
through creating larger flat
areas.
9A Gap Creek C Little opportunity exists.
9B Gap Creek A Minimal opportunity exists.
9B Gap Creek B Minimal opportunity exists.
10 Tributary to BRP 1, 5, 6, Due to the unique nature of
Wildcat Branch and 6A this wetland, little
opportunity exists to create
a bog-type wetland.
However, the area down-
stream (a riparian wetland)
may be enhanced and
expanded.
(1) Refer to Exhibit III-3 in DEIS for site location.
VI-5

Section VII

E

Floodplain Findings

t
FLOODPLAIN FINDING
A floodplain evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 11988
"Floodplain Management," to determine if encroachment would occur with implementation
of any of the build alternatives. This evaluation is based on the results of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 1988 detailed flood insurance study of the
incorporated area of the Town of Boone, North Carolina, as well as FEMA's Federal
Insurance Rate Mapping for the unincorporated portions of the study area. The mapping
indicates that the study area's only major streams and corresponding floodplain involvement
' would be the South Fork New River, with a drainage area of approximately 34.8 square
miles above the existing US 421 crossing, and Gap Creek with a drainage area of
approximately three square miles.
Floodplain Encroachments and Risk
As noted in FEMA's detailed flood study, encroachment on floodplains by structures and
fill can reduce flood-carrying capacity, increase flood height and velocities, and increase
flood hazards beyond the encroachment itself. As part of the National Flood Insurance
Program, FEMA has determined floodway boundaries as a tool for floodplain management.
Based on the FEMA definition, the 100-year floodplain is divided into a floodway and a
floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas
that need to be kept free of encroachment so the 100-year flood can be carried without
substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum standards limit such increases to one foot,
provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The area between the floodway and
the 100-year floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe
encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without
' increasing the water surface elevation above FEMA's published floodway elevation.
As indicated on Exhibits IV-3 and IV-4 of the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative would cross
the 100-year floodplains of Gap Creek and the South Fork New River. The floodplain
boundaries are classified as Zones A6 and A4 for the South Fork New River and Gap
Creek, respectively, in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Zones A4 and A6 indicate
the boundaries shown are where the 100-year base flood elevations have not been
determined by FEMA. The Preferred Alternative also has planned crossings of reaches of
the South Fork New River and Gap Creek which were mapped by approximate methods and
VII-1

are all classified Zone A. Zone A designates areas of 100-year flood of which base flood
elevations and flood hazard factors have not been determined.
For the Preferred Alternative, bridges crossing the South Fork New River and Gap Creek
would require the placement of piers in the floodway. All stream crossing structures would
be designed to assure that there would be a minimal increase in the water surface elevation
during the base flood. These structures of the Preferred Alternative would be designed such
that any increase in the backwater elevation would not exceed the allowable increase as
published in the FEMA detailed flood study for the area.
The Preferred Alternative provides a horizontal roadway alignment which is nearly normal
(90 degree skew) to the South Fork New River and Gap Creek. The bridge length required
for the crossing of the South Fork New River would be approximately the same as the
existing bridge crossing, 52 feet. To span the floodway of Gap Creek, the Preferred
Alternative would require a bridge length of approximately 60 feet. Exact bridge lengths
will be determined during the design phase of the project. Additional hydraulic analyses
would be performed during the design phase to accurately locate the river channel, top of
bank, and other topographic features. Little or no increased flood risk would be associated
with the proposed project due to the bridge pier encroachment in the floodway and the
potential for loss of property or human life would remain unchanged.
Floodplain Values I
Construction of the Preferred Alternative will increase the amount of impervious surface
areas within the study area, thereby increasing storm water runoff. The area impacted by
this increased runoff would be minor in comparison to the remaining pervious surface areas.
The increased amount of road surface draining into the area would be very small in relation
to overall drainage areas. t
No increases in backwater elevations or velocities at floodplain encroachments are
anticipated. Limits within which construction activity could take place would be restricted
to those necessary for the conduct of work and would be defined during the design. Under
the conditions described herein, any impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values
associated with the project would be negligible.

VII-2

I Floodplain Development
Due to the surrounding terrain, existing land use patterns, and the partial control of access
for this project no additional pressures for incompatible floodplain development would be
anticipated in conjunction with the project.
Mitigation
The location and preliminary design of alternatives at floodplain involvements were carefully
addressed to successfully negate increases in flooding risk and mitigate environmental
impacts. Potential impacts to the floodplain as a result of erosion will be mitigated by strict
adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
1

1
1

LI

1
1
1
VII-3

I
1

1
1
Section VIII

t

F1
1
1
Public and Agency Comments

PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
A Corridor Public Hearing for the project was held July 30, 1992, at the Parkway
Elementary School located between Rutherwood and Laxon. Approximately 88 people
attended.
Comments were received from the Watauga County Board of Commissioners, the Town of
Boone, the Boone Area Chamber of Commerce, Appalachian State University, and the
Northwest North Carolina Forum supporting the widening of existing US 421 to four lanes.
Other comments addressed project impact on property values within the area. A number
of homeowners from the Birdseye View Subdivision near Deep Gap submitted a signed
statement expressing the concern they be allowed to directly enter and exit US 421 in both
directions from SR 1612 during construction.
Following the Public Hearing, 22 written comments were received. The majority of
comments came from individuals in the Boone area. Most expressed a preference for either
Alternative A or a combination of Alternatives A and C. Two suggested extending
Alternatives A and C further north to make use of an existing portion of Old NC 60.
Comments received from the individuals in Deep Gap expressed concern about the
disruptive effect the project will have on the lives of the local residents.
Another concern expressed by several citizens was the dangerous driving conditions resulting
from the fog that develops along US 421 where Alternate B follows the Blue Ridge
Parkway.
Written review comments concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this
project were received from the following federal and state agencies and officials:
United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary,
Office of Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
VIII-1
r

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources I
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Land Resources
Division of Forest Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission I
Specific comments received from the reviewing agencies concerning the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and responses are presented below. Correspondence from
the agencies is included in Appendix D of this report.
Department of the Army
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Comment #1: Line 3, paragraph 1, page IV-88, should be corrected to read "Zones A4 and
A6 for Gap Creek and South Fork New River, respectively. " "Zone A4
indicates... " should be changed to read "Zones A4 and A6 indicate... " on
Line 4, same paragraph and page.
Response: Paragraph revised. See Section II, page II-9, paragraph 4, of the FEIS.
Comment #2: The Draft EIS indicates that several segments of the project qualify for
nationwide permit authorization. Nationwide permits are not applicable for
those normally qualified segments since their function or usefulness is
dependent upon the remainder of the project which requires individual permit
authorization. All portions of the proposed project must be evaluated as part
of the individual permit.
Response: See Section II, page II-8, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 and page II-9, paragraphs
1 and 2 of the FEIS.
Comment #3: The Final EIS should indicate a conceptual mitigation plan to offset the
impacts for the Preferred Alternative, the proposed ratios of compensatory
mitigation, and the acreage of mitigation proposed according to wetland
types.
Response: The final mitigation plan will be developed during the permit process.
The plan will be based on actual construction limits and filling acreage
required by the project. The conceptual mitigation plan is included in
Wetlands Finding, Section VI of this document.
VIII-2

t United States Environmental Protection Agency general guidelines for
mitigation ratios are:
a. Restoration of degraded wetland - 2:1
b. Enhancement - 4:1
c. Creation - 3:1
d. Preservation of existing wetlands - 10:1
These are guidelines and are evaluated on a project by project basis.
Final ratios will be determined during development of the mitigation plan.
Plan development will be coordinated with the Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, and the Wildlife Resource Commission.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Comment #1: The discussion of potential impacts related to construction activities should
be improved to provide more detail regarding the length of streams potentially
exposed to runoff from the construction zones for each alternative, as well as
relative amounts of cutting and filling activity associated with the various
alternatives.
Response: Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and NCDOT
Sediment and Erosion Control Program will be implemented to protect
surface waters from runoff during construction. The amounts of cutting
and filling will be determined during final design.
Comment #2: The use of an independent erosion control contractor should be considered
to review proposed erosion control plans as well as to constantly monitor the
effectiveness of erosion control measures during construction.
Response: NCDOT will develop, implement, and administer a sediment and erosion
control program as stipulated in the NCDOT Sediment and Erosion
Control Program document approved by the Sedimentation Control
Commission in March 1991.
Comment #3: The discussion should be expanded so that the overall impacts from spoil
disposal associated with the various alternatives can be compared. The
discussion should also include impacts from temporary haul roads that would
have to be constructed to potential disposal areas.
Response: Earthwork will be balanced during final design to minimize waste or
borrow. Disposal of waste and debris will be done in accordance with
Section 802 of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures.
VIII-3
r

As outlined in Section 802, all waste and debris will be disposed of in r
areas outside the right-of-way unless otherwise permitted by NCDOT.
Disposal sites are provided by the Contractor. Rock waste, earth waste,
and construction debris will be disposed of according to the detailed
requirements of the Section, and seeding and mulching will take place
over all waste areas.
Disposal of waste and debris will not be allowed in any area under the
COE's regulatory jurisdiction until the contractor has obtained a permit
for such disposal from the COE District Engineer and has furnished a
copy of the permit to the NCDOT Resident Engineer.

Comment #4: The DEIS should have discussed the possibility of the presence of acid-
bearing shales and potential impacts associated with them. Methods that will
be used to search for the shales and potential mitigation techniques, if the
shales are discovered in the various corridors, should be discussed.

Response: The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations
prior to right-of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of
rock to be removed prior to construction. Should acid-bearing shale be
encountered, a plan to minimize acid runoff from uncovered shale would
be developed and implemented. However, it is not anticipated shales will
be encountered at this location.
Comment #5: A discussion of the number of spring seep areas potentially impacted by each
alternative would also be helpful in comparing the alternatives. Discussion
of methods to be used to protect these areas is also needed.
Response: See Section II, page II-10, paragraph 2 of the FEIS for discussion of
Preferred Alternative.

Comment #6: Stream water quality should be monitored by NCDOT or the Federal
Highway Administration.
Response: NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will
be implemented, as applicable, during construction to ensure water
quality. Chapter IV, Section 1.2, Part 2.2 of the DEIS (page IV-63)
addresses the water quality measures included in the BMPs.

Comment #7: Every effort should be made to minimize the loss of forested areas by
reducing the footprint of the highway corridor as much as possible.
Response: See Section I, page I-2, Environmental Commitment No. 8, of the FEIS.

VIII-4

State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Comment #1: DOT should require that the contractor not impact additional wetland areas
due to the disposal of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow
material, or other construction related activities. Prior to the approval of any
borrow source, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
Response: Disposal of waste and debris will be done in accordance with Section 802
of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
Section contains requirements for the handling of all waste and debris
materials encountered on a project.
The specifications require NCDOT approval of the disposal areas. They
also do not allow disposal in any areas under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the COE until a permit is obtained from the COE.

Comment #2: The document states on page IV-64, 'In the event of a hazardous materials
spil4 special design considerations, such as providing for the drainage of
structures into off-site detention basins and not directly into surface waters,
would minimize the severity of impact to receiving waters. " DOT may wish
to consider these detention basins for major stream crossings in this project.
Response: The NCDOT will consider detention basins for major stream crossings in
accordance with NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, as applicable.

Comment
#3:
Bog turtles are difficult to locate. Please discuss the methodology used to
locate, and the intensity of the search for bog turtles and Gray's lily. A
certification for absence by a qualified herpetologist would avoid the above
discussion for the bog turtles. In addition, a certification for absence by a
qualified botanist would avoid the above discussion for Gray's lily.
Response: See Section II, page 11-8, third paragraph, of the FEIS for methodology
used for the bog turtle. The search for the Gray's lily consisted of field
surveys of areas identified as suitable habitat. These areas were traversed
at 50-foot intervals on east-west lines.

Comment #4: To minimize the effect on a bog by construction, DOT proposes to install
sheet pilings. A bog may be impacted if the groundwater is stabilized by the
sheet pilings. DOT may wish to consult with a qualified herpetologist to
determine if the methods proposed to minimize harm to a bog will not alter
the bog that DOT is trying to save.
VIII-5
r

Response: See Section IV, page IV-11 and Environmental Commitment #7, Section
I, page I-2 of FEIS.
1
Comment #5: The COE's September 14, 1990, letter to Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. states that
there are two wetland areas separated by a dirt road DOT has
acknowledged that the 3.34 acre wetland (bog) may be impacted However,
will the 0.718 acre bog be avoided or impacted?
R
esponse: The 0.718 acre riparian wetland will be avoided by the Preferred
Alternative, and thus no impacts are anticipated to this wetland.

Division of Parks and Recreation
C
omment: The list of animals expected to occur within the project area (Table III-11)
contains many species that do not occur in this region of the mountains.
Indeed if the green salamander, Junaluska salamander, or zig-zag
salamander were actually thought to be potentially present, why weren't they
considered along with the other state-listed or federal candidate species? The
document should be amended to correct these mistakes.
Response: Table III-11 was revised. See Appendix A of the FEIS.

Division of Land Resources

Comment #1: This project will impact 14 geodetic survey markers. N. C. Geodetic Survey
should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N. C.
27611 [phone] Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is
a violation of N. C. General Statute 102-4.
Response: See Section II, page II-10 of the FEIS.
Comment #2: If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water Zone
(HQ99, as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
Response: None of the project study limits are included in an HQW zone.
Comment #3: The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project should
be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the erosion control
program delegation to the Division of Highways from the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission.
VIII-6
r

Response: The erosion control plan will be prepared under the erosion control
program delegated to the Division of Highways by the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (September 9, 1992, letter)
Comment: We feel that both Alternatives A and B are prudent and feasible alternatives
that will not adversely affect or use the historic property. By law, the
protection of historic resources is of special importance. Thus, these
resources must be given a value above community dislocation and mere cost
of a project. We understand that several of the structures which
Alternative A would take are abandoned. Also, the additional cost of
$433, 000 for Alternative A is small considering the total project cost is nearly
$60 million. In addition, Alternative A can be built and serve transportation
needs safely. Thus, we recommend that Alternative A or B be selected so
that an intact and important historic property may be preserved
Response: Build Alternative A was selected as the Preferred Alternative.

1
t

t
1
11

1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (November 5, 1993, letter)
Comment: Having applied the criteria of effect X36 CRF 800.9(a), (b)J, we believe
Alternatives WSM-1 (Section of Build Alternative C) and WSM-2 (Section
of Build Alternative A) would have an adverse effect upon the Moretz House.
If either of these alternatives are chosen, we recommend that the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) initiate consultation with us to develop
ways to reduce the effects on the historic property. Also, FHWA should
notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of the adverse effect
determination. The project would also be subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Act since land from a historic property would
be used
On the other hand, Alternative WSM-3 (Section of Build Alternative B)
bypasses the historic property. If FHWA chooses WSM-3 as the preferred
alternative, we believe the adverse effect upon the property, as well as the use
under Section 4(f), can be avoided
Response: In consultation with SHPO, the FHWA executed an MOA to mitigate the
adverse effect of the Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative A) on the
Moretz property.
VIII-7

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission I
Comment #1: The NCDOT makes the following statement on page S-11: 'Due to the
Response: Build Alternative A was selected as the Preferred Alternative.
overall advantages, Build Alternative A, from the western terminus of the
project limits to approximately one mile west of US 221, and Build
Alternative C, from one mile west of US 221 to the eastern terminus of the
project limits, is recommended as the preferred alignment at this time. " The
NCWRC is confused by this statement because the DEIS did not assess
environmental impacts resulting from a combination of Alternatives A and
C; therefore, we are unsure as to how the NCDOT selected this combination
as the preferred alternative. If indeed the NCDOT wants resource agencies
such as the NCWRC to review the feasibility of a combined alternative, the
Final EIS (FEIS) should contain information on this alternative (as
Alternative D?) in the same manner as presented for Alternatives A, B, and
C by giving acreages of various fish and wildlife habitat types potentially
affected by this alternative.
Comment #2: The NCWRC agrees with the comment on page IV-76 that enhancement of
disturbed wetland areas is more desirable as mitigation for unavoidable losses
of wetlands than attempting to create new wetlands, as the latter is often
unsuccessful. The NCDOT has listed potential wetland areas that could be
enhanced for mitigation in Table IV-17, and we concur that possibilities do
exist. The FEIS should state that wetland mitigation will be coordinated with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Environmental i
Management, the NCWRC, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Response: In Section VI of the FEIS, wetland findings and mitigations are discussed.
The wetland mitigation plan will be developed in coordination with the
appropriate regulatory and resource agencies during permit application.

1
VIII-8

fJ
f
1

1
Li

1
t

1
Appendix A
Revised and Additional Tables

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
REVISED AND ADDITIONAL TABLES
Table S-1 Summary of Potential Impacts
Table II-2 Preliminary Alternative Segments Eliminated
Table II-2.2 Preliminary Alternative Segments Retained
Table III-11 Amphibians and Reptiles Expected to Occur in the Project
Area
Table IV-6 Relocation Impacts for Build Alternatives
Table IV-9 Maximum Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentration (ppm)
Table IV-11 Traffic Noise Exposures
Table IV-15 Potential Wetlands
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Table IV-16 Vegetated Wetlands
Table IV-17 Summary of Wetland Creation/Enhancement Potential
(Sheet 2 of 2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

`O
o o r; r; o o o o r; o 0 0 --•
49 44

09 09 v D
0 o o .? o o ? o - o --
404 4

P.,
tn
c;
O O
qt O
'Tt

0

0

.?

O

O [?

oo

O M

O

O r.
44 414

`? et
O
O ?O
M ?O
M
O
O
O
O M
?
O O
O
O -? ti

a .?°
4A 403, r
olg
a1 U ?
M C O CV N O O -• 0 0 0 0 0 -?

Nl O O M M O O --? O O ? O O O --? .--?
? 409).

