20110464 Ver 1_Complete File_20070919

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 08-0082 County: Ashe
Date Received: 09/14/2007
Due Date: 10/09/2007
Project Description: Proposed Widening of NC 88 from US 221 Business in Jefferson to NC 194 in Ashe County;
TIP #U-3 812
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional'Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management
Mooresville Wildlife Water Resources
Aquifer Protection Environmental Health
Raleigh
Land Quality Engineer Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington
Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington
Land Resources Other
Winston-Salem
Parks & Recreation
_ Water Quality
V Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)

If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
gtiac?????Gt9?@, a
? 9! C?
i%
cy
NC 88
From NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
Ashe County
WBS Element,34977
Federal Project Number STP-88(2)
S.T.I.P. Project Number U-3812
Administrative Action
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
COQ NOHTN cA
9
N~P~ O`9
m z
N
O?
OF TR
Approved:
W34 q
ate
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(C)
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, NCDOT - PDEA
Date ohn F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
+jEDivision Administrator, USDOT - FHWA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report was prepared by
the following personnel in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Mark Pierce, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Engineer
, uarusr 3, 2oo7
?.oFESS?Q .'y',f
o.
x SEAL ?+ r
2ew _
r • F ?. -
;yGtN?'
Date
NC 88
from NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
Ashe County
U-3812
Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report
Prepared by the
Project Development& Environmental Analysis Branch
of the Division of Highways '
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Division
+ McFarland Publishing Company owns two buildings opposite one another on NC 88. Operations
require that their employees cross NC 88 on a daily basis. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division will
study pedestrian access for the McFarland Publishing Company.
• The Town of Jefferson is currently developing a Pedestrian Plan that includes recommendations for
sidewalk on one side of NC 88 within the town limits. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division will
continue coordination with 'the. Town of Jefferson regarding their plan and sidewalk on NC 88.
Geotechnical EnLyineerine = Geoenvironmental Section
•, The, Geoenvironmental Section of the Geotechnical Unit will conduct assessments on four, sites which
now or formerly operated underground storage tanks at the intersection of NC 88 and US 221
Business in the Town of Jefferson. ,
Historic Architecture & Archaeology & Roadway Design & Construction
• The Joseph Benjamin Neal House is eligiblefor the National Register of Historic Places. The
proposed National Register Boundary includes the entire property parcel, The Roadway Design Unit
will coordinate with the Historic Architecture Group during final design regarding realignment of the
driveway, to minimize impacts to and maintain the existing character of the Neal Property. The
Construction Unit will coordinate with the Historic Architecture Group during the Preliminary Field
Inspectioriregarding construction; limits and methods for clearing, grading, and road construction
activities to minimize impacts to and maintain the existing character of the Neal Property;
• Additional archaeological testing will be required if construction is to take place outside of the Area
of Potential Effects in the vicinity of the Joseph Benjamin Neal House (National-Register-Eligible
Property) as established during the 2001 Archaeological Survey. The Area of Potential Effects
evaluated was approximately 180 feet wide and centered on the existing centerline of NC 88. The
Construction Unit will coordinate with the Archaeology Group during the Preliminary Field
Inspection regarding the location of construction limits, staging areas, and easements, and notify the
Archaeology Group if construction activities are planned to extend beyond the Area of Potential
Effects in the vicinity of the Neal Property.. If warranted, the Archaeology Group will conduct
additional survey and testing activities in those areas, and update their conclusions and
recommendations as needed.
Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report
August 2007 Page l of 2
... n. t„w r . ? '.t ?'Sii^, f'i ??`k ?"cm'..ST'StRas?1-k,Tw.XU?u .u, ^;.?d4i <r '- ?v.,gwr- r.? -_ ..m:!C?Y+`n! w ';rv?w'^?'.mifl"r: H :Y` "B?fN+,<.q:t?^HJr+^d•.'Fa?-eY • '?'?'??

\ NC 88
from NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
Ashe County
U-3812
Environmental Assessment &_Draft Section4(f) Evaluation Report
Prepared by the
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Hydraulics & Roadside Environmental & Construction
• "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will be incorporated into design
and construction.