..w O O M4A ?M O O ? O O X 0 0 0 .-r .--?

p,, ? O ? --? M ? N O? N
d? O?
4.0 U MV M O N N O O ? .- M
F o
?
'.s
49
4 ,
w

y 00 00 vy en ?D O N
8
Q 00 l? N N ?A N M O
N t?
N O?
M 00 O M ?D M
44 ? 4n m

?O ?
O I? O? M •? ? ?
d ? ? N M ?
p
M et t? 1 ? ? N N p
et ? O N ? ? N
49 49 49 --i
42 10 1=
Ire-
04 "1 0
ai o
z as x z U i v x z° w 3 a x' z
N
Oq
0
U
a
ou
b
a
0
w
v
rl)
a
a
0
z
O
U
N
Oq
A ?
U o
w
y ?
a
a •?
S¢
--? N
TABLE II-2
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE SEGMENTS ELIMINATED
Corridor Segment Reasons for Elimination
I Requires significant relocations and disruption to the
community of Rutherwood.
Difficult to maintain traffic on existing US 421 during
construction of Segment I.
L Severe topographical constraints.
M Severe topographical constraints.
Crosses Dogwood Knoll residential community causing
significant relocations and disruptions to the community.
S Crosses Historic Site No. 23'.
Requires significant relocations and causes disruptions to
the community of Laxon.
T Requires significant relocations and causes disruptions to
the community of Laxon.
Requires relocation of Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Crosses Historic Site No. 20'.
Requires significant relocations and causes disruptions to
the community of Laxon.
X Severe topographical constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
Elimination of connective segments S, T, and U.
FF Crosses Historic Site No. 24.
(1) Historical Architectural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum, Margaret Stephenson,
September, 1989.
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE H-2.2
Sheet 1 of 2
Preliminary Alternative Segments Retained
Corridor Segment
Reasons for Retainage
A Favorable topography.
Utilizes long segment of existing US 421 roadway.
B Favorable topography.
Positive public input.
C Favorable topography.
Tie-in for Segments A and H.
Favorable at-grade intersection tie with existing US 421.
D Favorable topography.
E Favorable topography.
Few relocatees.
G Favorable topography.
Tie-in for Segments D and H.
Favorable at-grade intersection tie with existing US 421.
H Favorable topography.
J Favorable topography.
K Favorable topography.
Favorable at-grade intersection tie with existing US 421.
N Favorable topography.
O Favorable topography.
P Favorable topography.
Tie-in for Segments N and W.
(1) Historical Architectural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum, Margaret Stephenson,
September, 1989.
TABLE II-2.2
Sheet 2 of 2
Preliminary Alternative Segments Retained
Corridor Segment Reasons for Retainage
Q Favorable topography
R Favorable topography
V Tie-in for Segments Q and Y.
W Favorable topography.
Favorable at-grade intersection tie with SR 1359.
Y Favorable topography.
AA Favorable topography.
Only location for crossing Blue Ridge Parkway.
BB Favorable topography.
Utilizes long segment of existing US 421 roadway.
CC Tie-in for Segments H and N.
DD Favorable topography.
Favorable horizontal alignment.
EE Favorable topography.
No impact to Historic Site No. 21.
(1) Historical Architectural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum, Margaret Stephenson,
September, 1989.
1
1
TABLE III-11
Sheet 1 of 3
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
SALIEAWA
MICROHYLIDAE
Genus Species Common Name
Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrow-mouthed toad
BUFONIDAE
Bufo americanus American toad
Bufo woodhousei Common or Woodhouse's toad
HYLIDAE
Acris crepitans Northern cricket frog
Hyla chrysocelis Lesser gray treefrog
Hyla crucifer Peeper treefrog
Pseudacris triseriata Northern chorus frog
RANIDAE
Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog
Rana clamitans Green frog
Rana palustris Pickeral frog
Rana sphenocephala Southern leopard frog
Rana sylvatica Wood frog
CAUDATA
NEC7VRIDAE
Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy
CRYPTOBRANCHIDAE
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender
AMBYSTOMA77DAE
Ambystoma maculatum Spotted salamander
Ambystoma opacum Marbled salamander
PLE7HODON77DAE
Desmognathus fuscus Northern dusky salamander
Desmognathus imitator Imitator salamander
Desmognathus monticola Seal salamander
Desmognathus ochrophaeus Mountain salamander
Desmognathus quadramaculatus Black-bellied salamander
Desmognathus santeetlah Santeetlah salamander
Desmognathus wrighti Pigmy salamander
TABLE III-11
Sheet 2 of 3
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
CAUDATA
PLE7HODON77DAE
Genus Species Common Name
Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Spring salamander
Eurycea bislineata Two-lined salamander
Eurycea guttolineata Three-lined salamander
Eurycea longicauda Long-tailed salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander
Leurognathus marmoratus Shovel-nosed salamander
Plethodon cinereus Red-backed salamander
Plethodon glutinosus Slimy salamander
Plethodon jordani Jordan's salamander
Pseudotriton montanus Mud salamander
Pseudotriton Tuber Black-chinned red salamander
SALAMANDRIDAE
Notophthalmus viridescens Eastern newt
REP77LIA
KIN0S7ERNIDAE
Sternotherus minor Loggerhead musk turtle
71?IONYCHIDAE
Trionyx spiniferus Spiny softshell
CHELYDRIDAE
Chelydra serpentina Common snapping turtle
EMYDIDAE
Chrysemys pitta Painted turtle
Graptemys geographica Map turtle
Terrapene caroling Eastern box turtle
SQUAMATA
SCINCIDAE
Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined skink
Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink
Eumeces laticeps Broadhead skink
Scincella lateralis Ground skink
1
1
i
1
1
1
TABLE III-11
Sheet 3 of 3
AMPMBIANS AND REPTILES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA
SQUAMATA
ANGUIDAE
Genus
Ophisaurus
Species Common Name
attenuatus Slender glass lizard
TEIIDAE
Cnemidophorus
sexlineatus Six-lined racerunner
IGUANIDAE
Anolis
Sceloporus
COLUBRIDAE
Carphophis
Cemophora
Coluber
Diadophis
Elaphe
Elaphe
Heterodon
Lampropeltis
Lampropeltis
Lampropeltis
Nerodia
Opheodrys
Pituophis
Regina
Storeria
Storeria
Tantilla
Thamnophis
Virginia
carolinensis Green anole
undulatus Eastern fence lizard
amoenus Worm snake
coccinea Scarlet snake
constrictor Racer
punctatus Ringneck snake
guttata Corn snake
obsoleta Rat snake
platyrhinos Eastern hognose snake
calligaster Prairie kingsnake
getulus Common kingsnake
triangulum Milk snake
sipedon Northern water snake
aestivus Rough green snake
melanoleucus Bullsnake
septemvittata Queen snake
dekayi Brown snake
occipitomaculata Redbelly snake
coronata Southeastern crowned snake
sirtalis Common garter snake
valeriae Smooth earth snake
VIPERIDAE
Agkistrodon
Crotalus
contortrix Copperhead
horridus Timber rattlesnake
1
1
1
1
i
TABLE IV-6
RELOCATION IMPACTS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Build Alternative
Type of Displacee
Individuals
Families
Farms
Businesses
Non-Profit Organizations
Total
A B C
0 0 0
38 52 42
0 0 0
21 7 7
3 2 1
62 61 50
TABLE IV-9
MAXMIUM PREDICTED CARBON MONOXI DE CONCENTRATION (PPM)
No-Build Alternative Build Alternative
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour
Receptor (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
At Right-of-Way 7.3 5.0 3.8 2.5
NAAQS Standards for CO:
1-Hour 35 ppm
8-Hour 9 ppm
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Technical Memorandum -Air Quality, May ,
1990 (as amended by Technical Letter Report - October 1, 1993).

v y
^?o
N ?D ,D M ,D oO oo et -- - O O ; N

V) [? ,C G
O
? Q
b
V) ,D ,O M M ?o et
T M ?+
T N M

b
0
? M 00 tn ? ?t y

z ,O ?D M M er er M 7 N M e0

E'd
C
y

d V en w o v ? ? W)

Q
W
a C? >

to) ^
tn

+
?

+

+
N

+
to
?o
?o
,O
,D
\O
\O
1n
r`
N -It 0

z
?o c + + + + + + + + + + + +
i
W O
~
O

Z y
r
N
?}
d
N 04
w d y
O O
0 0
Q
E- Q BU 8U eU V U C? a
.o > C1 "o tn kn \D \'D IC ?o % ?o \D N V Q o

? a x a a x a x a a .? a x a x 04
? "
.o g o g o vo) g to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$
C C14 C4) en

a?
dQ?
'o
? o g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g
a?
•• •- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
CL cO
C O N 't O, O
- V)
•'-' O
N V)
N O
M N
M V)
M M
M V)
d' V)
'?t 1- O
et In

-
•.
'--,w?1D x U x x U U U x x U x x x a Ux u?
d u o

E V)

t \,O

t r-

w 00

t 0,

w-)

?

%o

o

o to r- 00 Q, O
if 0.rx
z
* x
7
r-a
H
U

+ b
a + + + + 0

)
_ ? _
?O Qp

W)
00
00
00 00
w
O
Q
b
O -+ V1 w m )n O M 00 N N N N N N C
v ? Q

¢'
AM,
" O
?-1 Vt
?i W)
\O Q?
tn 00
1n c
tf) a
V') S O,
In [?
In ?D
to N
to N
1n N
v) N N N
Wn wl ?
?o O
.

O -- )n 00 M et In O M 00 N N N N N N O

d

\C ON

V7 00

)n ?O

)n Cr)

)n ?D ON

V'1
I
t-
)n
?O
)n
N
V•)
N
)n
N
)n
N N N
V1 W) W)
y

y y ..

Q O
Q
O
O_ I?t ON 00 t- IC
,-•
t`
N
?t
ct
ct
efi d d
Z
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + g
W
4t ztt tit

?O O M O O ?O 00
V7 00
V) 00
W) 00 w 00
W) V) W)
00
U V) $
>
0
U
y
a d ?
?
a z o o o ? ? ? ??? U Q A

w14

? x x a a x a a x ? x a x x xax u®

S
S
tf)
N
N
W) o
qtt p
O
S
N
W
S W S
C CY) en W)
dA?
?a?go S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSS

? ° tr) tr ) o o ? ? r- ? r-00 r-

u ? aC p4 a4 a rx a rx n; rx as rx a a: A4 ?: w ?
v
d
j ,
a?•y
?
a w °v
.? --? N M q?t tr) \,o r 00 a
,
0
.
¢
m
U A W
U a tx
H rl .-» t,
,? 00
. , 00
,? 00 00 00 00 00

* x

1
V ?
N O O O O O O O O O O N N M M
C?! + + w0

d 00 r-- 'At
to 't
to d
to ?
to ?
to Itt
to "I
to Nt
to
W)
tn O • M Q
O
Q

C?
O N N M O\ O
r. O
.? cM
.-, 00 00
? M
- [- N m m (V
v?
""""CCCC
LIU + + + . +
co
b
d C'4 N r
zo.
ee
??
*k ray
N
N
h
--+
00 pp pp
?n
q? ?O ?O ?O ?D ?D ?D ?G to ?D ?O O
'?
z

O r
a J
N
N
M
•--+
ON

+
O
.--r
O
.--i
Cl?)
.--?
00

+
00

+
r-+
M
.--?
I-

+
N cn (•M N
i i i °
O p
ed a N
Cc ?? + + + + + + ?j

d. In tr) qD \4, 'o o >1

o °
ai
p j + + O
+
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 a

?
i
++++
W p O 0 .
o
00
to 00
V') R
W) to
to v
to to "t
W) Rt
to Rt
to v
W) "t
to "t
to 00
?o r t? r` 0 0
UC'n ?w >

C".. ,q O O
v y
N ep
w
?.
A Q
? Q

o?b4
tr b 8 ° 8 § $ 8 8 8 ° ° 8 °88°
M 00 00 00
dA?
o as ? 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8888
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[? --+ M
N M
M -,t
M t/')
M 00
M N
M ?O
't I?
to ?O
?O N
l? ??pp to 00 00
?C \C

?? a x a x rx x x x x x x x xxxx ??

d
j ?,
0
? a
o a. a Cr W) E-
N M ?t to
a °?
00 00 00 00 00 0° 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. PG
94 z
*a

V ?

O

G G G G G G G G ?O G G \O
w
O
a
., b
V N N N N cV N N N N N N N N N N N
GEC
v
? a
.
b

r M cM M M N N N N CV N N N N
.r
U ?

a

Vj y? ? 0 G
0
00
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
+ C?
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
+ 00
+ .t M -?t M
+ + + + + z w
S
z
~ W O °
N
I- N
t- N
l- N
l-
l-- M
l- M
P M
P M
r- G? 00 O? 00 p?
Fp ? ?O ?G RO
0 O
F" VV) _
.
0
?
q
Z U Q S o
o ?
04 04 04 04 04 04 04 U @) yc
?
C p

t, O
W) O
M O
tn O
W) O
tn O
W) O
W) O
W) O
V) O

C O

C O O O O

O
O
MNO
O
. N M
M
N
?L1c?
g g g g g S g g g g g ggggg
m? + + + + + + + + + + + +++++
? C-4 00 Q, It ID r-
r- \,O
oo t-
00 O r-' O O O N N M
O) O?\ Q) O?,

g)4 a P4 04 V fyi U A: A4 fs: fx L1; f? (>
V 0
Q OG U ¢ q
.? .c
00
00 00
00
00

00
00

00
00

00 rn
00 O
ON
O

? G

O
C- c? A w w C7 x

O O O
O O
M

a
._., rl ? -4 \
O \ O)
09 z *
*
a
1
1
1
1
1
1

U ?
d d ' ?/ ' O O ?c ?D Q, N N N O
Q o
t,
4
4
U

0
a

N N M N "t d IC ?c -+ N N d 'qt ??

d' M M N \D .--a - - p p M N N Wry to Vn M
b0 O
z

N
N
M
C-4
-,t
d
\c
?p
--+
?O O, N N N O 0
0

v v v v Q Oq N
d ?o ?o ?c to \o \c ?c ? \o ? \C ? ? ?

a ' °a
> .
O .-. C M
+
+ 00
+ N
+ \c
+ ?o
+ ?o
+ O O \C
+ Ict \1O \40 \O \1O \c
++++++ C
e

^ ?J
V
V l/O?1
V \/???
?J
V
V \/Q?? V

00
ON
M
10

tn

V
Q
?D V V V
p
VI) W) tr) Cf)
to ?O I- I- [- I-
d k
o o
0 0

?.1 U
V) in to et V1 to V-) '? rn
` a E?
z b ?o ?o ?c ?n ?o ?o \o kn .n .n rn r
wn W, \c \.o ?c \c v a o

o?
•w? x 94 04 04 x x x a aa.aaxx u?4k
o p
[ g o
N 0 o
\C g g g o o g Q g o 0 0 0
w) tor) w)
M
d
i
•O O
8
0
0
0
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S S wl t S
y'cc + + + + + + + + + + ++++++
QN CN C N
O m
O W)
O W)
.-, tr)
O p
O M N N4

N N N

F+y W V W W W W W 04 W W K/ U 04 W V u
c

rn rn M 00
U a
a
' ? .? .? M M
rn rn o\ rn
1-4 ,
? ( a
rn o? °` ,
??/
09 z .
U
as

+ 0 O O O O O O O O OOOOOO00
r.
?C w
O
U U
? U
t? V @
t-- V
t- V V
t- N

0O
Q
? b
co 't d' 't d 't et R' 't -+ O O

GQ

X4-21 M M M M N M M M M M M M M M ?f'
>g
z

u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OoOOOO00

aa?
j ?i
V V @ @ @
V7 N t
e0 m
T
.?
Q

•-? O \,o
+ \c
+ ?o
+ ?o
+ \O
+ \c
+ ?o
+ ?o
+ \D .o \o \,o ?o O O
+ + + + + + Z
> W O
O o
Z M M M M M M M M cM M M M M M V) ? 4, b N
E-? U g w >
O
O
' Q
p Coq
Z ¦p r
?o r
?o r
?o r
?o r r t` t`
?o r r t- r t- W) d
?o ?o %D 10 `o \,o kf) o a
U Q o

cc ..a ? .-? P4 94 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 .-? U ®ac
? g o 0 0 o g o g o oooogg
•
dAr'?
oa??o g g g g g g ° g g Sgggggg
O ±
Q
a W O
M N
M tn
M O
`ci M
M N
M to
M 00
M O 00 O, o c) O, \,D
tt "t 't V'1 W) cM M
r -4 .1 rl --r d .-J

04 U 04 04 U w 04 04 04 U 04 04 04 04 04 P4 U ?
u
d ?j
0
.? 0
U ?

y d
00 a4
00 U
00 A
00 w
00 w
00 C7
00 x
00
00
00 00 00 00
°?az?g
a a4
a O? O? p? O? O? O? O? ON M ON N
*
x

U Q
00
V t r- ?C N N N N N N (V M M M ?O ?C
+ + +
0
V

00

--?

O?

M

M

M

M

M
n

--+ ?? pp pp pp
w
U
V? ? ?O ?O ?D o V7 W) .?
O

co
'b
?d V
i V O O ?O W)
+ O O O O ?+ -- et -1 0 0
+ + O
b GC ? ,? ?
Gq
4j
d F?.(I

? V)
V) d'

V7 O)

W) O)

V'1 v i V 1 tr) N N N I- M (n

y
to
.
z 'g
?0
r r V
V V d
+ I?
+ ?O
+ - N N N (V N N N M M en \O ',O

U th

Q
c
o o
+
+
+
+
+
+
++++++++ o

.? o o
O
O
Z d
v1 "Rt
W) ',O
110 V)
In N
l- N
l- N
l- N
r- ON O? U r- r- r- ?• ?}
\O \1O \O \O \O Ic ?O ?O ?. Sy aKi
o O 4
H U .?
. g
. 0
.r
'?
z° •o
?n
v?
?O ?1 V 1 try
?o ?! 1
?o M M M M M M M M
?O ?O ?O ?O O Gp'. U
U a oo

°?' o Nv
?w? a a a a a a a a - x?aaaa U®
.
as
Q
g
o
o
o
o
o
o
oogogooo
WI)
- tAr)
d N '" ?
N
d A '?
•o a?,[ o S S g g g g g g g°gggggg
E + + + + + + + + ++++++++

d I-
M ?O r-
it N
? 00
? t-
? 00
W') -
\o M N l/y h ? -+ V1
r 1?0 ? 00 00 ON rn o

=?°
a a ?- ? a a a a aaaaaaaa ?
?
d cc ,
00
,0
o
M In ¢ CQ U "o? ? r- C)
¢ Ua
4
N N O N C'4 0 0 0 0
O
0
N o O N 0 CD C-4 0 .a
a z C4 C14 C14 C14 C14 r14
*
iF i
F Q!i
U Q
as
a
+
+ , O?
+ •? --+ N 00 00 %.o rn ?
+ + i i
cc + + +
O

a! 00 r+ [? QN ON O --+ to 00 to V
?1 to V? ?D ? i
i to to ? ?D ?D ?O ?O i ?1 to •?
w
O
Q

V O 00

+ O O O O
.-
0 d

? to I? ?+ r O O to I?

+ o

y ?
o

?I M
?D N
?O d
to 'tt
V1
W) 00
W) N
?O M t
00 00 t} O? 00 In
in ?o to in to to to to to y
.
z ...

to to l? i i O\ •-i •--? N_ 00 00 ?o O\ i O

U

00
to
Q)
to

?

?

?

to

to
to 00 to
to ?D ?D ?D \D ?D ? to to 60 a?
• Q N
_
.
Q a
a
V
'D
a d O \D
+ O O O to
+ [?
+ -- r-+ -+ --+ O O O h
++++ ++ Z
$

00 z kQ
a 0 p
Z m
110 Q
s ?
qt ?h
In et
to M
In to
to O? V` O O -t ?t ? (T M
It to l- l- t!1 W) W) \D \C ?, b a?i
O a
F
_
>
O 0
o
a
p al
Z "O M ?
to
to ?
to -?t
to 00
? 00
?t 00 00 O1 (7., qt - N N
It v ?,o ?o to to to ?D ?o , ci
R
u Q S 0
o
cc a a a a a a a aaxaaaaaa U@
?
° ° 8 ° F 8 8 8 8°88888°
.
a?

o ?,g
o 8 5 5 8 5 8 8 888888588
,
a?? + + + + + + + +++++++++
t? a\ O
N --+
N N
N T
N to --+ 00 . to t- ?,0 00
N M to to to to to ?f
•-+ N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N C-4

x x x x x x x xa* xxxx*
?U
10-
..?.,
t3> Q?
v O
•--r N
` M
" ?t to
--4 ?Dt-000C,? O -- NM
.-r --1 -4 00 . N N N N
U 0-. CMG
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a z

1

-j I

U
w
d ON 00 \C O O - O O 00 00 00 N M M M
..
+ + + + + +
q:h .? -. .-?
O O
I
Q' 00 t O 00 ?t ? V) et ? I- (- I- N •-? r v
?D ?D kn wn V) W) W) W) Wn Wn v) v) V') V'1 tf)
0
b
N_ V') --? N 'O V') t- O? + tf) Ir) 'It 't N N N
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
?Q
Oq
en Cf) W) C) CIN
tn \D \O \O t- t- ?10 V7 ?D t
z ' s'
et ON 00 ?O O O - O O 00 00 00 N M M M 0
?Cc +
E Zkk u?
5?' 'If 1
?--I V'1 ?O ?O Wn kn to V) v) tf) V) tn V) tf) tn Vn V1 y
Q N 0
M M V7 ?O -.I- M ?D 00 V) Vn V7 M qt ?t 't G q
a p + + + + + + ++++++++++ g
W G O ~i 0
?+ ? ? 0o 00 t-o NOOOr000 ?? ?b aki
Q Z ?D V) ? ? ?D kn tr) ?D t- r r tr) ?O 110 ?D O 0 0
H U?
a? d
6zs? ? 4 00 W) W) NSItt W) W) VI) 1^ V It I Ua.?
d
o Nv
?4 04 04 C4 u
a .5 g g g o g g gogSooggoo
.o as ? o g g g g g g gggggggggg
`° %n M o o - \pr-o+o?N000000V W!
n t- 00 00 00 00 00 Q,, 00 0,\ rn O o O o O
N N N N N N N N N N N M M rn M M
V ' qF, ...
0
q
O N
6 6 w 79
.'.mow t W) ?,O t` 00 O\ O r-r Q N ¢ M .t Q eC
N N N N N N NNMNMMNNMM UP.f?
a z N N N N N
at * 04

r?
Q?
E-?
U ?
M M rn O O (7? r "o ? o., 00 00 -+ --+ M
O

V7

V7 en '4t r- r- r- t-

V)VIW) W) W) W) W) tr) W)
w
w
O

b
N N 00 --+ + --i 00 00 00 N O O O O O N O
Q
'? Qa
W) WI) W) 00 00
O
?o Wn tr) tn "o bo O
y
'g
z

Cp M M Ch O C) (ON r- "O r- ON 00 00 C

N

V')
V7
V7
V7
tr)
V7 V7 V7 WI) V7 V7 V7 V') W) q
VVWW?? `? y , °?
a
q
`"

^ a
i
O p
b
q
W
'? C tt

+ Ict

+ V7

+ 11,

+ It

+ `ct ?t m 1* In l? M M MW)

+ + + + + + + + + + + Z
O
4

?`

V

?@ @ @ O
0,4
? K
Z ?! 00 00 V') V7 V7 W) N Rt 00 N N -4 N CN w -0 a?
0 O
.r
a)
U ? w, ?
'? ? 0 0
.. d
o@ o
a
m 1n 1n 0000 C?
1^
v
V1V)
{?
0
ua4A
l O
°w; o Nv
? a a a a 04 04 u@
.
a ° ° tn 8 8
-4 gogoooW) W)
.
a - 1-4 C4) Cl?) C14

o v? o
' g g g g g ggggggggggS
a?
, + + + + + +++++++++++
?
p" 'k
W
1-+ 4
^ a to "o OC) c) ) ? b C') to to O
N N N M" m m M't
M M M M M M M M M M M N M M cM M

U U U x x xUxxxxxxaxa
?U
O d
m
.? "t M 00 m < C) C'4
U 4
s:
In
N I)
- N N N M M M
M CN 4 O -,t
NNNNNNNNNNN f
C?
Z C
4
i ?F
t
1
r-.
w
H
V ? a¢o
M O O ^+ OO ; IO
+ + r-
+
w
o
a?
?}
?}
Q p p p Q
U

O
a
?. oa b
N
+
+
+ -?
+ N N N N N N N?IRt N_ I?t
+ + + + + + + + + 00 0
+ + +
tr
3

00

00

m ryry?,, ,?
m O?

M

b
dp O

en C) C)

U
ca 4

o ^ 'fl
???
1n
+

+

+

+
00 V') W) v') v) V') N 00 00 N N
+ + + + + + + + + + +

+ . o o
O
CCCC w i..i g
N
w
w? o
04 z
V
V ?a.?
b
Z
M
?
?D \D ?D l\ [\
?O
?.
N
U JZ o O

z?? C-4 C'4 o? W) tp t" Say
d
?.

w? a4 a a a4 arx04C4 0404 04 x w u®
x bn o o g g oogogogoo g g

N N
i$
d ? W
?
•? ? ,
r" ? p
O p
O p
O p
O p p p p p p p p p p p
O O O O O O O O O O O p
O
?
?
?
" `^
?Tj
M
M
tn
M
00
M
? p4
? ? W) O \,O ? W C\ Z? - -
00
M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl?)
? C

•? v
O4
V
fx
04
U fy 04 04 0i P4 0i cx 04 04 04 y
? U o
.p
o ?
' N M W) 00 -a U
a
v
N
N -,t
N t? o0
00
N N
C-4 N N N N N N
N a,
a
z N C,4 *
i *
C)4
U
\10 M i O? O) C) (ON ONO.% OOOOOMt*M
+ +
+ +

d
M
00 @
00
00 00 00 00 .-
-+
tn ?
i ?D ?O ^
?O ?O ID ?D ,V ?c ?D \D ?D
d ? N N N N \,D "t
.w + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
E
r.+
z
?d
V) O\ OO\m O\OOOO V)OO
+ + + + + + + +
U C? UUC?C?
d M 00 00 00 00 00 00
r.• .? r...? p p
N

Wo ??

H U v?

+ + + + + +++++++++++
???? 2 2 2 2
cf) Q z?
?II
U@@@@
,tt -t w) w) th wntnwntnrrrrr
o?
• 8 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O g Q
f?+ C O W) in W) W)
A V N N V
dA4
I
o a? ?,o g g g g S ggggggggggg
Ow 1 z r r r O N ct W)± 00 M ?D o-, 00 00 N±
0. 1 (on - N ?,D r r r r 00 00 r I'D \D r 00 00 00
M M cM M CI) M cM M M M M M cM M cM cM
??
? V ?x P+ Pi V P+ ri g Ci ?x Ci 0i Cr P4
dV
a?
,.?,? N M Q m u w"..W,QpQUA?d
a? kr) W) te) 'tt It 1* It W) if) kr) W) tn
Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a
as
b
w
O
V
O
a
b
w b
w
ou o
o
°a
cc rA
ato
z
o
o?
oo?
,? 0 0
va.5 0
U @ ac
a? 8
U
o CO)
at ? P4
'
U Q
as
'a + + + + } ^i + 1 +++++

w ?
of
?G
V'1
V'1
In
V)
kf)
W)
V't V•1 ?O r-+ W) l- ?o IO tn tr) W) 't
tr) W) V•) ?O W) U'1 tr)
O

?.cd + + ++++++
C,

tf) 000

-? + + + ++++++++++++ b?

U N

d
?D
?D
?O
?O
?O ?O I?

?O ?F V
c 00 y

7?' + N

O q

+
+
+
. W) N ---. .-.
++-4 .... +++++ z
W 40" 04
O g
C o0
M
z <4
' a
z tn ? "C 1,0 U
oar-tr) ?
oo
[-U ry) w >
? ? v .rJ O O

?Z?^p
?n
to
v)
to W) tr) W) tn W-) rn
tnW)?c V)Z ?rW., o av
UQ? o

O ?
Ix
w?
a
a
a
a
aaa?aaaaaaa?a
?®?
g g o 0 ooW-)tr) o
. N N N N

o?.?o g g g g gggggggggggg
1 L" + +
00 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
NMO - WntnNt V) rp W
\O
00 00 O? )
O?rnONrnONrnrnO-, O OOO
w M M M M M M M M M M M M M ?t

?° a a a aaUaaaaaaaaa v g
0

00
00
00
00Np
M?MA ? o aai
?aP4
+ N N 00
N 00
N 00
?D\c
(V N N N N N r O? O N C N N
a z N N
* * f?

? fps ?D M M M M M V'1 to 1n .M•. M-I M t. O ? (?
+ +
+ ?

E +
+ O
< tr) W) tf) W) c D W 00 00 - to tn t? I,
U
"
, to kn Wn wn to I In VI) V) to Wn 1.0 to Wn Wn W)
"
?

MM

M u I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I 1 M t- I I
I I I I I I I O
a

?°

? I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I I ICh CN ~ten N I ,
I I I I I ????? I I M 0
?
. a?

O
?
c, 'd'
+ I
I M
+ M
+ I I I I 1 ?t ? M t? l? I I
I I I I I + + + + + I I O
•?

Q 4?., O
O Q
--a 'D
.-+ r^+ ch
+ M
+ M
+ M
+ M M I'D 110 ?D 't It M r` r` M M
+ + + + + + + + + + + + Z w
W Q bq
0
N G G
H U
0 0
Z 00 00 00 00 00 -? ,- in V-) 00 00 In
to to ?o \'O ?D ? et ?n et -t Z Z o a "
U Q . o

. w? x a a rx xxxaxl?aaxxax U@)
o o g g gogoo888 W)

o
?
c g g g g gggggggggggg
,?,
:
? N O N
0N
•^+? NVn'Dcnarn00in
000000
1-4
"
.4
4
4
1
1
1
1
00 1
-
-
-.
-0 C
4 C
4 C
4 m C
4

2 04 C4 C4 04 C4 04 C4 04 C4 C4 C4 V C4 04 04 P4 U ?
d V " U
° o a?
¢
°
N U
a
v v-
N N `D
N S
N `p ?0
O?t
?i ?
\NDNNNNNNNNNNN a.
a
t * ?.
? f
U ?
b
w' + + + +++
o

\?D •n i to
O

^ CQ
M
+ 00
+ 00 M to "t to m 00 V-) i
+ + + + + + + + + + o

tc

I/????i
A to

to 00

V) 00 r , 00 00 00 %n en

v) ?c kn ?O \1O v) ?O

e+o O

w i M
+ 00
+ 00 M i "O \D to -,t •n M 00 N
+ + + + + + + + + + O

O
@?@ a

?

? W

V1 00

? 00 r- 00 00 (-- 00 In cn
?O N
V1 ?O i ?G ?O ?D to ?D ?O ? v1 ? i

y
Q
a
>

Q? ^
"d
M
M
Wn
v)
1n M ?c In ?o In t In M "t 00 In \,p 0
Z
iC G p + + + + + + + + + + + + . + + + +

'
?
? r
@
) O
?
b
z
?D U
1
to to
to 000
in
00 In M ?D IC N 0
0
to ?o \C ?O V'1 \O ?D ?O 1n ?O ?D a
i
w
0 O
U >
o

z O O O ?\D ??? 0 0???? u Q S O

co? rx x as xxxax u@
.
? o Q goooCD
8 W)te
8
aa?• )

0
.o ?° 8 8 8 8 8888888888888
, ± ++
+
rn
a,
+
O
a8 ° N N M W)
M 0
0
oenM
N0
M M M M In In In
0oo
? et ? ?t ? et ? ?t d ? et ? 'ct ? rt ? ?t

a
?
04 U 04 x xUU uuP494UUxxx U
V 0

t? .4
?0 b
M ¢ ln?O?00Q,O- NM? Vy t

N

N

N

N 00
00
00
00 00
N N N N N N N N N N N N N

a
174
9 z **?
W
a
H
U
w

w
+
+
+ cn N N
i++
, + w
O
4J w.

O

b
a',

+ cn

+
i+

V l'!
_

0
+.+ V
+ O\
+ N
+ M N i N i i
+ + c0 q

? + q
G N
co
y
h
a
N A
0

p? 'C
in
+
Ih
+
?
+
V')?t?0\O? M d ? d' ? V'?
N
+++++++ o
Z ?
S ++++++
+ I
O
O ??`` ??a\\ ?` o ?

z M
v?
?o ON N r- O? N O? 00 a
0 ?o ?\
r ?o r \
o 1
0111
00
U rA -
1
%
? g w >
y U .c? O O
rQ .?, O ?'
? V V ? V ? f1r
c4 00 t? M N?r?M ocn °,81 ° MI cn ua.5 0

.?w? a a a xxxxaxaaaxxarxa
pe g o
tn 0
W) otnW)W) ogoooog
W)
W) tn
N -+ N
N
A r?
• O O?O S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
+ + + ++++++++
+
+++++
Z
a6 W)
00 W)
00
' -?
ON ?
}
M I?.?00 in ?cO\ -NO8,-r 8 ON
V , 00 ON CN ON 0 0 O N M
w d It 'It ?t rF IT lZr h v') W) V? N v 1

?° rx x x xxxxxxxrxxaaxxx ?
?

V ,
?
0 "
0

O
N
N 00
N rno-?Nc??W) r-00aN
p
O O
N N N N N N N
N N N N
M
9 z *?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' w
> 30
F
R

G
0t
r
o?
3
3
0
a

e ?
04
a ? aG$ ? a a Z
O , 00 , OQ
18>
h
ri d g y n y ? g y ? o0
>?-a...3'.. J a A 3•x•5 ?? >
w
O
T
3?? wa.8 3 3 ? ? U...
8 1
s N O O N O
w ?
o .?
y U h yO s y y
o
" l0
?y ?o 0 0 ?o
3 ? 3•? H H 3•? 3?;
cc C13 cc
to
b U ? %0 <
a Q v a as pq ?"" ,5
oa
y
v ?o oc ? u v s. v• a ?..
q. ice
0 ..? ?...a? 0
?'q
Cleo
r- co m o
?z

Q
0
8
w
O
.b
0
.y
a>i
0
x
0
to
s
.s
3
a .?
?s
o >,
a?
z
TABLE IV-16
VEGETATED WETLANDS
Approximate Acreage
of Wetlands
Site No. River/Branch Name Within Alternative
1 South Fork New River A, B, and C <0.1
2A Rocky Branch C 0.3
2B Rocky Branch A and B <0.1
3A Brown Branch C 2.3
3B Brown Branch A and C 0.2
3C Brown Branch A and C <0.1
4 Pine Run B 0.7
5A Pine Run B <0.1
5B Tributary to A and C <0.1
Pine Run
6A Laxon Creek A, B, and C 0.9
6B Laxon Creek B <0.1
6C Laxon Creek B 0.3
61) Tributary to A and C <0.1
Laxon Creek
7 Gap Creek A and C 0.9
8 Pine Run A and C 0.1
9A Gap Creek C <0.1
9B Gap Creek A <0.1
9B Gap Creek B 0.9
10 Tributary to BRP 1 0.2
Wildcat Branch
10 Tributary to BRP 5 0.3
Wildcat Branch
10 Tributary to BRP 6 1.6
Wildcat Branch
10 Tributary to BRP 6A 0.6
Wildcat Branch
i
TABLE IV-17
SUMMARY OF WETLAND CREATION/ENIWVCEAENT POTENTIAL
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Alternative
Site No.' River/Branch Name Traversed Creation of Wetlands
1 South Fork New River A, B, and C Little opportunity exists to
create wetlands in this area.
2A Rocky Branch C Some opportunity exists to
lower elevation uphill of
stream to allow hydrology
to reach these areas. Areas
in pasture should be allowed
to return to undisturbed
status.
2B Rocky Branch A and B Minimal due to soil make-
up.
3A Brown Branch C Areas of pasture could be
allowed to revert to
wetlands. Some plantings
will facilitate the creation.
3B Brown Branch A and C None
4 Pine Run B None
5A Pine Run B Little opportunity exists.
5B Tributary to A and C Little opportunity exists.
Pine Run
6A Laxon Creek A, B, and C Opportunity exists to re-
vegetate the wetlands.
6B Laxon Creek B Areas adjacent to creek
could be lowered to allow
greater and longer period of
flooding. Revegetation
could also be done.
(1) Refer to Exhibit III-3 for site location.
TABLE IV-17
SUMMARY OF WETLAND CREATION/ENiIANCEMENT POTENTIAL
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Alternative
Site No. River/Branch Name Traversed Creation or Wetlands
6C Laxon Creek B Areas that are disturbed
could be allowed to revert
to natural conditions.
6D Tributary to A and C Area could be allowed to
Laxon Creek revert to natural con-ditions.
7 Gap Creek A and C Wetlands vegetation could
be reverted and enhanced.
8 Pine Run A and C Wetlands area could be
enhanced and expanded
through creating larger flat
areas.
9A Gap Creek C Little opportunity exists.
9B Gap Creek A and B Minimal opportunity exists.
10 Tributary to BRP 1, 5, 6, Due to the unique nature of
Wildcat Branch and 6A this wetland, little
opportunity exists to create
a bog-type wetland.
However, the area down-
stream (a riparian wetland
of approximately 0.7 acres)
may be enhanced and
expanded.
(1) Refer to Exhibit III-3 for site location.

I

Appendix B
Revised and Additional Exhibits
u

f`
.,

N
N N
r ?

r
?Ar H SHFEr z
?~ ? ? SyFFr
nl,
'Ov
r t \
ao \l '•?
7Z

C /`SAT
?ATey 3tiyF?T S
' ? SET 4
/ c
. .9 `y
m
a
co
UGgEs NT y

co F
•
en
cn
`l
ca N
CA '.
IA,3 L101
'•
?1`5
y Z ?,33HS / ?.