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" will be incorporated into design and construction due to
the potential for project runoff to Little Buffalo Creek, which is designated as "Trout Waters" by the
Division of Water Quality.
Hydraulics
• The Hydraulics Unitwill coordinate with FEMA and local authorities'in final design to facilitate the
floodway revision process and to ensure compliance with applicable`floodplain ordinances.
Noise & Air Ouality Group
The Noise & Air Quality Group will conduct an updated Traffic Noise Analysis, using TNM 2.5,
after the "Date of Public Knowledge" as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy.
Environmental Assessment & Draft Section A(f) Evaluation Report
August 2007 Page 2 of 2

?.?x ..? ??P _ 3?r?,?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DOCUMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i
1.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 Route Classification ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Roadway Section Studied ....................................................................................... 1
1.3 Traffic Volumes, Levels of Service, & Posted Speed Limits ..................................... 1
1.4 Traffic Safety ........................................................................................................... 1
1.5 Right of Way & Typical Section ............................................................................... 3
1.6 Physiography & Alignment ...................................................................................... 3
1.7 Intersections & Signalization .................................................................................... 4
1.8 Adjacent Land Use & Control of Access .........................:........................................ 4
1.9 Culverts & Bridges ................................................................................................... 4
1.10 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.11 School Buses .......................................................................................................... 6
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 Summary Statement ................................................................................................ 6
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Alternatives Considered ........................................................
3.2 Alternatives Eliminated ..........................................................
3.3 Alternatives Carried Forward .................................................
3.4 Alternative Recommended by NCDOT ..................................
.............................. 6
.............................. 6
.............................. 7
.............................. 8
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 General Description ................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Project Schedule & Status ....................................................................................... 9
4.3 Consistency with Thoroughfare Plans ..................................................................... 10
4.4 Alignment ................................................................................................................ 10
4.5 Right of Way & Typical Sections .............................................................................. 10
4.6 Traffic Volumes, Levels of Service, & Speed Limits ................................................. 10
4.7 Culverts & Bridges ................................................................................................... 11
4.8 Noise Barriers .......................................................................................................... 11
4.9 Sidewalks ................................................................................................................ 11
4.10 Bicycle Accommodations ......................................................................................... 12
4.11 Estimated Costs ...................................................................................................... 12
9.0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
9.1 Travel Times ............................................................................................................ 62
9.2 Commercial Development ....................................................................................... 62
9.3 Industrial Development ............................................................................................ 62
9.4 Property Values ....................................................................................................... 63
10.0 INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
10.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................63
10.2 Change in Rate and Type of Development .............................................................. 63
10.3 Change in Character of Residential Community ...................................................... 63
11.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & REGULATORY COORDINATION
11.1 Public Comments ................................................................................................... 64
11.2 Citizens Informational Workshop ............................................................................. 64
11.3 Local, State, & Federal Agencies ............................................................................ 64
11.4 Section 404 - NEPA Merger Process ...................................................................... 65
11.5 Public Hearing ......................................................................................................... 65
12.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 66,
13.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...........................................................................................66
APPENDIX A: FIGURES & MAPS
Figure Al: Project Vicinity Map
Figure A2: Project Location Map
Figure A& USGS Quadrangle Map
Figure A4: Aerial Mosaic Index Map
Figure A5: Aerial Mosaic
Figure A& Typical Section (Alternate 1)
Figure A7: Typical Section (Alternate 2 - Rural Portion)
Figure A8: Typical Section (Alternate 2 - Urban Portion)
Figure A9: Typical Section (Alternate 3 - Rural Portion)
Figure A10: Typical Section (Alternate 3 - Urban Portion)
Figure A11: Typical Section (Alternate 4 - Rural Portion)
Figure A12: Typical Section (Alternate 4 - Urban Portion)
Figure A13: Natural Resource Impacts (Build Alternate 1)
Figure A14: Natural Resource Impacts (Build Alternate 2)
Figure A15: Natural Resource Impacts (Build Alternate 3)
Figure A16: Natural Resource Impacts (Build Alternate 4)
Traffic Forecasts (2000 & 2025)
FEMA Flood Maps
Town of Jefferson Sewer Schematics

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Public Notice for Citizens Informational Workshop
Handout for Citizens Informational Workshop