J
/ C3
m9
r

a Al
r w •'
C?7
i w
?IH
N
D /D >DA
m z vi
M D S
Z ay A ??
•D _•l Ao c D
C C
M -n
T /A> ?
? t7
r
m
:J L?A L L J L
C
N
-IN
_ jf• `
1 m
J a:
j-
N
?.
N (n
.. n
m
O ..
Z mm
? N
r
0
A
ESP
N
w
(C

N
N
TO
!Y?'?F'??RR?QN
j
[

33
" r X X O -q 0
m
r -4
m .,
I F.•
0 C
Z M
D

Z 7

G
m -I
-
'm
m D
? Z
0 z
0
r
D
in <
m C
cn
o Z
m -i
N
mM o
.4.6
10
.,
DQ .m
?
..m
Q

,Fl
ae?
0

D

n

J
Appendix C
Revised Appendices
0
R E L O C A T I O N
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJECT= 8.1750601
I.D. NO.: R-529B
R E :p OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
_ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY Watauga Alternate 1 of. 4 Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: FR-86-1(6) Section
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT LS 421, South Fork River to Deep Gap
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
ype of
?Displacee Owners Tenants
Individuals 0 0 M i nor-
'Total ities
-0 0 --- -p---- ---_.___...
0-1SM 15-25M 2S-35M - 35-50M 50 LP
- o -------0 0 - ? --.0 0
amilies 26 8 34 0 2 12 11 6 3
' usinesses 4 4 8 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
arms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 2 CEMS 0 2 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 1 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 3
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 5 150-250 5 20-40M 16 150-250 8

S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS -- .------•---
40-70M 12 250-400 -
2 40-70M
22 250-400 5

_ -

x
-- - x
-

- 1. Will special relocation
: services be necessary

2. Will schools or churches be
affected
b y displacement 70-100 6 400-600 0 70-100. 32 400-600 4
---._-.._ ...._._---. _..,._.__--- --•--.-- -__. __.____-- --._.___._..-_-_-
..___.._..__.....
100 UP 2 600 UP 0 100 LP 18 600 UP 4
...... .....
-...-.-
x
--
x
?- 3..Will business services still
be a v a i l a b l e after project
4. Will any business be dis- TOTAL 26 8 90 24
-- -- -..?........ .. - ?..... _- --?-- - 1--- .- --_?....... ---......... ._
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 2. Two private cemeteries
- employees, minorities, etc.

--9 x
- 5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage 3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
x
-
--
--?
x 6. Source for available hous- NI
ing (list) q
7. Will additional housing
programs be needed 4. a. 1SF Building, Smith's Store, 1,400 SF,
general dry goods, 1 employee
b. Fenced in 1/2 acre area used for auto
storage, 1 employee
x
-
?

x 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled, C. One-story metal building, 900 SF, Wendy's
Maintenance Shop, 1 employee
d. One-story metal building, 2,100 SF, Pennell's
L elderly, etc. femilies Auto Repair, 4 employees
- ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN e. One-story metal building, 3,000 SF,
- 10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad- Upholstering Company, 4 employees
f. Two one-story metal buildings, 4,200 SF, Steel-
master Building Sales, 2 employees
g. Two-story block and frame business, 3,700 SF,
Phoenix Auto Sales, Junk Yard, 2 employees

- -?- equate DDS housing available,
- u during relocation period Q H. One-story Metal Building, 120' x 275' 33,000 SF
Cretcher Brothers Produce, 16 employees
ID. wiii there be a problem of
housing within financial
'.._..... means
X14. Are suitable business sites
- available (list source)
1S. Number months estimated to
c;img-IX- te_.2ELOCATION
No minorities on the above businesses.
6. a. Ronald T. Fannon, Broker with Boone Realty, Inc.
b. The Mountain Times Newspaper
8. As necessary in accordance with State Law
R'eIocation AgeWt
m 15.4 Revised 5/90

-3- /-3.--
,_ _,I, 4
to 2-
Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
'? 2 Copy: Area Relocation File -
R [=L-OCA-F I Gf`J P EP OR -T North Carol ime Department ,. ?f Transportati
X__ E.I.S. CORKIDOS; --- DESIGN RELOCATION ASSIS IN
_......y
PROJECT: 7?C6E,1 ........... _ COUNTY: wetau=a Alternate A
___....._..__._._.._.o f 1 A l t e a
.._...._ .: -
I.D. NO.: R
-S23R _ F.A. PROJECT: FP-66-l (?) '-rcr Approx. SE 470 to S=
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _y __._..__ , ._._.ut P _
c5::; to Jee Ge,a
........ ........................ - ................................. ----
.....................................
ESTIMATED DISPLAC S INCO('`= ... --.--................................................... 11
Ype of IL ....... .... 'Minor-'
?i
N T ....- II -15M IL. .15-_25M ....................
D l s p l a c e e !iOwners.I ... LEVEL -
............ 1 .... .,,....
ITenants Tot=I 1tiPs I 0 ? 7 ri
25-35M
... 35-50M 50 Ur
I? ! J I dUa s r i! I ........ .. ..................... ... ..N ............... _........... _............. ......
nd 1 n L r ! 'I
I ... I' .......
n
. ....... u - h
n. mI 2
V B u s -I e s s e s .... .. ! ........... VALUE „ OF DWELLING .............. _ y ... DSS DWELLINGS AVA I LA.....
...........
Fa ................
u 4
.................... .......................
Owners Tenants For.....Sa.l_e .... .N ..For Rent...
;rms ............................ ..
.
O.Non-Prof I t 0 C r_20r .......p.... N.?.... 0_1501........C?...._ ?C_20^1 ?
h.......... ........ ...„ ................
........ . ....... h
.........
.................................................. N .. y. 6 0_15 C i
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ^r_'n y ° 20-40Mh 16 X150-250
q... uM?5?
-?5?Y.......... .n..... p
nYES!NO" EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS Lu---DM' ........................ 150-400 LC-7pM? X25...... np "'
. -
......
7--1 LIE" ? ?tp- IC -1 CD d 400
-' 3C
" - - p
?Cu UP ...... .._.JC.....U ..... ... ......................
.... .......,.......,
I ^
c t 4
e+-p -
- ,..L
UP
_2c! L3 c ? I --?e?-
- _
1. py 1928 . .................. .
T ,
X ! 3. WI 1 1 '.'DUE- I ness ,AI
ce GV_'. able a -_e_ ect t...... ;
X „ 4 ......._..
_.ny US!
ne=_ ce c s- REMARKS (-Respond by Number)
Placed. If so,
_ype, Pmt mates moe 2. _ Cl,urc , 1,800 Sr, No nam
em, 1D : n
E?r-vICes w ! 1 1 sti 1 1 be avai table after prcjy-
r -
Wo?sing short --
Y 6 Source for r G t,.cched I i st .
4
X 7. W I I I add I t I Cast ! .7ZL-z- ? [? .
(a) Ronald Fannon„ broker with Boone Real
oC G
y, programs oe _ ( b ) Multiple
X B. Si,ould Lest Resort
(c) The Mountain Times Newspaper
be considered
X ?! 9. Are there Iarg2 s ?. ?
necessary in accor-:a.nce with State law,
elderly, etc.
I-.m. yes
h °- --ti ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN; 11. North Western Regione! Housing Authorit
,
X 110. Will public CUSir9 be y'' c' ?=
1 r-iCw2r, Director, (70-/)
X64-6683.
needed for ploje--
I?.
I
.X T i
11 . _ s pub I I c ,sus r: a; a, ? 2 . S22 DSS dwe I I i ! ab
ngs av- ? e .
................ ..::......__. able
X 'I 712. Is it felt -her u;,,i ad-'
y f c E?
equate DDS ,ous ng cVaila:ble
I I,-- .r during relocation :)er;od I
XX 13. WiII there be e prcbiem _
;I housing within -!nancia!
.......... .............^ means
X 1 114. Are suitable 'CUSiaesS 5 ;,Los
i,
i._ l............l1 eve i I ab I L. ( I i St source )
y 115. Number months estimated ±c
l co plete RELOCATION 12 mc_
......... :................... .... ..... ...... ......... .......................... .... .... .......... ...............
............................................... ..........
................
22 ocat I on Agen* .y_/....... _.....- pr -- - - -
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 A ro?sc Date
Original $ 1 [spy: State Relocation Agen?
Area Relocation File
" O C A T I O N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION AEGISTANCE
JJECT- 8.1750601 COUNTY= -._ Watauga Alternate 4 of 4 Alternate
D. NO., R-5298 F.A. PROJECT: _ FR-86-1(8)
-
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, LS 421) South Fork River to Deec Gap

i

l
n

11

e a 10n gent
orm 15.4 Revised 5/90
c0,? c2cF _.._
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCCY`E LEVEL
DTs
l O
T l
T s 0
ISM 351
p
acee enants
wners
l ota ties - 15-25M 2S-
1 35-SOM 50 LF
Indlviduals see
emarks -
Faml lies
-?
- V
Businesses VALLE OF OWEL.L I NG
DSS
D WELLINGS AVAILABLE I
Farms -- -^ _,- _
Owners Tenant _
_
s For Sa le For Rent
Non -Profit
-? - 0-2011
- -^- g 0-15C?
-- 0-2dM g 0-150
- - -
-
^
AKSWER ALL OLESTIONS 20-40M 1501-250 .2!J-40 11 ISO-' SO

YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-7011 250-400 . 40-70M z=o-aoa
1. Will special relocation
i
b 70-100 1400-600 70-100 400-600 t

2. serv
ces
e necessary
Will schools or churches be
100 LIP
600 LF
100 L4"
bpd L?'
- --- affected by displacement
_..--__--
3. Will business services still TOTAL 1
be available after proJect ._.•.......... __.
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respcnd by Number)
Placed, If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. No Relocation on this Alternate Section #4
5. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage
6. Source for available hous-
-- ins (list)
7. Will additional housing
programs be needed
8.
? Should Last Resort Housing
--__ be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
r M99R THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
-- needed for proJect
11. Is public housing avail-
- able
12. Is It felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION

ate Approved Date -
Original & 1 Copy, State Relocation Agent
2 Copy, Area Relocation File
_T ?n nut LT-!?):' W
1

LI,

1
IF I

Appendix D
Agency Comments on DEIS

1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
t
A
1
AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
Exhibit 1 United States Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Exhibit 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Exhibit 3 Department of the Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Exhibit 4 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Exhibit 5 State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Exhibit 6 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Exhibit 7 United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Exhibit 8 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Note: WSM-1 is a section of Build Alternative C.
WSM-2 is a section of Build Alternative A.
WSM-3 is a section of Build Alternative B.

4

L76(FNP-774)
ER-92/0712

'United States Department of the Interi
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
OCT N 6 1992
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
C 1 '
I
CT ,8 1992
Dear Mr. Graf:
This responds to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments on the
draft environmental/Section 4(f) statement for U.S. 421, Watauga County, North
Carolina.
SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT COMMENTS
Blue Ridge Parkway
Because of the length of the Parkway, we concur that there is no feasible and
prudent build alternative that would avoid use of the Section 4(f) resource.
We have the following comments regarding each of the proposed crossings of the
Parkway.
We concur that Alternative 1 is imprudent because it requires a new bridge with
a span of 110 feet. This length would
preclude a stone arch bridge. In
addition, there will be substantial impacts to the Parkway from closing U.S. 421
during construction. We object to Alternative 1.
We object to Alternative 2 because it lacks an access connection to U.S. 421.
We do not object to Alternative 3. However, we are concerned about the design
details of the proposed new ramp in the northwest quadrant (such as percent of
grade, curvature,sight distance at the Parkway, amount of cut and fill, etc.).
We recommend that a grassed median (suitable for shrub planting) on U.S. 421 be
extended through the intersection with this ram to
421 to the Parkway and to enhance the park entrance andecomplement tthesstone arch
bridge and other parkway aesthetics. We also recommend that the Blue Ridge
Parkway be given, as mitigation, adequate land at the ramp in fee simple for
scenic control as well as for entrance and traffic control signing.
Exhibit 1, Page 1

2
We object to Alternative 4 because there is no need to connect the existing
#1. parkway ramp to U.S. 421 with a T-intersection. Since the ramp will only serve
IV-15 eastbound traffic, the existing Y- intersection with acceleration and deceleration
lanes added would serve much better.
It should be noted that the artist's rendering depicting this alternative does
not show a design element offensive to the Parkway's aesthetic quality, that
being, the construction of steel W-beam guardrail at not only the medium pier of
#2
IV-16 this structure, but also at the abutment walls. Although the state is obligated
by standards to construct guadrails when adequate clear zones do not exist, we
recommend that liberal design criteria, such as a longer bridge, be used to
create the necessary clear zones. The same problem exists for Alternative 3.
Alternative 5 is unacceptable because of the impacts it may have on threatened
and endangered species associated with the bog. In addition, a new parkway
bridge over U.S. 421 to the south of the existing bridge would reduce sight
distance at the intersection of the existing ramp and the parkway as well as
affect the design geometrics of the ramp by shortening its length.
We concur that the impacts on the sensitive mountain bog makes Alternatives 6 and
6A unacceptable.
We have the following comments concerning the second provision of Section 4(f),
planning to minimize harm.
We note that the National Park Service (NPS) is a cooperating agency as it
manages the Blue Ridge Parkway and has legal jurisdiction in the area where
113 construction alternatives cross the Parkway. While there has been some
IV-16 coordination with NPS, we are concerned that the NPS preferred crossing,
Alternative 3 (as stated in Superintendent Everhardt's letter dated May 31
1990
,
,
page E-5.1) has not been adequately addressed. Alternative 4, preferred by the
highway agencies, does not adequately mitigate adverse impacts to the Parkway,
will use more parkway land, and will cost $1.2 million more.
The NPS prefers the design and mitigation features of Alternative 3, except for
the design feature calling for maintaining the existing two lane bridge
structure. It appears infeasible from an engineering point of view to preserve
#4 this structure. We note that this bridge structure, which was built in 1960,
IV-16-IV-17 would not appear to meet the criteria of eligibility to the National Register of
Historic Places. Replacing this bridge with a double stone arch bridge would
appear to be acceptable. Additional design of the bridge needs to be developed
to assure consistency with the historic character of the Parkway.
Alternative 3 will have impacts which can be mitigated on the mountain bog as
well as on endangered and threatened species associated with the bog. However,
the document does not adequately address mitigation. In this regard, the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicates a preference for the "no build"
alternative, but also indicates that impacts to the bog from Alternatives 2, 3
and 4 are acceptable with mitigation. Mitigation of secondary impacts to the
bog due to adjacent construction activities (i.e., increased sedimentation) and
the potential secondary impacts to the bog from possible future activities
associated with the highway improvement, such as the need for right-of-way for
transmission, gas and/or water lines, needs to be addressed in the statement.
Exhibit 1, Page 2

t

A

J
f
t
r

3
These secondary impacts also need to be addressed to assure protection of the Bog
Turtle and Gray's Lily which are threatened federal candidate species as well as
state threatened species. The NPS Management Policies stipulate that:
"Consistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et
seq.), the NPS will identify and promote the conservation of all federally listed
threatened, endangered, or candidate species within park boundaries and their
critical habitats. Active management programs will be conducted as necessary to
perpetuate the natural distribution and abundance of threatened or endangered
species and the ecosystems on which they depend."
Moretz House
We concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the Moretz
House, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We concur
that all means to minimize harm have been considered contingent upon approval of V-10
the mitigation plan by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer.
This plan and its approval should be included in the final Section 4(f)
statement.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
We recommend reconsideration of Alternative 3 which is preferred by the National
Park Service. We also recommend working with the National Park Service to reach
an agreement concerning measures to minimize harm to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The
Department of the Interior would have no objection to Section 4(f) approval of
this project by the Department of Transportation if a satisfactory agreement can
be reached with the National Park Service concerning the most feasible and
prudent alternative and mitigation measures.
Since the Department of the Interior has a continuing interest in this project,
we are willing to cooperate and provide technical assistance on this project.
For technical assistance please contact the Regional Director, National Park
Service, Southeast Region, 75 Spring Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, (404) 331-
5835.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
rnathan Deason
nvironmental Affairs
i
cc: Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Exhibit 1, Page 3
?fb St4
A
?r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1,1'4' a,0110 REGION IV C40
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365 September 15, 1992 Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) US 421
From West of the South Fork of the New River to SR 1361
Watauga County, NC; Federal Aid Project No. FR-86-1(6);
ERP No. D-FHW-E40325-NC
Dear Mr. Ward:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV has reviewed the subject Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We have identified some areas
of concern with the project that need to be addressed during
preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and
considered during the decision making process.
Water Quality Impacts
One area of major concern is potential impact to area water quality.
There are several high quality streams within the project area that
could potentially be adversely impacted by construction of this
project. The impacts could originate from several sources; however,
due to the mountainous terrain in the project area, one of the most
likely sources is construction related impacts. Since the highway
corridor will traverse areas with very steep slopes, construction may
require deep cuts and extensive fill areas. Earth disturbance of
this magnitude creates the potential for extreme soil erosion and the
possibility of serious siltation of area streams if erosion is not
carefully controlled. These impacts could be relatively long term if
large amounts of erodible material reach the streams. The discussion
of potential impacts related to construction activities s ou e
Im rove to o iv more etai' regarding the length- o streams #1
-tenUai 111LT --- IPMe ?re urom a uc oones or each VIII-3
alternat ve as ative amounts o cu Ing an ling
act v ty associate with the various erna Ives.
Development of a com rehen8ive erosion control p1jan and strict
adherence to Best Management Practices are essential for successful
protection of area streams. Due to the steepness of the terrain, the
use of an independent erosion control contractor should be considered #2
to review pro osed erosion control plans as we as to constantly VIII-3
monitor the effectiveness oz erosion control measures urine
uunszructiion. Exhibit 2, Page 1
1
Printed on Recycled Paper

1
r
-2-

An additional potential impact to water quality is related to
potential spoil disposal areas. Information regarding possible spoil
disposal needs should be discussed. Potential for adverse water
quality and wetland impacts from disposal areas can be very serious
?3 and the discussion should be expanded so that the overall impacts
from spoil disposal associated with the various alternatives can be
VIII-3 - compared. The discussion should also include .un acts from tem ors
VIII-4 haul roads that would have o e constructed to potential isposa
areas. -
Another area of concern is related to potential excavation of and
construction through areas of acid bearing shales. If exposed and
allowed to contact water, these shales can produce acid runoff that
is very detrimental to aquatic life. Since the potential exists for
these shales to occur in the project area, the DEIS should have
#4 discussed the possibility of the presence o t ese s ales and
VIII-4 potential impacts associated with them. Methods that will be used to
_
search for the sh
a1es an potential mitigation tec ni rule , if the
hales are discovered in the various corridors should be discussed.
Th s information would be helpful in determining the adequacy of
information available for alternative selection.
No discussion of water quality impacts to spring seeps is included in
the document. These seep areas often occur in mountainous regions
and provide important habitat to a variety of unique plant and animal
species. These extreme headwater areas are very important to
downstream water quality and potential impacts should be discussed in
the text. A discussion of the number of these areas potentially
#5 i pa _t _d hy?anl,1 alternative would alan bQ helpful in comparin the
VIII4 alternatives. Discussion of methods to be used to protect these
areas is also nee e -
The project will impact from 2.2 to 5.0 acres of wetlands. Wetland
losses must be avoided, if possible, however, if unavoidable then
they must be reduced as much as possible and the losses must be
mitigated. we favor the protection of the mountain bog that is
located in the project area by selection of an alternative that
completely avoids the bog area.
An additional concern is input of non-point source pollutants to area
waters from the highway after project completion. The document
discusses the potential for highway runoff to degrade water quality
and we support the use of design features that capture runoff and
provide a level of protection from non-point source pollutants.
Add t onall we encoura a NCDOT to use alignment shifts to locate
the highway as far away from stream corridors as po
Exhibit 2, Page 2

1

1

-3-
Federal Highway Administration i.e. the agencies responsible for
project, throughout the construction period and for some period
following construction in order to detect problems that may occur
area streams due to project activities. If problems (e.g., acid
drainage or siltation) are detected then corrective actions can be
initiated immediately.
Terrestrial Impacts
the]
in
The proposed project will impact from 142.3 to 110.5 acres of forest
lands. Our interest in this matter is a function of the fact that
EPA has identified the loss of habitat and the associated decline of
plant and animal diversity as a major ecological problem in the
Southeast. Forested areas, especially hardwood forests such as are
located in the project areas, provide diverse habitat for a variety
of organisms. In addition, the loss of forest lands also contributes
to the greenhouse effect, the alteration of the earth's climate by
human activities. Eve effort should be made to minimize the loss
of forested areas by reducing the footprint of the highway corridor
as much as possible. Mitigation of loss by planting trees in
right-of-way or other suitable areas should be considered.
Another consideration is the fragmentation of forest habitat by the
construction of the project. Habitat fragmentation is particularly
critical for species that require large areas of undivided land. One
such species is the black bear. Project design should include
features that mitigate this type of habitat fragmentation.
On the basis of our evaluation of the document, a rating of EC-2 has
been assigned._,.This_rating.means that...our._review of the project has
identified environmental impacts that should be avoided to fully
protect the environment. Additional information is needed to
adequately assess some impacts or mitigation plans. we appreciate
the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any
questions please contact David Melgaard, of my staff, at (404)
347-3776.
Sincerely
I ??, ?x ?., &-)?
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
cc: N.L. Graf, Federal Highway Administration
Exhibit 2, Page 3
#6
V111-
#7
VIII-4

L
n
L,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
September 22, 1992
? o
SEP 231992
k DIVISION OF U
HIGHWAYS AESEA?
?
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your letter dated July 13, 1992, requesting
comments concerning the "Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
US 421, from just West of the South Fork New River to SR 1361 East of Deep
Gap, State Project No. 8.1750601 (R-529B), Federal Aid No. FR-86-1(6), Watauga
County." The project consists primarily of constructing a 4-lane highway
with median transitioning into a 4- or 5-lane highway on the east and west
terminal points, respectively. The project includes a crossing of the Blue
Ridge Parkway near the eastern end. The present preferred alternative is
Alternative A, with Alternative C substituted for a 1-mile section and Blue
Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4 (BRP 4).
' The presented Alternatives A, B, and C do not cross any U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The alternatives are sited in Watauga County, which participates in the
Federal Flood Insurance Program. Alternatives A, B, and C have planned
crossings of South Fork New River and Gap Creek, which have been studied by
detailed methods with the 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. The preferred alternative's hydraulic effects on the 100-year flood
levels and the floodways should be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Line 3, paragraph 1, page IV-88, should be corrected to
read "Zones A4 and A6 for Gap Creek and South Fork New River, respectively."
"Zone A4 indicates...." should be changed to read "Zones A4 and A6
indicate...." on Line 4, same paragraph and page. Alternatives A, B, and C _
also have planned crossings of reaches of South Fork New River and Gap Creek,
which have been mapped by approximate methods (Zone A). For those reaches of
South Fork New River and Gap Creek mapped by approximate methods and those
other stream crossings, the preferred alternative's roadway and drainage
structures would be designed as cited in paragraph 3, same page. The final
project's hydraulic effect should be coordinated with Watauga County for

Exhibit 3, Page 1
#1
VIII-2

-2-
compliance with their flood plain ordinance(s) and possible revisions to their
flood insurance maps and report. Executive Order 11988 appears to have been
complied with.
Our Asheville Regulatory Office has reviewed the draft EIS and noted the
various alternative alignments which were discussed in relation to potential
impacts to natural and cultural resources. The Build Alternative (new road)
versus the No Build Alternative seems valid to us for the following reasons.
a. The accident rate on the current roadway is two times the state and
national average for 2-lane roads. The current alignment has many sharp
curves, steep grades, and numerous access points close to the road.
Therefore, a new road alignment seems to be a necessity.
b. The Level of Service (LOS) designated by your agency for the current
roadway is E, meaning it has a high driver discomfort with forced flow. It is
projected that by the year 2015 the LOS will drop to the worst level F, which
means a breakdown of flow conditions with long periods of delay due to
congestion.
c. Simply improving the existing roadway does not seem feasible due to
the numerous relocations that would be necessary. For example, the Parkway
Elementary school grounds would be degraded by the removal of some of their
property in order to do the necessary improvements. Due to the topography of
the region, residences and businesses were forced to locate very close to the
current road and, therefore, it would be very difficult to accomplish the
relocations and successfully improve the road. It is predicted by your agency
that if a new road were constructed, most of the traffic would relocate to the
new road and leave the old road to serve as a local collector.
Three alternatives were narrowed down from a long list of potential
candidates for new road alignment. Paragraph 1, page S-11, states that
Alternative A, with Alternative C substituted for a 1-mile section and Blue
Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4 (BRP 4), is the present preferred
alternative. However, the rationale for substituting the 1-mile section with
Alternative C does not appear to be discussed in the Draft EIS. We agree that
"BRP 4" should be the preferred crossing of the Parkway since it has no
significant impacts. The Final EIS should present the rationale for selecting
III-1 -III-2 the preferred alternative.
The three main alignment alternatives were projected to cost relatively
the same and all were of equal length. All skirt the most important aquatic
resource of the project, a 3.3-acre southern Appalachian bog located adjacent
to the BRP. The bog is considered by your agency, ourselves, and many other
agencies and the public to be a pristine southern Appalachian bog. All of the
other wetlands that would be impacted by the project are considered by your
agency to be degraded based on site investigations. However, we have not had
Exhibit 3, Page 2

1
t
r

1

1

1

L?

-3-
the opportunity to confirm this. In addition, all three alignments impact the
total stream crossing area about equally, and no Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters would be impacted by any of the alternatives.
We concur with your agency's decision to not choose Alternative B. The
number of relocations are much higher than either A or C. In addition, state-
threatened plant species, Bent avens, would be impacted by this alternative.
In consideration of Alternatives A or C, Alternative A would impact 2.4 acres
of wetlands, while Alternative C would impact 5.0 acres of wetlands. In
addition, Alternative A would impact 74 acres of upland oak and cove forests,
while Alternative C would impact 45 acres of these forests. Upland cove and
oak forests are important ecologically for habitat for nongame animal species
and provide winter food. Also, cove forests have a high density and diversity
of species. In consideration of the upland and wetland natural system area
to be impacted by the project, it is difficult to choose between the
alternatives. Since Alternative A would potentially impact less than one-half
the wetland area of Alternative C, but would impact 29 additional acres of
upland habitat, the rationale for choosing the selected plan should be given.
In particular, the value of upland cove and oak forest habitats should be
presented.
Seven alternatives were chosen for the BRP crossing. Four would have
impacted the bog wetland, while three would not. Based on cost estimates
and avoidance of the bog consideration, we agree with your agency that .
Alternative 4 is a good choice. This alternative avoids the bog and will
not be cost prohibitive.
' In the EIS, your agency states that a sheet pile wall may be installed
between the new road and the bog in order to prevent siltation and other IV-17
damaging runoff from reaching the bog. We commend your agency for this idea.
We would like to see this decided upon and have detailed plans provided for
the structure in the final EIS.
We have no comment on historic or archaeological sites which may be
disturbed by Alternatives A or C. None of the properties are on the National
Register. Five archaeological sites and seven historical sites in the project
area are currently eligible and awaiting review.

1
e

In conclusion, we have determined that impacts will be minimal to aquatic
resources in the project area. The most important resource, the bog wetland,
will be avoided entirely and we strongly endorse this. Your agency needs to
identify the measures for compensatory mitigation of wetland losses. The EIS
indicates that much study has been done to accomplish this. We would like to
be able to review your plan for enhancement of degraded wetlands, including an
area where restoration or enhancement of wetlands could be accomplished.
Exhibit 3, Page 3

-4-
There may be an area within the watershed where siltation or some other impact
has severely degraded the values associated with the wetland. The Final EIS
for the preferred alternative should include a mitigation plan proposed to
offset unavoidable wetland impacts. Although specific mitigation sites may
VI-1- VI-2 not be known at that time, the Final EIS should include those concepts of
mitigation considered for the preferred alternative, the proposed ratios of
compensatory mitigation, and the acreage of mitigation proposed according to
wetland types.
The Draft EIS indicates that.several segments of the project qualify
for nationwide permit authorization. Nationwide permits are not applicable
#2 for those normally qualified segments since their function or usefulness is
VIII-2 dependent upon the remainder of the project which requires individual permit
authorization. All portions of the proposed project must be evaluated as part
of the individual permit.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed improvements,
including disposal of construction debris. On February 6, 1990, the
Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed
a Memorandum of Agreement establishing procedures to determine the type and
level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section
#3 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The final EIS should indicate a conceptual mitigation
VIII-2- plan to offset the impacts for the preferred alternative, the proposed ratios
VIII-3 of compensatory mitigation, and the acreage of mitigation proposed according
to wetland types. When final plans for the project are complete, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review
those plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve
Chapin of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina, 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.
Sincer
VJawren
Chief,
Exhibit 3, Page 4
Saunders
ning Division

n

r]

i

{ art. GE
Lr? ?3
CSS P 1 1992
VISION OF c5
WAvNorth Carolina Department of Cultural Resti?sEAW
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
' September 9, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 421 Improvements from US 421 west of South
Fork New River to SR 1631, Watauga County, B-
529B, 8.1750601, FR-86-1(6), CH 93-E-4220-
0079
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the State
Clearinghouse and would like to comment.
As stated in the DEIS, Alternative C (preferred) will have an adverse effect upon
the National Register-eligible Moretz House. Alternative C would take 4.5 acres of
rural landscape and diminish the integrity of the property's location, setting,
feeling, and association. In compliance with Sections 106 of the National Historic
' Preservation Act and 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, Alternatives A
and B were also evaluated in the DEIS.
We feel that both Alternatives A and B are prudent and feasible alternatives that
will not adversely affect or use the historic property. By law, the protection of
historic resources is of special importance. Thus, these resources must be given a
value above community dislocation and mere costs of a project. We understand
' that several of the structures which Alternative A would take are abandoned.
Also, the additional cost of $433,000 for Alternative A is small considering the
total project cost is nearly $60 million. In addition, Alternative A can be built and
serve transportation needs safely. Thus, we recommend that Alternative A or B
be selected so that an intact and important historic property may be preserved.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

VIII-7
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Exhibit 4, Page 1
Nicholas L. Graf
September 9, 1992, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
c '
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
"C. J. Ward
B. Church
Exhibit 4, Page 2

t > .. stn't e
;5 ?...
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM f
TO: Chrys Baggett
Y
State Clearinghouse
From: Melba McGee
lr
Project Review Coordinator
RE: DEIS for US 421 West of South
Watauga County Fork New River to SR 1631,

DATE: September 8, 1992

The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
the revi ewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
proposed improvements to US 421 in Watauga county.
Attached are the comments of our agencies for the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) consideration in the final document. The
environmental impacts of the "preferred" alternative combining III-I
portions of alternatives "A" and "C" should be addressed in the III-2
same manner as the other build alternatives. Please note the
questions raised by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
The biological concerns of DEM could be covered by providing them
a copy of the technical document on natural systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We look forward to
continuing to work with DOT on this project.

Exhibit 5, Page I
P.O. Box 27687. Ral6k!h. North Carolina 27611 7657 Tclcphonc 919-733.6376

State of North Carolina ?w
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Acting Director
August 31 , 1992
Memorandum
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorneyle)
,
1
( onica Swihart ?y14
V
From: Eric Galamb Lj`
Subject: DEIS for US 421 West of South Fork New
River to SR 1631
Watauga County
State Project DOT No. 8.1750601, TIP #R-5298
EHNR # 93-0079, DEM WO # 6456
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of ,
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the DEIS prepared for
this project which will impact between 2.2 and 5.0 acres of wetlands depending upon
the alternative chosen.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 will require written concurrence.
2. DOT should require that the contractor not impact additional wetland areas due
?I to the disposal of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow material or
VIII-5 other construction related activities. Prior to the approval of any borrow source,
the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
3. The document states on page IV-64, "In the event of a hazardous materials
#2 spill, special design considerations, such as providing for the drainage of
VIII-5 structures into off-side detention basins and not directly into surface waters,
would minimize the severity of impact to receiving waters." DOT may wish to
consider these detention basins for major stream crossings in this projects.

REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 9 19/4 86-154 1 7 04 /663 -1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Preyentlon Pays Exhibit 5, Page 2
P.O. Box 29535, Ralcigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

4. Bog turtles are difficult to locate. Please discuss the methodology used to
locate
and the intensity of the search for bog turtles and Gra
's lil
A
,
y
y. Ira
certification for absence by a qualified herpetologist would avoid the above VIII-!
discussion for the bog turtles. In addition, a certification for absence by a
lifi
d b
i
l
id
h
'
qua
e
st wou
otan
d avo
t
e above discussion for Gray
s Lily.
5. To minimize the effect on a bog by construction, DOT proposes to install sheet 4
pilings. A bog may be impacted if the groundwater is stabilized by the sheet
1
pilings. DOT may wish to consult with a qualified herpetologist to determine if VIII-5
the methods proposed to minimize harm to a bog will not alter the bog that VIII-6
' DOT is trying to save.
6. The COE's September 14, 1990, letter to Hensley-Schmidt, Inc. states that #5
there are two wetland areas separated by a dirt road. DOT has acknowledged VIII-6
that the 3.34 acre wetland (bog) may be impacted. However, will the 0.718
acre bog be avoided or impacted?
7. DOT should not include narratives nor maps of precise locations of natural
areas of concern (rare, threatened or endangered species locals) in public
documents. There are pet store owners who pay individuals to collect bog
turtles and other special concern species .
8. Endorsement of the EIS by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
' Water Quality Planning Branch.
cc: Eric Galamb

F1
I

Exhibit 5, Page 3

VIII-6
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 25, 1992
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: FEIS -- US 421 Improvements, Watauga County
REFERENCE: 93-0079
As noted in the document, there is significant natural area
potentially threatened by the proposed project. The Deep Gap
Bog, identified as a Priority Natural Area by the Natural
Heritage Program, lies just to the north of the Blue Ridge
Parkway along the existing route of US 421. Mountain bogs are
one of the most imperiled ecosystems in the Southeast and provide
habitat for many rare, threatened, or endangered species. The
Deep Gap Bog, for instance, is known to possess a population of
Gray's lily (Lilium ra i), a candidate for federal listing and
state-listed as Threatened. It also potentially harbors bog
turtles (Clemmys muhlenbergii), another candidate for federal
listing and state-listed as Threatened.
As long as the preferred
Blue Ridge Parkway is the
concerns about impacts to
strongly object if one of
either cross or encroach
alternative (Number 4) for crossing the
one implemented, we have no significant
Deep Gap Bog. We would, however,
the alternatives is selected that would
upon this natural area.
We commend the preparers for assessing the potential impacts of
this project not only to federally-listed species, but also to
candidates for federal listing and to state-listed species. The
descriptions of the biotic communities, on the other hand, are
too general and sketchy, at least as presented in the DEIS (pp.
III-23 - III-27). The list of animals expected to occur within
the project area (Table III-10) contains many species that do not
occur in this region of the mountains. Indeed, if the green
salamander, Junaluska salamander, or zig-zag salamander were
actually thought to be potentially present, why weren't they
considered along with the other state-listed or federal candidate
species? The document should be amended to correct these
mistakes.

F?l

E
I

Exhibit 5, Page 4

Forestry
' ,.•:: nor, ? ..
AN:NI ERSARY
l N. C. Where it all began
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center tanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey' Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
' Clayton, North Carolina 27520 ,
August 13, 1992
1 TO: `v
Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment j
' FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester ?`ys
SUBJECT: Draft EIS for US 421 on New Location from US 421 West of South Fork
New River to SR 1631 in Watauga County (TIP #R-529B)
PROJECT # 93-0079
i DUE DATE: 8-24-92
' We have reviewed the above subject draft document and have the following
comments:
1. This proposed project will have a heavy impact on forest and related
resources no matter which alternative is selected. From a forestry stand
point, alternative "C" would involve the least number of woodland acres.
2. Perhaps as suggested on page-S-11, a combination of Alternative "A" and
"C" could be acceptable. With the alignment away from woodland whenever
possible, the impact to woodland could be reduced. We would hope the
woodland impact could be reduced.
3. The document does address other forestry concerns.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 7687 Telephone [phone]'62 Exhibit 5, Page 5
An Equal Opporruniry Affirmatr.'c Action Employer
State of North Carolina . -\
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Reso_ urces
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
PROJECT RSVISiii C024IENTS Charles H. Gardner
Willlam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: County:
Project Name: -'
Geodetic Survev
#1 __?/This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
VIII-6 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a,
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) 1? 57?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office a !(9197,-3 3836.'
Z_ cc A
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control l
No comment GZ bG 06 t
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
#'2 ? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
VIII-6 Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply
#3 l? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
VIII-6- should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
V1II"7 North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at
Y [phone].
8 -? o - 9.Z
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone] Exhibit 5, Page 6
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

a
0
N
fir, ?r ? Y? ? ° •Y
i
0
J
4A
380 ?w-
d O a
F a SN ,gyp ^
81
G ?= r J ^ " \
E a
N
01
?? - re o
?, = a e si 8 ? .?? --
o®
'/' N® r _. ? .. b ' .^. 1 V?o H p /?}Y???•_ - ??O Q y `w a ? Q e'.?'
TA
11 ?N 3 I - I ? Zat ?1 ? !? '
f Iu =o= o= a a - ::
NHU Is
?0 y ?. m vi
Al M
o "^i? =?? }2} ° >y °
- J - c
Exhibit S, Page 7 = -= y's_ < = J 3 2y
00
/ _ ?.
41=19

' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
' August 10, 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
- - - - - - - - - -
TO: M Steven Mauney, Water Quality Supervisor
FROM: Jim Johnston, WSRO
SUBJECT: Watauga County
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Highway 421 Project
There are 18 wetland areas and 27 hydrologic crossings
that are in the proposed highway paths.
One of these is a Mountain Bog with the rarest habitat
and home for some of the least common plants and animals.
This Bog covers approximately 3.3 acres and is located south
' of US 421 at Deep Gap just at the Blue Ridge Parkway
entrance off highway 421. Bog turtles and Gray's lily which
has been found in the bog are on the threatened list in
North Carolina. Many naturalist consider the Bog turtle to
be the United States' rarest turtle species.
cc: WSRO
Central Files
u

Exhibit 5, Page 8
1
State of North Carolina
Reviewing Office:
Depariment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Proidcl Number:

Due Date:
?- 00/ °9 1 --?101{I`1
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHN ' Tmit(s) and/or app als indicated may need to be obtained In
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. bc.:.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Region sled on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
{statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Permit to construct L operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or awardiof 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, L sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-app
(90 days)
systems not discharging into slate surface waters. technical conference usual

NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 1130 days before begin activity. on-site inspection. 60.120 days
Additionally, obtain permit to
rence usual
f
i
1 permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities .
e
on con
Pre-applicat
nstruct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
J discharging into state surface waters. co
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 nays

Pre-applic.-ationn technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
Water Use Permit p
7 day:
lication must be received and permit issued (15 tlays)
s
Well Construction Pstmit stallation of a well.
rian properly 55 days
l
i
pa
r
Application copy must be served on each wlf acen
i owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application c ,ference usual. Filling 190 days)
t
Dredge and Fill Perm may require Easement to Fill from N.C. DeDarlment of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
NIA ( 1 60 clays
(90 days)
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.