US Army Corps of Engineers Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Point 1 Agreement
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Point 2 Agreement
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Concurrence Point 2A Agreement
FHWA / SHPO Concurrence Form for National Register Eligibility
FHWA / SHPO Concurrence Forms for Assessment of Effects
APPENDIX C: RELOCATION POLICIES & PROGRAMS
APPENDIX D: CORRESPONDENCE FROM LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Division of Water Quality
• Division of Intergovernmental Affairs
• Winston-Salem Regional Office
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ashe County Board of Education
High Country Rural Planning Organization
APPENDIX E: GLOSSARY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Crash Patterns ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Neal Property Tax Parcel Map ...................................................................... 24
Figure 3: Relative Impacts to Section 4(f) Resource from Build Alternates ................ 27
Figure 4: U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics
Emissions, 2000-2020 ................................................................................... 34
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Inadequate Site Distance at Intersection ........................................................ 2
Photo 2: Existing Typical Section and Alignment ....................................................... 4
Photo 3: Mixed Land Use in Jefferson ........................................................................ 18
Photo 4: Looking Northwest toward Neal Property ....................................................... 25
Photo 5: Joseph Benjamin Neal House (south elevation) ............................................ 25
Photo 6: Joseph Benjamin Neal House (north elevation) ......:...................................... 26
Photo 7: Little Buffalo Creek Parallel to NC 88 ............................................................. 42
Photo 8: Little Buffalo Creek at NC 88 .......................................................................... 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Costs ............................................................................................. iii
Table 2: Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... iv
Table 3: Crash Rates ................................................................................................... 3
Table 4:
...............
Existing Culverts .............................................................................
Table 5: Proposed Culverts .....................................................................:................... 11
Table 6: Estimated Costs ............................................................................................. 12
Table 7: Population by Race (2000) ............................................................................. 14
Table 8: Population by Age (2000) .............................................................................. 14
Table 9: Income & Poverty Status (1990) .................................................................... 15
Table 10: Housing Characteristics (1990) ...................................................................... 15
Table 11: Estimated Relocations ................................................................................... 20
Table 12: Impacts to Section 4(f) Resource from Build Alternates ................................. 26
Table 13: UST Sites ....................................................................................................... 30
Table 14: Stream Characteristics ................................................................................... 41
Table 15: Impacts to Biotic Communities ....................................................................... 52
Table 16: Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas ....................................................................... 56
Table 17: Federally-Protected Species in Ashe County ................................................. 58
Table 18: Federal Species of Concern in Ashe County ................................................. 61
Table 19: Bridging Decisions ......................................................................................... 65
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AC Acre(s)
CO Carbon Monoxide
DWQ Division of Water Quality of NCDENR
EA Federal Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FDPS Full depth paved shoulder
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration of USDOT
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
ICI Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
NHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NRTR Natural Resources Technical Report
NWI National Wetland Inventory
RPO Rural Planning Organization
RAN Right of Way
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
NC 88
from NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
Ashe County
U-3812
Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report
Prepared by the
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
DOCUMENT SUMMARY
TYPE OF ACTION
This Environmental Assessment is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposed
administrative action. NCDOT conducted this assessment in accordance with Section 119
(Environmental Assessments) of Part 771 (Environmental Impact and Related Procedures) of
Title 23 (Highway) of the Code of Federal Regulations.
PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The purpose of an Environmental Assessment (EA) is two-fold. First, the assessment should
resolve any uncertainty as to whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.
Should the need become evident at any time in the course of the environmental assessment
process, an EIS should be started. If an EIS is not required, the environmental assessment
process is completed with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Secondly, to the extent
practicable, the Environmental Assessment should contain sufficient information to serve as the
record for all environmental approvals and consultations required by law for the action and
should include approvals by and consultations with other agencies, as well as those with the
Federal Highway Administration.
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THIS ACTION
The purpose of this action is to improve safety on NC 88 and improve a link between NC 194
and the existing multilane section in the Town of Jefferson. The need is based upon correcting
a restricted cross section in mountainous terrain with poor horizontal and vertical alignment.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
NCDOT proposes to widen approximately 1.6 miles of NC 88 to a multilane facility from NC 194
to US 221 Business in the Town of Jefferson as presented in the 2007 - 2013 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Figures Al and A2 in Appendix A present the
project vicinity and location.
ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Various alternatives were studied including the Transportation Systems Management
Alternative, the Public Transportation Alternative, the No-Build Alternative, and a Build
Alternative. The Transportation Systems Management Alternative and the Public
Transportation Alternative were considered, but eliminated because they do not satisfy the
purpose of and need for the project. Although, the No-Build Alternative does not address. safety
concerns and does not add capacity to the local roadway network, it was not eliminated from
further consideration because it provides a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternative.
The Build Alternative originally included seven design options, 2 through 8, and the Merger
Process Team later added Design Option 9. After further study, the team agreed to eliminate
several options and carry forward Build Alternates 1, 2, and 3 as listed below. It should be
noted that Build Alternates 1, 2, and 3 are identical for the western portion of the project
(NC 194 to Lawson Lane).
While studying the three build alternates carried forward, it was determined that they would
improve traffic safety through improvements to the road alignment, but were not warranted from
a capacity standpoint and would generate notable impacts to the human and natural
environment. Therefore, NCDOT subsequently added and studied Build Alternate 4, the Safety
Improvements Alternate. It should be noted that Build Alternate 4, as listed below, was
previously known as Design Option 10 during the June 27, 2006 Effects Concurrence Meeting
and in the Concurrence Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration,. the State Historic
Preservation Office, and NCDOT.
In summary, the following build alternates were studied during this environmental assessment,
and the findings and recommendations are presented in this document.
Build Alternate 1: 3-lane shoulder section (entire project)
Build Alternate 2: 3-lane shoulder section (from NC 194 to Lawson Lane)
& 3-lane curb and gutter section (from Lawson Lane to US 221 Bus.)
Build Alternate 3: 3-lane shoulder section (from NC 194 to Lawson Lane)
& 5-lane curb and gutter section (from Lawson Lane to US 221 Bus.)
Build Alternate 4: Safety Improvements
SCHEDULE
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for federal fiscal year 2009 and construction let for federal
fiscal year 2011 as presented in the 2007 - 2013 STIP.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of the project are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Costs
1 2 3 4
3-lane 3-lane
3-lane Shoulder Section Shoulder Section
Alternate
Shoulder Section (rural portion) (rural portion) Safety

(entire length) & & Improvements
3-lane C&G Section 5-lane C&G Section
urban portion) urban portion)
Right of Way $ 10,000,000 $ 10,900,000 $ 11,800,000 $ 4,600,000
Construction $ 9,100,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,900,000
Total $ 19,100,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 21,800,000 $ 8,500,000
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The four build alternates will generate quantifiable impacts as summarized in Table 2 and
described in detail in Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this report.
Table 2: Summary of Impacts
Category Units Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4
Project Length Miles 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Residential Relocations Total 14 24 29 1
Business Relocations Total 4 4 6 1
Farm Relocations Total 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit Relocations Total 1 1 1 0
Minority Relocations Total 2 2 4 0
Total Relocations Total 19 29 36 2
Hazardous Material (UST) Sites Each 4 4 4 2
Wetlands Acres 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Streams Linear Feet 2035 2070 2115 920
Ponds Acres 0.02 0.02 0.02 < 0.01
Federally - Protected Species Species 0 0 0 0
Maintained /
Disturbed 25.0 24.4 25.6 10.1
Terrestrial Communities Montane Oak /
Hickory Forest 8.0 8.1 8.4 1.9
Christmas Tree
Plantation 2.6 2.6 2.6 0
Prime Farmlands Each 0 0 0 0
23CFR772 Noise Category B Impacted Receptors 18 18 21 18
Substantial Noise Level Increase > 10 dB Impacted Receptors 0 0 0 0
Air Quality. .