Any open burning associated with subject proposal '. :.
st be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
m
u
Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
ast>estos material must be in compliance with 15A NIA L
(? NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group J
f? (90 days)
919.733.0820
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatio
er Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30
ro
ith
l
d
20
y
? p
p
w
e
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan fi
A fee of S30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or art must accompany the tan s
0 da
3
days before be innin activity
trol Act of 1973 must be addressed with respell to the referrenced Local Ordinance: '
i
C (30 days)
? on
on
The Sedimentation Pollut
mount
d
R
a
Bon
On•slte Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHN days
30
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area t6o days)
? Mining Permit
mined greater than one acre must be perrnited.The appropnaie bond
must be received before the permit can be- issued.

On•sile inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
I day
North Catohna Burning permit
exceeds A days

r
" 1 day
e
If mo
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required
d clearing activities are involved. Inspections
f (NIA)
D groun
counties In coastal N.C. with organic sNIs than five acres o
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
90.120 days
(NIA)
El Oil Refining Facilities NIA

If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
repare plans.
r to,
i
i
d 50 days
nee
eng
p
e
Applicant must hire N.C. qualif
rov•
? Page 9 Inspect construction, cerlify construction Is according to EHNR app
Dam Safety Permit, Exhibit S
also require permit under mosquito control program. And
M dt? s
(60 Y )
,
ay
ed plans.
a AoI permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces-
-
sary to verify Haierd Classilicalion. A minimum fee of &200.00 must Ac
romnanv the aDplicalion. An additional processing fee based on a ^^

Normal Process
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit

Fite surety bond of 95,000
with EMNR running to State of N
C )
Permit to drill aocploratory oil or pas well .
.
conditional that any well opened b drill operator by stall
upon 10 days
,
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (N/A)
F G*ophys" Exploration Permll Application filed with EHNR at Iea3t 10 days prior to fasue of permit
A
li 10 days
pp
cation by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
6lste lakes Construction Permit Application lee based on structure size is charged Must Include
descriptions t drawings of structure i proof of ownership 15.20 days

of ri
ari (NIA)
p
an property.

401 Water Quality Gniliutron
NIA 60 Days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
!250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 (says)
AM 22 da
s

C
A Permit for MINOR develo anent
P
150.00 tee must accompany application
y
FC
25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area if any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611

J Abandonment of any wells. If required. must be In accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 20.011X).
Notification of the proper regional office Is requested If "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTSi are discovered during any excavation operation.
Co?plrance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) Is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being cenarn to cite comment authority):
1-/4'?5' w/L G "T/4??
A AV 7,,?' 7,j /moo G q?- Q?.??
GAS A r9 t
L

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be'addressed to the Re
ional Offi
k
?
g ce mar
ed below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 W ? Fayetteville Regional Office
oodfin Place
Asheville
NC 28801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
'
,
(704) 2516208 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office l
? R
i

919 North Main Street, P.O. Box M a
e
gh Regional Office

Mooresville, NC 28115
(704) 6631699 3800 Barre(I Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office Exhibit 5, Page 10
14 ? Wilmington Regional Office
'
24 Carolina Avenue
Washington
NC 27889 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
,
(919) 9464;481 Wilmington, NC 28405

[phone]

f

I

1
1 ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 27, 1992
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 93-0079, review and
comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US
421 from just west of the South Fork New River to SR
1361 near Deep Gap, Watauga County (Federal Aid Project
FR-86-1(6), State Project 8.1750601, TIP R-529B)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for improving US 421 from just west of the South Fork New
River to SR 1361 in Watauga County. These comments are provided
' in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.)
and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1
through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve a 10-mile stretch of US 421, mainly on new
location. Three alternatives for the US 421 corridor, denoted A,
B, and C, are described in the DEIS. Seven Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing alternatives (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 6A) located in the
area where Alternatives A, B, and C share a common corridor are
also described.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
the following comments and recommendations regarding the DEIS:
' 1) The NCDOT makes the following statement on page S-11: "Due
to the overall advantages, Build Alternative A, from the #1
western terminus of the project limits to approximately one VIII-8
mile west of US 221, and Build Alternative C, from one mile
west of US 221 to the eastern terminus of the project
Exhibit 6, Page 1

limits, is recommended as the preferred alignment at this
time." The NCWRC is confused by this statement because the
DEIS did not assess environmental impacts resulting from a
combination of Alternatives A and C; therefore, we are
unsure as to how the NCDOT selected this combination as the
preferred alternative. If indeed the NCDOT wants resource
agencies such as the NCWRC to review the feasibility of a
combined alternative, the Final EIS (FEIS) should contain
information on this alternative (as Alternative D?) in the
same manner as presented for Alternatives A, B, and C by
giving acreages of various fish and wildlife habitat types
potentially affected by this alternative.
2) At this time, no one alternative out of
the DEIS for the US 421 corridor (namely
and C) stands out as either preferred or
NCWRC.

those presented in '
Alternatives A, B,
unacceptable to the
3) Alternatives 1, 5, 6, and 6A for the Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing are unacceptable to the NCWRC because they would
involve placement of fill material in part of the 3.3-acre
mountain bog (Site No. 10) in this area. The NCDOT at this
time prefers Alternative 4 for the crossing, and the NCWRC
has no objection to this alternative nor to Alternatives 2
or 3.
4) The NCWRC agrees with the comment on page IV-76 that
enhancement of disturbed wetland areas is more desirable as
mitigation for unavoidable losses of wetlands than
#2 attempting to create new wetlands, as.the latter is often
VIII-S unsuccessful. The NCDOT has listed potential wetland areas
that could be enhanced for mitigation in Table IV-17, and we
concur that possibilities do exist. The FEIS should state
that wetland mitigation will be coordinated with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, the NCWRC, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Except for the issue raised under #1 of our comments, we
found the DEIS to be extremely well-written and thorough
concerning potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources in
the project area. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance
before the FEIS is available for review, please advise.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
Mr. Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
Exhibit 6, Page 2

7
1J

1 N?EN7 E , r
W
9
N O
a
United States Department of the Interior
y4'9CH 7.`?6j9 J
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
June 22, 1993
' Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
TAKEN ? 9+i
PRIDE IN ?
AMERICA naminnow
/CE
r__ ??N 2 d 1993
Subject: Proposed widening and improvements to U.S. 421, from west of
the South Fork New River to S.R. 1366 near Deep Gap, Watauga
County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-529B
H

L

J

t
An interagency meeting was held on June 10, 1993, at the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) building in Raleigh, NC, to discuss
the selection of a preferred alternative for a section of the subject
project. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) biologist from our
office was in attendance. The following comments are a follow up to this
meeting and are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
The meeting specifically focused on alternative alignments through the
community of Deep Gap at the junction of U.S. 221. Additional
alternatives for this section were examined because the preferred
alignment--Alternative C--falls within the property boundaries of the
W. S. Moretz House, which is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. Because this project is anticipated to be constructed
with Federal-Aid funds and will potentially involve a taking of historic
property lands for highway use, this project must comply with the
requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
The following three alternatives were examined and discussed at the
meeting: Alternatives Al and A2 which would relocate U.S. 421 south of
the existing road, and Alternative B which would utilize the existing
portion of U.S. 421 through the community of Deep Gap. These
alternatives would avoid=the 4(f) property, while Alternative C would
impact approximately 4.5 acres of the site. Alternatives Al and A2 would
require relocating a portion of Gap Creek (1900 and 850 feet,
respectively), directly downstream of the sensitive mountain bog located
at the Blue Ridge Parkway crossing. Alternatives B and C would require
Exhibit 7, Page 1

only perpendicular crossings over Gap Creek. Impacts to the area's
important aquatic and wetland resources and to the historical site were
discussed for each alternative. At the conclusion of the meeting,
resource agencies were requested to submit written comments on the
various alternatives and to provide justification for their preferred
alignment. ,
On June 9, 1993, a Service biologist conducted an on site inspection of
the project area. At that time, it was noted that the portion of Gap
Creek south of, and parallel to, existing U.S. 421 is of medium to high
quality. The creek has a sand, cobble, and gravel substrate with an
alder-willow riparian zone. The portion of Gap Creek north of existing
U.S. 421 was of relatively low quality. This section runs directly
through the W. S. Moretz site, which is a cow pasture, and is channelized
and degraded by sedimentation (no woody riparian zone exists along this
section).
After conducting the site visit and further discussing the proposed
alternatives at the interagency meeting, the Service prefers either
Alternatives B or C. In addition, the Service strongly opposes
Alternatives Al and A2 for the following primary reasons: (1) these
alternatives would directly impact a relatively high quality section of
Gap Creek, and (2) these alternatives involve the relocation of portions
of Gap Creek downstream of the bog, which may result in adverse
hydrological changes to this rare mountain wetland habitat.
In our September 12, 1991, letter on the draft environmental impact
statement for this project, the Service highlighted the importance of
mountain bog wetlands and pointed out that they represent one of the
rarest habitat types in North Carolina. (Experts believe that only 500
acres of bog wetlands remain in the state, a ten-fold decrease over the
last 200 years.) We further stressed that ". . . any loss could only be
considered significant" and "we are strongly opposed to any alternative
that could result in adverse modification of this type of habitat." At
that time, we stated our opposition to three of the four proposed Blue
Ridge Parkway crossing alternatives as these alternatives involve direct
encroachment on the bog. The issue of historic preservation and natural
resource protection came up as a result of a conflict between preserving
the stone arch bridge over U.S. 421 and the mountain bog. A meeting was
held specifically to discuss this issue and it was decided that an
alignment that avoids the bog would be selected as the preferred
alternative. The Service believes that it is important to point out that
NCOOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) have already made a
significant effort towards protecting the bog from direct adverse impacts
associated with the Blue Ridge Parkway crossing even at additional
project expense. We should not risk this investment by now selecting an
alternative that may indirectly result in negative impacts to the bog.
It is the Service's opinion that the channelization and reconstruction of
Gap Creek associated with Alternatives Al and A2 have the potential to
cause adverse hydrological changes to the bog by increasing water flow
away from the bog and potentially lowering the water table. The Service
is presently involved in several cooperative bog restoration efforts in
the western part of the state and has worked with a hydrologist in order
Exhibit 7, Page 2

F,
L

rI

to identify potential adverse hydrological alterations and to seek
appropriate solutions to these problems. One example is a bog in
Henderson County that is believed to have been impacted by the
channelization of an adjacent stream. Channelization and subsequent
' lowering of the water table appears to have dried out one side of the
bog, which is now occupied by non-wetland vegetation. We must stress
that bog ecology is poorly understood, but believed to be complex.
Likewise, the hydrology of these mountain bogs is complex, and experts
believe them to be sensitive to alterations. Our experience confirms
that changes in hydrology are not only difficult to predict and evaluate,
but are also extremely difficult to ameliorate. Thus, the Service
' recommends erring on the side of caution by avoiding Alternatives Al or
A2 and insuring protection of the hydrological integrity of the bog at
Deep Gap.
Finally, we would like to reiterate another point made in our
September 12, 1991, letter, "because of the scarcity of the Southern
Appalachian bog habitat and the rarity of many of the species associated
with this type of habitat, we are considering petitioning the Service's
Atlanta Regional Office to have all remaining bog habitat in North
Carolina designated under the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal
Register 45(15):7644-7663, June 23, 1981) as "Resource Category 1"
habitat habitat of high value to fish and wildlife species that is
unique and irreplaceable on a national or ecoregion basis." Under Part
IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Interior
and the Department of the Army, procedures are outlined for the elevation
of individual U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit decisions.
Specifically, it notes that "the elevation of specific individual permit
cases will be limited to those cases that involve aquatic resources of
national importance." We consider the Southern Appalachian mountain bog
wetlands in North Carolina to be resources of national importance, and we
' will reserve our right to elevate a permit decision in this particular
case if necessary.
The Service appreciates the consideration given to date to natural
resources protection in the project analysis. The decision to avoid the
bog at the Blue Ridge Parkway crossing highlighted the FHA's commitment
' to their April 20, 1990, Environmental Policy Statement to give equal
consideration to the environment and to protect significant natural
resources during the alternative analysis/selection process. The Service
believes that the selection of either Alternatives B or C would be most
' consistent with this latter decision and would protect the bog from
potential indirect adverse impacts. The Service understands the
importance of protecting our historical resources, but believes that the
"sliding rule" should apply in this particular case which conflicts with
the protection of a significant wetland habitat. Indeed, Alternatives B
and C would not result in the loss of historic buildings but only in the
loss of a portion of the property, which in this case is a cow pasture
with a billboard on it.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the
' alternatives selection process and hope that you will give our comments
serious consideration. Please direct any questions regarding our
comments to Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227.
Exhibit 7, Page 3

In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-91-088. 1
Sincerely,
. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
cc: '
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801 ,
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart,. Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188 '

7

Exhibit 7, Page 4
STArt
Cb ` ( DED 0 8 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou Y s
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Divisi4'stla'?? istp?fy
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary WWI r Price, fir., iip?e
I!j?ON
December 2, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 421 South Fork River to Deep Gap, Watauga
County, Federal Aid FR-89-1(6), State 8.1750601,
' TIP R-529B, ER 95-7837
Dear Mr. Graf:
' Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1994, concerning the above referenced
project and questions raised by your Atlanta regional office about archaeological
site 31 WT301. Since receipt of your letter we have discussed this matter with
' Blue Ridge Parkway Superintendent Gary Everhardt and his staff, Thomas
Hargrove who originally reported the site, and Dr. Novick of North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Based on information provided by all parties we believe the site is outside the area
of potential effect; that the Memorandum of Agreement among Federal Highway
Administration, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and the
' Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the concurrence of NCDOT and the
National Park Service, adequately addresses the site should remnants be identified
within the construction area; and that the site is important only for the information
it is likely to yield rather than for preservation in place. Indeed, this last point is
specifically addressed in the MOA and was accepted by all the signatories to the
agreement. Equally important is the possibility that the site is actually within the
' area of the mountain bog which is being avoided and will be carefully monitored
for natural resources during and after construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
' Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?Cy
' Exhibit 8, Page 1

Nicholas L. Graf
December 2, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,_
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
RSincerely,
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?. F. Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Gary Everhardt
Blue Ridge Parkway
Robert M. Baker
National Park Service Southeast Regional Office
Exhibit 8, Page 2
1

Appendix E
Agency Comments on Preferred Alternative at Deep Gap

11
11

AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT DEEP GAP
Exhibit 9 State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Exhibit 10 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Exhibit 11 Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Exhibit 12 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Exhibit 13 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 28, 1993
Memorandum
I To: Michelle Wagoner
NC DOT - P&E

r Ll
Through: John Dornly a l e
From: Eric Galamb < (?.
DEM
Subject: Relocation of US 421: Alternative to Avoid the Moretz Property
Watauga County, TIP # R-529B
This memo is in response to the request for written comments made during the June 10, 1993
meeting on the subject project. DEM still believes that DOT should avoid the section of Gap Creek and
an unnamed tributary on the west side of US 421 in Deep Gap. Both streams are classified as C-Trout
and are high quality resources except for the degraded section on the Moretz property. Gap Creek on
the Moretz property has been channelized and impacted by grazing. As stated in the meeting, DEM
and the WRC made a site inspection on June 2, 1993 to determine if the proposed alternative (highway
in the stream valley) to avoid the Moretz property would be acceptable. Based on this site visit, DEM
maintains that the 1900 feet of stream relocation to Gap Creek and the unnamed tributary west of US
421 should be avoided. The crossing on the Moretz property would be perpendicular to the stream
with no stream relocation. It is always preferable to impact a degraded stream over a high quality
stream, and to make perpendicular crossings.
' DOT has avoided a bog near the Blue Ridge Parkway. An unnamed tributary to Gap Creek
draining the bog would be impacted by the Moretz avoidance alternative. The main concern
surrounding the bog is not to disturb the springs. Alterations or relocations of this tributary may change
the hydrology of the bog. If the bog becomes wetter with the stream relocation, then the bog may
' become a freshwater marsh or other wetland type. If the bog becomes drier, then the area may dry up
and no longer be a wetland. These statements were confirmed by Mr. Dennis Herman, bog turtle
specialist with Zoo Atlanta.
From water quality and aquatic life view points, the alternative of going through a portion of the
Moretz property is preferred rather than the alternative which impacts the high quality unnamed tributary
and Gap Creek on the west side of US 421, and the uncertain impacts to the bog. DEM believes that
the alternative through the Moretz property is a practicable alternative which would not require
relocation of 1900 feet of Ga Creek and the unnamed tributary. 11711.:...
Mfr r Of'DL*XT- ° f' hteir0Uafli?i Certffie n 416N ;twouId be Ilkely Madd R an alternative it
' tl 66M wl ldh diets WtWhirnize stream and wetland Impacts.
cc: David Foster
' David Yow, WRC
DEM WQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Exhibit 9, Page 1
' P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
V-11
V-11

11

u

?JIIL 1 9 1993 ;
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michelle Wagoner, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Dept. of Transportation ' /
FROM: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator Z; f
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Supplementary comments on 114(f)" property avoidance
alternatives, US 421 at Deep Gap, Watauga County, North
Carolina, TIP No. R-529B.
This memorandum responds to a request from the N. C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for reviewing agency comment regarding
avoidance alternatives for the Moretz Property, a "Section 4(f)"
tract potentially affected by the proposed project. Our comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has actively
participated in the planning process for the subject project, and
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Dennis
Stewart, August 27, 1992) recommended avoidance of sensitive
wetlands to the south of the existing 421 corridor. A
preliminary "preferred" alignment, which avoids these wetlands
and minimizes impacts on associated trout streams, was presented
for agency review on June 17, 1993. This alignment would involve
the southern margin of the remaining Moretz Property, since
portions adjacent to existing US 421 have previously been
subdivided for commercial development.
Two alternative corridors were also presented which would
completely avoid direct taking of the Moretz Property. However,
Exhibit 10, Page 1
Memo Page 2 July 14, 1993
both would involve extensive longitudinal encroachment on several
streams to the south of existing US 421, including a small stream
draining the wetland area mentioned above. It is the opinion of
the NCWRC that neither avoidance corridor represents a feasible
and prudent alternative to highway construction on the north side
of US 421, where the Moretz Property lies. The stream channel
modifications required for construction on the south side of the
existing highway would result in permanent loss of reproductive
habitat for native trout, and would require extensive and costly
monitoring and possible mitigation of nearby wetland habitat.
Successful mitigation may not be possible due to the unique and
complex nature of the wetlands involved.
Resources Affected
Gap Creek appears typical of many coldwater mountain streams
in watersheds impacted by human development. However, on-site
investigation by NCWRC staff (June 2, 1993) revealed several
unique characteristics of this aquatic system. The segment of
the creek which would be crossed by the "preferred" alternative
has been cleared of vegetation and channelized, partly due to
historical land management practices on the Moretz Property.
Crossing of the creek by the proposed project would be nearly
perpendicular and no stream channel modification would be
required.
In contrast, the segment of Gap Creek on the south side of
US 421, immediately upstream, retains many qualities conducive tc
trout survival and reproduction. Riparian areas are heavily
vegetated, with overhanging streambanks associated with root
systems of shrubs. Distinct pools and riffles are present, with
a resulting diversity of substrate types, and the stream channel
exhibits a moderate amount of meander. Deep sediment deposits
within the streamside vegetation attest to the filtering function
of these areas. A small tributary of Gap Creek flows into the
system from the east, draining the wetland area near the Blue
Ridge Parkway at Deep Gap. This stream also exists in a natural
state over most of its length, with good water clarity and clean
gravel substrate. Cursory examination of the macroinvertebrate
population in both streams found that many intolerant insect
species were present, indicating relatively unpolluted waters.
Crossing of this area under the "avoidance" alternative would
require culverting and/or channelization of more than 800 feet of
stream channel, including a substantial portion of the tributary
draining the wetland area. Riparian shrub vegetation would be
lost along this entire length, and changes in thermal regimes
would be anticipated.
The wetland area is an Appalachian mountain bog 3.3 acres in
size. This area represents a regionally rare and unique
resource, as 80 to 90 percent of the historical statewide extent
of this habitat has been lost. This particular bog is also
exceptional due to its size. Large mountain bogs of this type
Exhibit 10, Page 2

u

1

D

fl

' Memo Page 3 July 14, 1993
' have good potential to support rare plant and animal species,
including those listed for protection by federal and state
resource agencies. Project development to this point has sought
' to avoid or minimize impacts to the bog. The small tributary to
Gap Creek is the outlet of water flow from the bog and is an
integral factor in bog hydrology. Channel alteration in this
' area has the potential to adversely affect the wetland by
changing the dynamics of water flow, above and below ground.
Information on bog ecology is limited, and the aspects mentioned
' here result from discussions among biological personnel of the
NCWRC, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program, and the N. C. Nature Conservancy. Hal Bryan,
Senior Ecologist of Eco-Tech, Inc., a regional wetland and
' environmental consultant, also provided information on bog
hydrology and mitigation potential.
' On July 8, 1993, NCWRC personnel conducted a survey of fish
poulations in Gap Creek and the bog tributary. The results are
detailed in the attached memo (Stephanie Goudreau, July 8, 1993).
Gap Creek contains a large population of brook trout as well as
wild (not stocked) brown trout, including individuals of
exceptional size among both species. The tributary contains
young brook trout along its entire length, including this year's
' young. Numerous nongame fish species were also collected form
both sites.
Based on sampling results, the portion of Gap Creek
threatened by the "avoidance" alternative represents a
significant fishery resource, in terms of population density,
size of game fish present, and species diversity. The quality of
1 this system is partially attributable to the thermal and chemical
water quality benefits of the groundwater-fed bog tributary. The
tributary itself acts as a vital nursery area for the local trout
population, a function which is dependent on the existing water
quality, temperature, velocity, and substrate size and diversity.
Alteration of this system would likely reduce or eliminate trout
' reproduction in the area and possibly further restrict the range
of brook trout in the system.
In summary, the "avoidance" alternatives would result in
alteration or loss of aquatic and wetland resources of regional
significance. Water quality and fishery potential of Gap Creek
would be impaired, and the trout nursery function of the unnamed
tributary would likely be lost. Effects on the mountain bog are
impossible to predict, although some hydrologic alteration must
be expected. Degradation of the mountain bog could potentially
' result in loss of habitat for multiple plant and animal species
under federal and state protection.

Exhibit 10, Page 3
IV it
Memo
Construction Alternatives
Page 4
July 14, 1993
1. Mitigation- Highway construction on the south side of
US 421 (under the "avoidance" alternative) would
require restoration of the stream channels to natural
gradient, width, depth, sinuosity, and habitat
structure. While the segment of Gap Creek involved
could conceivably be restored to its original function,
it is likely that this area will be permanently
culverted. Restoration of the present value of fishery
habitat would then be impossible. Relocation of the
unnamed tributary would require extensive monitoring to
ensure that the mountain bog wetland would not be
affected. This monitoring would include long-term
measurement and modeling, before and after construction
impact, of surface, sub-surface, and groundwater
dynamics within the bog watershed. Such monitoring,
while possible, would likely be prohibitive in terms of
time and monetary expenditure required for the NCDOT to
provide sufficient information to resource agencies.
If hydrologic impacts on the bog were detected,
remediation of these impacts would be problematic due
to the limited understanding of bog ecosystems.
Successful mitigation could not be assured, and it is
the opinion of the NCWRC that mitigation is not a
prudent and feasible alternative to construction on the
"preferred" alignment.
2. Minimization- Impacts on stream and bog habitat could
conceivably be minimized by complete bridging of the
area containing both stream channels. Length of such a
structure would likely exceed 2000 feet, and the NCWRC
anticipates that such expense would be considered
prohibitive by the NCDOT. Minimization of impact by
bridging is therefore not considered a prudent and
feasible alternative to the "preferred" alignment by
the NCWRC.
3. Avoidance- The original "preferred" corridor,
developed in the environmental document, would avoid
channel alteration of Gap Creek and the unnamed
tributary, virtually eliminating the likelihood of
hydrologic alteration of the mountain bog wetlands.
Crossing of Gap Creek would still be necessary, but the
angle of this crossing would be nearly perpendicular,
the optimal condition in such situations. Attending
natural resource impacts, including loss of riparian
wildlife habitat, would also be minimized under this
alternative. The NCWRC considers the original
"preferred" corridor, which involves marginal taking of
the Moretz Property, to be the only prudent and
feasible construction alternative.

H

r

7

Exhibit 10, Page 4

r
Gay ?? '
,? n? /11,,,1 r
'I -o0
E North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
' TO: David Yow, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

t

1
FROM: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator.
Habitat Conservation Program ,
DATE: July 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Results of fish sampling in Gap Creek, Watauga County
Mr. Joe Mickey (District 7 Fisheries Biologist) and I
sampled Gap Creek and a tributary for trout on July 8, 1993 using
a backpack electroshocker. Below are descriptions of sites
sampled and lists of fish collected:
1) Gap Creek - sampled from US 421 Bridge near Shell gas
station upstream to mouth of unnamed tributary
(approximately 60-70 feet). Other information: bankfull
width of 10-12 feet; substrate of sand, cobble, and gravel;
temperature of 18 degrees Celsius.
Brook trout (10 total)
Brown trout (2 total)
Rosyside dace
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Mottled sculpin
Fantail darter
range in size from 7-13 inches
6 and 13 inches
2) Unnamed tributary to Gan Creek - sampled from mouth to
approximately 40 feet upstream behind Shell gas station.
Other information: bankfull width of 4-5 feet; substrate of
sand, cobble, and gravel; and temperature of 15 degrees
Celsius.
Brook trout (10 total) - 6 young-of-year, 4 @ 5-7 inches
Mottled sculpin
Blacknose dace
Exhibit 10, Page 5

r
We also examined the same unnamed tributary to Gap Creek in
the bog near the Blue Ridge Parkway and observed young-of-year
trout as far upstream as Station T21 12+50 (as marked on r
flagging), which was just downstream of a braided, shallow
section of the tributary.
In summary, Gap Creek upstream of the US 421 bridge contains
a large population of wild brook trout, the only salmonid native
to North Carolina. Gap Creek also supports wild brown trout,
although to a lesser degree. The unnamed tributary serves as a
brook trout nursery stream as far upstream as the bog; therefore,
this small stream is very important in maintaining trout
resources in Gap Creek. Based on this fish sample, I recommend
that neither Gap Creek nor the unnamed tributary be relocated and
culverted in conjunction with widening US 421 through Deep Gap.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
Exhibit 10, Page 6

1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 15, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID 199301489

1

t

Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your August 10, 1993 submittal of information to our Asheville
Regulatory Field Office concerning the U.S. 421 South Fork New River
to Deep Gap project near Boone, Watauga County, North Carolina (State Project
No. 8.1750601, Tip No, R-529B). The submittal requested our comments on three
possible alternative alignments in the area of the W. S. Moretz property in
Deep Gap. The Moretz property is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places; therefore, the three alignments deal with that
segment of U.S. 421 in the area of the historic property.
We have reviewed the information provided, including comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and
the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Your
summarized table of potential impacts associated with each alternative, and
the agency's comments, indicates WSM-2 to be the best compromise alternative.
While this alternative would brush the southernmost border of the Moretz
property and result in a 1.8-acre loss of pasture, it would not segment the
property as would alternative WSM-1, nor would it be likely to have any more
visual effect than the existing U.S. 421. This alternative also appears to be
well away from any historical structures and at the same time would allow a
perpendicular crossing of Gap Creek in an area where the creek has been
channelized and cleared of riparian vegetation.
Although alternative WSM-1 involves little impact to waters or wetlands,
it is likely to have a significant negative impact on the Moretz property by
segmenting it and taking 5.7 acres of pasture. In addition, this alternative
would locate the highway nearer to historic structures on the property and
thus increase visual/aesthetic impacts.
Regarding WSM-3, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in agreement with the
permit review agencies with regards to the high quality waters and riparian
area that would be impacted if you selected this alternative. This plan would
Exhibit 11, Page 1

result in the needless relocation of approximately 2,000 feet of Gap Creek and
the loss of associated wetland and upland riparian habitats. As Gap Creek has
already been channelized and cleared of vegetation on the historic Moretz
property, we believe the 1.8-acre loss of historic pasture (associated with
WSM-2) to be a more reasonable alternative when compared to the water quality
and general habitat degradation that would occur should alternative WSM-3 be
implemented.
In addition to anticipated water quality and fish and wildlife impacts in
Gap Creek, a number of agencies have expressed concern as to whether or not
the channel work proposed by WSM-3 would have a hydrologic impact on the
upstream Deep Gap bog. It is our understanding that the bog is situated on
Blue Ridge Parkway/National Park Service property and that it is at least as
old as the Parkway. The bog has been the subject of discussion at numerous
highway planning and agency coordination meetings over the past several years.
These meetings resulted in the selection of a highway alignment that avoided
the bog, even at the expense of a parkway bridge with historic value. In view
of the anticipated relocation impacts to Gap Creek, and the risk of hydrologic '
impact to Deep Gap Bog, it seems apparent these projected and potential
impacts would outweigh the 1.8-acre lass of perimeter pasture associated with
WSM-2. In further consideration of the age and location of the bog, I expect
any potential project effects may require additional Section 4(f) review.
In summary, WSM-2 represents our preferred alignment. This alignment is
not only expected to minimize and avoid adverse impacts to aquatic resources
but is also likely to minimize to a great extent, overall impacts to the W.S
Moretz property. The opportunity to comment is appreciated. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact either Mr. Bob Johnson or
Mr. Steve Chapin in our Asheville Regulatory office at [phone].
Sincerely, '
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch I

Exhibit 11, Page 2

t

1

1

-3-
Copies Furnished:
Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. David Yow
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
Mr. David Foster
DOT/State Coordinator
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Roy Shelton
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Exhibit 11, Page 3
PP?M,ENT OF lh,?
Z
W
?
vi
O

M4RCH 7
r
4 i

1

United States Department of the Interior
P 1511 AND WILDLIFE SERVICI:
Asheville Field Ollice
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
September 12, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Departrient of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
TAKES ¦ii
PRIDE IN
AMERICA??

44/
?'Y
& ??..?
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 421, west of the
South Fork New River to SR 1361 near Deep Gap, Watauga County,
North Carolina - State Project No. 8.1750601, TIP No. R-529B,
Federal Aid Project No. FR-86-1(6)
This responds to your letter of August 12, 1991, received August 19,
1991, requesting our comments on the subject project. These comments are
provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The draft is a well-written document that, in general, properly
highlights the importance of the fish and wildlife values of the area.
However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly
concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action may have on
listed endangered or threatened species and on stream and wetland
ecosystems, particularly mountain bogs, within the project impact area
and the proposed measures to mitigate such iiiipacts. Preference should be
given to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and
construction techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and impacts
to these resources.
Mitigation/compensation, on a habitat value basis, will be required for
all unavoidable stream and wetland losses associated with the proposed
action. To the extent possible, mitigation should occur on-site or on
the stream or watershed impacted. To lessen impacts, the Service
recommends bridging streams wherever possible. If bridging is not
achievable and box culverts are used, we recommend that the Department of
Transportation explore the possibility of creating a stone substrate on
the inside floor of the culverts adequate to create small pools and
eddies to provide fish resting areas and facilitate fish movement. This
substrate also would provide attachment areas for aquatic insects and
other organisms and would help to offset the loss of streambottom habitat
Exhibit 12, Page 1

eliminated by the culverts. The substrate could be placed to create a
low-flow channel through the center of the culvert.
We are particularly concerned that all feasible alternatives would impact
the mountain bog wetland. As you correctly stated in the subject
document, this is one of the rarest habitat types in North Carolina, and
any loss could only be considered significant. If, according to the
Federal Highway Administration's April 20, 1990, Environmental Policy
Statement that "...environmental consideration to be given equal weight
with engineering, social, and economic factors in project decision
making...," then alignments that impact significant wetlands should be as
easily dismissed from consideration as those that impact historic sites,
cause relocations, or other negative impacts. This is not reflected in
your list of alternative segments eliminated from consideration, as none
were dismissed for environmental constraints. Also, if Parkway Crossing
alternatives can be developed (ranging from 3.6 to 31.6 million dollars),
then similar consideration should be given to the mountain bog area, as
it is as important a resource. Further, it appears that wetland and
stream alterations are not viewed as environmental impacts but as
economic impacts because of the costs of crossing them (bridges,
culverts, etc.). Further, because of the scarcity of Southern
Appalachian bog habitat and the rarity of many of the species associated
with this type of habitat, we are currently preparing to petition the
Service's Atlanta Regional Office to have all remaining mountain bog
habitat in North Carolina designated under the Service's Mitigation
policy (Federal Register 45(15):7644-7663, January 23, 1981) as "Resource
Category 1" habitat--habitat of high value to fish and wildlife species
that is unique and irreplaceable on a national or ecoregion basis.
Accordingly, we are strongly opposed to any alternative that could result
in adverse modification of this type of habitat.
Since you received our original scoping comments, there have been several
changes in the list of threatened and endangered species and the
II-7 - candidate species list. Spreading avens (Geum radiatum), a candidate
II-8 species on our 1988 letter, is now listed as endangered; the Roan
Mountain bluet (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana), which has been listed as
L endangered, is also known from Watauga County. In addition to the listed
species detailed above, eight additional candidate species of plants are
now known from Watauga County and are currently under status review by
the Service--butternut (Ju lans cinerea), rock skullcap (Scutellaria
saxatilis), wolf's milk spurge (Euphorbia purpurea), mountain bittercress
(Cardamine glematitis), tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), a liverwort
(Bazzania nudicaulis), bog bluegrass (Poa paludigena), and Heller's
trefoil (Lotus helleri)--and may occur in the impact area of the project.
Though the latter seven species, rock skullcap, wolf's milk spurge,
mountain bittercress, tall larkspur, Heller's trefoil, bog bluegrass, and
the unnamed liverwort have not been found in Watauga County for over
20 years, we cannot dismiss the possibility that they do not exist in the
project area until a survey has been completed. We are including these
species in our response to give you advance notification so that should
these species be listed you will be aware that you will need to
reinitiate Section 7 consultation and so that you will realize that any
future projects in the immediate area may be affected. Therefore, though
candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Exhibit 12, Page 2