Carbon Monoxide Concentration NAAQS Standard (2) 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
Architectural Resources Eligible Properties 1 1 1 1
Section 4(f) Resources Acres 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.4
Archaeological Resources Eligible Properties 0 0 0 0
Construction Cost Million Dollars $ 9.1 $ 9.1 $ 10.0 $ 3.9
Right of Way Cost Million Dollars $ 10.0 $ 10.9 $ 11.8 $ 4.6
Total Project Cost Million Dollars $ 19.1 $ 20.0 $ 21.8 $ 8.5
NOTES:
1. Noise Activity Category B: exterior, equivalent sound level of approximately 67 dBA.
2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards maximum CO permitted for 1-hr Ave.= 35 ppm
iv
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED BY NCDOT
NCDOT recommends Build Alternate 4 for the proposed improvements to this section of NC 88.
Alternate 4 satisfies the purpose for this project, minimizes impacts to the human and natural
environment, including the Section 4(f) Resource, and has the lowest estimated cost of all of the
build alternates.
REGULATORY CONSULTATION & COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
The following federal, state, and local agencies and departments were consulted during this
Environmental Assessment:
US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (USACE)
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville Field Office (USFWS)
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration - NC Division (FHWA)
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR-SHPO)
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Intergovernmental Affairs
Division of Marine Fisheries
Winston-Salem Regional Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
Ashe County Administration
Ashe County Board of Education
Town of Jefferson Administration
High County Rural Planning Organization
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
This project will result in impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands. In accordance '
with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and based upon the context of the project, an Individual
Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may be required. This action may also
require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources prior to
approval and permitting by USACE.
CONCLUSIONS
This report documents the activities conducted and presents the findings and recommendations
of the assessment along with a record of environmental approvals and consultation with other
agencies. Our findings do not indicate the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
be prepared and we anticipate that the environmental assessment process will be concluded
with a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The determination of the final documentation
needed for this project will be based upon comments received on this Environmental
Assessment Report.
POINTS OF CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information concerning this proposed action and this Environmental Assessment
Report can be obtained by contacting the following persons:
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E., Division Administrator
c/o Thomas Riggsbee, Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1418
Telephone [phone] x102
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
c/o Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone] x214
vi
NC 88
from NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
,Ashe County
U-3812
Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report
Prepared by the
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
1.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 ROUTE CLASSIFICATION
NC 88 is a two-lane undivided North Carolina route and classified as a major thoroughfare in the
Jefferson - West Jefferson Transportation Plan Report (December 2002).
1.2 ROADWAY SECTION STUDIED
NCDOT is studying a 1.6-mile section of NC 88 from NC 194 to US 221 Business in the Town of
Jefferson as presented in the 2007 - 2013 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The project connects logical termini and supports independent utility even if no other
transportation improvements are made in the vicinity'. Figures Al through A5 in Appendix A a
present the project vicinity, location, topography, and aerial photography.
1.3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, LEVELS OF SERVICE, & POSTED SPEED LIMITS
The facility supported an average daily traffic (ADT) volume in 2002 ranging from 6,400 to 7,500
vehicles per day (vpd) at Level of Service D with a posted speed limit of 35 to 45 miles per hour
(mph). Trucks represented six percent of the recorded traffic volumes. The Jefferson-West
Jefferson area has been growing more slowly than originally anticipated and has experienced
about a four to five percent increase in population per year for past several years. Therefore,
the 2002 - 2025 traffic forecast projections were interpolated to estimate the 2007 traffic
volumes. Estimates for the 2007 ADT range from 7,700 to 9,000 vpd.
1.4 TRAFFIC SAFETY
NC 88 is a narrow, undivided highway situated in mountainous terrain. Overhanging trees,
roadside vegetation, sight obstructions, skewed approaches, and the topography have
contributed to inadequate sight distance at several intersections and driveways. NCDOT is
proposing reductions in curvature at particular locations to reduce the potential for rear-end,
angle, and left-turn collisions that comprised 76% of the crashes for the three-year period from
2004 through 2007.