1

Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Sections 7
and 9, until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened, we recommend the project area be surveyed for the above
candidate species before any construction to prevent inadvertent harm to
these species and to limit future potential conflicts.
In summary, we suggest that: (1) additional surveys be conducted to
ensure that no listed species will be adversely affected by the proposed
project and (2) alternatives be developed to prevent impacts to the
mountain bog area. If additional alternatives cannot be devised, the
alternative with the least impacts to the bog should be selected.
Additionally, a detailed monitoring plan must be developed prior to
project approval so that all impacts to the bog (both physical and I-3
biological components) are detailed throughout construction and for at
' least 1 year after project completion.
We look forward to working with you to develop a plan to prevent or
lessen further impacts to wetland areas or, as a last resort, to identify
appropriate mitigation/compensation areas. We look forward to meeting
with you and your staff to discuss our concerns. We have assigned log
number 4-2-91-088 to this project. Please refer to this number in all
future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor

cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Exhibit 12, Page 3
? G EE 1 ?F
0 9 "
z
1 DIVISION OF
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc HIGHWAYS 0?
?FN ,
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division o or
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, r., Director
November 5, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
' Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Relocation of US 421 west of South Fork New
River to SR 1361, R-5296, 8.1750601, FR-86-(6),
Watauga County, ER 94-7582
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 27, 1993, concerning the above project.
Both Alternatives WSM-2 and WSM-3 appear to be in the vicinity of a previously
' recorded archaeological site, 31 WT300. The site was identified during the
reconnaissance survey for this project and was recommended for additional
testing. We previously concurred with this recommendation. If either of these
alternatives is selected, the recommended testing should be undertaken.
We have reviewed the information provided to us concerning the three proposed
alternatives in the vicinity of the W. S. Moretz House, a property eligible for listing
' in the National Register of Historic Places. We understand that Alternative WSM-1
and WSM-2 would take 5.7 and 1.8 acres, respectively, from the historic property,
while Alternative WSM-3 would avoid the property entirely
Having applied the criteria of effect, [36 CFR 800.9(a),(b)], we believe Alternatives;
WSM-1 and WSM-2 would have an adverse effect upon the M.oretz House.- If
either of these 'alternatives are chosen, we recgmmend that the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) initiate consultation with us to develop ways to reduce the
effects on'the. historic property. Also., FHwA should notify the Advisory: Co un cil.
on Historic Preservation of the adverse effect determination. The project would
also be .tubject•to Section 4('f) of the U.. S. Department of Transportation Act since
land from',a historic property' would be used.
On the othl r -hand, Alternative WSM-3 "bypasses the historic property..If FHwAr
chooses' WS'M-3 as the "preferred alternative, we believe the adverse effect upon
the property,-'as welFas the use under Section 4(f), can be avoided. -
' The above Comments are'Mad , pursy'ght to Section 106 of the,. National. Historic
Preservation Acv6f 1906- andthe' Advisoi y. Cquncil on Historic-Pr;eseTvation's
Regulations far ComplfaNOe wlith teetion 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Exhibit 13, Page 1
109 East Jones Streit - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
VIII-7
Nicholas L. Graf
November 5, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincere
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L-A'F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Exhibit 13, Page 2
Ll-

11

Appendix F
Memorandum of Agreement

u

' MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
' PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF US 421 FROM JUST WEST OF THE
SOUTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER TO SR 1361
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. FR-86-1(6), TIP NO. R-5296
' WHEREAS the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
Ri
ver
construction of US 421 from just west of the South Fork of the New
to SR 1361 will have an effect upon the W.S. Moretz Farm and the Blue
Ridge Parkway (BRP), properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places (NR), and has consulted with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR
part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
1 Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS the design of US 421 from just west of the South Fork of the
' New River to SR 1361 in Watauga County is as described in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluations (EIS),
US 421 Watauga County, North Carolina (with Alternative A as the Preferred
' Alternative); and
WHEREAS Jimmy Moretz , the property owner of the W. S. Moretz Farm,
has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
WHEREAS the National Park Service (NPS) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have participated in the consultation
t and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following
' stipulation in order to take into account the effect of the construction
of US 421 on historic properties.
'
STIPULATIONS
' The FHWA will insure that the following measures are carried out:
I. In the event the final design plans for US 421 and the Blue Ridge
Parkway change from Alternative A as described in the final EIS, and
alter the location or cross-section of the roadway or require
substantial amounts of additional right-of-way from those shown in
the final EIS, the FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO
and initiate procedures set forth at 36 CFR 800.5(e).
f7
?,J

II.
The Blue Ridge Parkway
A. Federal Highway Administration (Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Division) shall develop design plans and administer the
construction contract for the bridge and related construction
where US 421 crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP).
B. A dual-arch bridge as depicted in Exhibit V-6 of the DEIS will
be constructed to replace the existing BRP single-arch bridge.
Final bridge and roadway design plans will be submitted to the
North Carolina SHPO and NPS for review and comment. FHWA shall
coordinate with the NPS throughout the design and construction
of the project as stipulated in the MCA among FHWA, NCDOT, and
the NPS (Appendix B).
C. The rock face of the existing BRP bridge over US 421 will be
salvaged by the contractor. The salvaged rock will become the
property of the NPS and will be stacked at a location designated
by NPS and approved by NCDOT.
D. NCDOT shall document the existing bridge in accordance with
Appendix A: Historic Structure and Landscape Recordation Plan
prior to and during construction.
E. In consultation with North Carolina SHPO and the NPS, NCDOT
shall develop and implement a landscape plan for the land within
the NPS boundaries at the crossing of US 421 and the BRP. This
landscape plan will specify plants indigenous to the Blue Ridge
Mountains and compatible with the historic landscape plan for
the Blue Ridge Parkway. The plans will be submitted to the
North Carolina SHPO and the NPS for review and comment prior to
construction.
F. NCDOT shall erect directional signs pertaining to the BRP in the
vicinity of the US 421/BRP interchange which will conform to NPS
standards. Any signs that NCDOT and FHWA considers to be
essential for reasons of safety will be submitted to the North
Carolina SHPO and NPS for review and comment.
G. NCDOT shall acquire adequate protective buffer lands on both
sides of US 421 to protect the viewshed of the BRP and prevent
non-conforming development in the vicinity of the US 421/BRP
interchange. Areas NCDOT proposes to acquire for buffer lands
will be reviewed and approved by the FHWA and NPS prior to
purchase.
H. NCDOT shall deed additional right-of-way acquired for
construction of the ramp in the northwest quadrant of the US
421/BRP interchange to the NPS in fee simple. This land will
not be considered compensation\mitigation for the NPS property
required for roadway construction.
I. The FHWA and the NCDOT will coordinate with the North Carolina
SHPO and NPS to continue assessment of archaeological site
31Wt301 (Stoneman's Fort). The fort, constructed of earth and
t

J
[i

f]

I

materials from a dismantled house during the closing days of the
Civil War, was impacted by the construction of the BRP. Current
plans indicate between one to 20 feet of land will be used in
the area where remnants of the fort may remain. Should these
fort remnants be impacted, a qualified archaeologist will assess
the National Register eligibility of the site by several methods
which may include archival research, site mapping and site
' testing. Since the integrity of the fort was compromised,
FHWA
h
e
preservation in place is not anticipated at 31Wt301. T
and NCDOT will transmit the results of this work to the NCSHPO
and NPS for review. Should additional archaeological work be
' required to mitigate impacts to 31Wt301 a mitigation plan will
be developed in consultation with the NCSHPO and the NPS prior
' to construction.
J. A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog as
defined on page III-30 of the DEIS will be performed by the NPS
and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to perform this
research project will be completed prior to the ROD. The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the
bog located on BRP property prior to construction and continuing
' through and following construction for a minimum of five years.
' K. Utility lines relocated by the construction of the US 421
improvements will not be routed through the Deep Gap Southern
Appalachian Mountain Bog.
' L. Design plans the retaining wall in the vicinity of the
US 421/BRP Interchange will be submitted to the NPS and North
Carolina SHPO for review and comment.
M. The traffic control plans in the vicinity of the US 421/BRP
Interchange will be submitted to the NPS and North Carolina SHPO
for review and comment.
III. W.S. Moretz
A. In consultation with the North Carolina SHPO and owner of the
' Moretz Farm NCDOT shall develop and implement a landscape plan
to landscape US 421 along its border with the W.S. Moretz Farm.
This landscape plan will plant material indigenous to the area
and be submitted to the North Carolina SHPO for review and
comment prior to construction.
B. NCDOT shall document W. S. Moretz Farm prior to construction in
accordance with Appendix A: Historic Structure and Landscape
Recordation Plan.
' C. During construction and following completion of the project,
access to the W. S. Moretz Farm from US 421 will be maintained
along the existing driveway.

IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30) days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
amendment, FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve
the objection. If FHWA or the SHPO determines that the objection
cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to
the dispute to the Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of ,
all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.6(b) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided
in response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA
in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2) with reference to
the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's ,
responsibility to carry out all the actions under the amended MOA
that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
4

U

I F71

117
J

n?
U
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North
Carolina SHPO, its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and
implementation of its terms, is evidence that FHWA has afforded the
Council an opportunity to comment on the construction of US 421 from
just west of the South Fork of the New River to SR 1361, Watauga
County, North Carolina, and its effects on historic properties and
that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on
historic properties.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By: A52? r oz? Date: Or
Nicho L. G P.E.
Division Administrator
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
By: (? I t ?Ci
ULA
%Date: William Price, Ph.D.'
North Carolina State Histo is
Preservation Officer
ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
By: 4 2"'. " Date: /!Ieit?*
5

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF US 421 FROM JUST WEST OF THE
SOUTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER TO SR 1361
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. FR-86-1(6), TIP NO. R-529B
Concur:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
By : W .
J mes W. Co eman
eaional Director
Date: 7 s?
6

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF US 421 FROM JUST WEST OF THE
SOUTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER TO SR 1361
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. FR-86-1(6), TIP NO. R-5298
Concur:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i
By: Date:
H. ran in Vick, P.E, na er
Planning and Environmental Branch
5
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.5(e)(4)
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF US 421 FROM JUST WEST OF THE
SOUTH FORK OF THE NEW RIVER TO SR 1361
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. FR-86-1(6), TIP NO. R-5298
Concur:
W. S. MORETZ FAMILY
By : Date:

APPENDIX A
HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPE RECORDATION PLAN
' for
Construction of US 421 from the South Fork of the New River
to SR 1361 in Watauga County, North Carolina
w

Photographic Requirements
(1) Photographic views of the Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge over US 421
including:
- both elevations
- views showing the relationship of the bridge to the roadway and
the surrounding landscape
- views documenting the dismantling of the existing bridge
(2) Photographic views of the W.S. Moretz Farm including:
- each elevation of the Moretz house
- views showing all other buildings on the farm plus their
relationships to the house and each other
views showing the relationship of the property to the roadway,
including the entrance
- views showing the overall landscape of the farm and the position
of the buildings in that landscape
Format
35 mm black and white negatives (all views)
8" x 10" black and white prints (all views)
Color transparencies (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs, negatives, and transparencies to be labeled
according to NC Division of Archives and History Standards.
Fiber-based paper is the traditional archival standard.
According to Kodak, however, their resin-coated paper meets
archival standards if it is stored in total darkness (an
envelope) and at low humidity.

HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPE RECORDATION PLAN
for
Construction of US 421 from the South Fork of the New River
to SR 1361 in Watauga County, North Carolina '
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all negatives, prints and transparencies will be
deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/State
Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the statewide '
survey and iconographic collection.
One (1) set of prints of the Blue Ridge Parkway Bridge will be
deposited with the National Park Service.
1

1

[,-]I

Appendix B
Memorandum of Agreement
' H:\NC421MOA
February 23, 1994
Agreement No: DTFH71-94-A-00019
'
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
' AMONG
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
AND
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FOR
' DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
FOR
INTERCHANGE OF U.S. ROUTE 421
AT THE
' BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) is to establish the
roles, responsibilities, and procedures under which work shall be performed by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the National. Park
Service (NPS), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as necessary to
reconstruct the interchange of U.S. Route 421 and the Blue Ridge Parkway,
Deep Gap, Watauga County, North Carolina. The project is further described as
the reconstruction cf U.S. Route 421 to a 4-lane divided highway at the
Blue Ridge Parkway, transitioning to a 5-lane section, approximately 1.0 mile.
The reconstruction of the interchange will be designed and constructed to
maintain the aesthetics and scenic value of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has the Jurisdictional and maintenance
responsibilities for U.S. Route 421;
WHEREAS, the NPS is the Federal agency with administrative oversight,
maintenance, and Jurisdictional authority for the Blue Ridge Parkway;
WHEREAS, the NCDOT has identified the need to improve U.S. Route 421 in
Watauga County, North Carolina, from just east of the town of Boone to
SR 1361, east of the town of Deep Gap. The improvements will consist of the
construction of a 4-lane divided highway section, with a 5-lane curb and
gutter section in the developed areas;
WHEREAS, the U.S. Route 421 has been designated for inclusion in the National
Highway System, and the funding for the improvement would be in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal-aid National Highway System;
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements to U.S. Route 421 will impact the existing
interchange with the Blue Ridge Parkway;
WHEREAS, the NCDOT has requested the assistance from the Eastern Federal Lands
Highway Division (EFLHO), of the FHWA, in the preliminary engineering and
construction of the improvements in the area of the interchange with the
Blue Ridge Parkway;
WHEREAS, it is feasible to construct the improvements to the interchange with
the Blue Ridge Parkway and the U.S. Route 421 approaches separate from the
remaining U.S. Route 421 improvements; and,
WHEREAS, 23 USC 308(a) authorizes the FHWA to perform engineering and other
services in connection with the survey, design, construction, and improvements
of highways for other Government or State cooperating agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA, the NCDOT, and the NPS do hereby mutually agree as
follows:
1. The NCDOT shall be the lead agency for project development of the
interchange (including approach road limits), and shall (1)-fund the
required State share of the project; (2) approve the final design
standards for the improvements to U.S. Route 421; (3) administer the
activities necessary to provide the required final environmental
clearances and coordination for the entire project; (4) participate in
all of the design field reviews; (5) acquire necessary right-of-way and
administer required utility relocations including execution of necessary

agreements; (6) approve the final plans, specifications, and estimate
for construction; and (7) participate in the final construction
inspection. Upon successful completion of the project in accordance
' with the approved plans and specifications, and all approved contract
modifications, the NCDQT will accept the completed improvements to
' U.S. Route 421 for maintenance and jurisdiction.
The North Carolina Division office of the FHWA (NC-FHWA) shall be the
lead Federal agency for project development and shall (1) provide the
Federal funding of the project; (2) be responsible for all environmental
clearances, including the Environmental Impact Statement and the Record
of Decision in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
as amended, the required State and Federal permits, and the coordination
' in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act; (3) approve
of the right-of-way plans and administratively review the right-of-way
acquisition and utility relocation activities; (4) approve the final
plans, specifications, and estimate for advertisement; (5) participate
in the final inspection of the project; and (6) accept the completed
project as being in conformance with the approved design package. The
' current estimate of this project is $3.6 million including right-of-way,
with the Federal share being 80 percent. It is recognized that this
estimate is preliminary in nature.
The NPS shall be a cooperating agency in the project development, and
shall (1) approve the final design standards for the Blue Ridge Parkway;
' (2) participate in the evaluation and historic preservation coordination
activities for resources within the NPS right-of-way and for the parkway
and the existing parkway; (3) participate in the final design process
including all field reviews; (4) review and approve all utility
' relocations within NPS lands, including the issuance of any required
permits; (5) approve the final right-of-way plans; (6) approve the final
plans, specifications, and estimate for construction; and
' (7) participate in the final construction inspection. Upon successful
completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, and all approved contract modifications, the NPS will
' accept the completed improvements to the Blue Ridge Parkway for
maintenance and jurisdiction.
4. The EFLNO, of the FHWA, shall be a cooperating agency for the project
' development, and shall (1)_administer all surveyina_and mapping
necessary for final design activities; (z) administer all subsurface
investigat-1-ons; M incorporate all environmental commitments into the
design; (4) prepare final preliminary plans for review and approval;
(3) preparation of right-of-way plans and utility plans; (6) submit the
final plans, specifications, and estimate for review and approval;
' (7) advertise and award the construction contract; and (8) administer
the construction contract including necessary construction inspections.
The design shall be in accordance with the applicable AASHTO standards
' and guides, including the NPS Park Road Standards for the work impacting
the Blue Ridge Parkway. The EFLHD shall use the "Standard
Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway
' Projects" for the work. The procurement of any required design
activities and the construction contracts will be in accordance with the

Federal Acquisition Regulations, and the Transportation Acquisition
Regulations, with the analysis of bidders and bids coordinated with the
NCDOT and the NC FHWA. The EFLHD Division Engineer shall be the
Contracting Officer.
5. In accordance with the approved one-time exception to the Federal
Acquisition Regulations, the construction contract administered by the
EFLHD will not include any provision for construction claims due to
differing site condition.
6. The EFLHD will request written comments and concurrence from the NCDOT,
the NC FHWA, and the NPS for the following activities and/or products:
a. Preliminary plans, including alternatives,
b. Right-of-way plans, based on 35 percent design.
C. Plan-in-hand plans (70 percent plans).
d. Final plans, specifications, and estimate (95 percent plans).
e. Construction contract modifications.
f. Completed construction project.
7. Funding for the project will be provided in accordance with normal FHWA
Federal-aid funding procedures. The EFLHD will forward funding requests
to the NC FHWA for review and approval by both the NCDOT and the
NC FHWA. Upon approval of the funding request, the NC FHWA will
authorize funds by the FHWA Form 1240, Project Authorization. The
Project Agreement, PR-2, will be prepared and executed by the NCDOT and
the NC FHWA. The EFLHD will forward quarterly billings for
reimbursement. Funding requests for the NCDOT's project related
activities will be processed directly by the NC FHWA. Copies of all
PR-2's will be furnished to the EFLHD.
8. The FHWA Office of Fiscal Services will provide the unfunded contract
authority to cover all obligations.
9. The NCDOT will assign and identify a Resident Engineer for this project
once it is advertised for letting, so that all communication with the
NCDOT regarding the construction of this project will be channeled
through that identified person.
10. All parties to the Agreement will be afforded the opportunity to
inspect, at any time, work in progress, the financial records, and any
other supporting documentation; and to participate in all meetings,
field reviews, bid openings, preconstruction conferences, and periodic
and final construction inspections.
11. The EFLHD will be responsible for the administrative settlement or
adjudication of claims arising from contracts covered by this Agreement,
utilizing and subject to the availability of project funds-
f
f

J

L

12. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or affecting
the legal authorities of the NCDOT, the FHWA, or the NPS, or as
requiring the parties to perform beyond their respective authorities.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to bind any party to expend
funds in excess of available appropriations.
' 13. The parties shall not discriminate in the selection of employees or
participants for any employment or other activities undertaken pursuant
' to this Agreement on the grounds of race, creed, color, sex, or national
origin, and shall observe all of the provisions of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 United States Code 200od-1 et.sea.)
' The parties shall take positive action to ensure that all applicants for
employment or participation in any activities pursuant to this Agreement
shall be employed or involved without regard to race, creed, color, sex,
or national origin.
' 14. No member of, or Delegate to, or Resident Commissioner in Congress shall
be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit
' that may arise therefrom, but this restriction shall not be construed to
extend to this Agreement is made with a corporation for its general
benefit.
15. The parties will abide by the provisions of Section 1913 (Lobbying with
Appropriated Monies) of Title 18, United States Code, which states:
' No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in
the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or
indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram,
' telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other devise, intended
or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or
oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by
Congress, whether before the introduction of any bill or resolution
' proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall nor prevent
officers or employees of the United States or its departments or
agencies from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any
' Member of Congress, through the proper official channels, requests for
legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the
efficient conduct of public business.
' This Agreement becomes effective on the date of the last approving signature,
and shall remain in effect until the project is completed. The Agreement may
' be modified by written consent of all of the parties to cover any questions
which may arise subsequent to the date of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGION
James o R a e
Regional Director
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
j: R. Goode,
., ate
State Highway Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OFFICE
Nicholas L. ra Dae
Division Administrator
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION
ary ne ns a
Division Engineer

L'

I

J