Photo 1: Inadequate Site Distance at Intersection
Other Angle
Collisions 6% Animal
6%
6%
Fixed Objects
6%
Figure 1 : Crash Patterns
During the period from March 1, 2004 through February 28, 2007, the facility recorded a total of
17 crashes including five non-fatal-injury crashes (10 injuries), and 12 property-damage-only
crashes. The collisions occurred primarily at the intersections. Table 3 presents the relation
2
between the crash rates for this facility with respect to the 2003 - 2005 Statewide Crash Rates
for North Carolina Routes based upon accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. For purposes of
comparison with statewide averages for crash rates, the western portion of NC 88 from NC 194
to Lawson Lane is considered a rural route and the eastern portion from Lawson Lane to US
221 Business is considered an urban route.
Table 3: Crash Rates
2-lane 2-lane 2-lane
Crash Rate NC 88 undivided undivided undivided all Comments
rural routes urban routes NC routes
rural routes
Total Crash Rate 186.69 191.04 280.39 208.07 < urban routes
< all NC routes
< all categories
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 2.24 0.83 1:97
Non-Fatal 54.41 73.98 96.48 78.27 < all categories
Crash Rate
Night Crash Rate 32.95 63.99 55.31 62.33 < all categories
Wet Crash Rate 10.98 33.32 48.52 36.22 < all categories
The total crash rate is equivalent to the statewide average for 2-lane undivided rural routes.
The fatal, non-fatal, night, and wet pavement crash rates are lower than the statewide averages
in all categories.
1.5 RIGHT OF WAY & TYPICAL SECTION
NC 88 is a two-lane facility with travel lanes varying from 10 to 12 feet. Some portions of the
facility have two-foot paved shoulders, and other portions have graveled or grassed shoulders
of variable width. The existing right-of-way width is 60 feet.
1.6 PHYSIOGRAPHY & ALIGNMENT
This project is located in the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. Topography in the
project vicinity is characterized as mountainous with steep escarpments and parallel drainage
patterns. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 2,800 to 3,500 feet above
mean sea level. Elevations in the project study area vary from approximately 2,800 to 3,000
feet above mean sea level.
The horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 88 mirrors the mountain topography with associated
steep cut and fill slopes and several intersections and driveways with inadequate site distance.
3

Photo 2: Existing Typical Section and Alignment
1.7 INTERSECTIONS & SIGNALIZATION
There are 12 intersections included in this project, all of which are at-grade and stop-sign-
controlled with the exception of the intersection with US 221 Business, which is signalized.
1.8 ADJACENT LAND USE & CONTROL OF ACCESS
The primary land use in the project study area is for residential purposes. Development has
occurred in a strip settlement pattern consistent with rural settings. Land in the project study
area is also used for commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes. Access to NC 88 is
currently permitted in accordance with the NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to
North Carolina Highways (July 2003).
1.9 CULVERTS & BRIDGES
There are no existing bridges on NC 88. Characteristics of the three major stream crossings
are presented in Table 4. The remaining culverts are roadway culverts less than 72 inches in
diameter and small-diameter driveway culverts.
4
Table 4: Existing Culverts
Crossing Stream Name Existing Adequacy
No. Culvert of Structure
1 - 60"
Corrugated
Tributary of Steel Pipe INADEQUATE
1 Naked Creek & Structurally
(Naked UT-B) 1 - 30" & Hydraulically
Corrugated
Steel Pipe
3 @ 11' x 7' ADEQUATE
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete Structurally
Box Culvert & Hydraulically
Tributary of 2 - 60" ADEQUATE
3 Little Buffalo Creek Corrugated Structurally
(Little Buffalo UT-B) Steel Pipes & Hydraulically
1.10 UTILITIES
The Town of Jefferson maintains water lines along NC 88 from SR 1153 (Doggett Road) to
US 221 Business. A 2-inch asbestos cement water line is located on the south side of NC 88
from SR 1153 to Locust Grove Drive. A 6-inch asbestos cement water line is located on the
north side of NC 88 from Northwest Drive to US 221 Business. Both water distribution lines are
at a depth of approximately three feet and will need to be replaced with a minimum of PVC 21
water pipe with equivalent diameters throughout the project limits. The water meters and fire
hydrants will also need to be relocated to the proposed right of way line.
The Town of Jefferson maintains a 3-inch sewer force main located on the south side of NC 88
from McFarland Publishing Company to Locust Grove Drive at which point it discharges into an
8-inch gravity sewer. The force main will remain in place and be adjusted as necessary. A
sanitary sewer lift station is located within the existing right of way of NC 88 in front of
McFarland Publishing Company at the intersection Hickory Hill Road. The road alignment will
need to be refined to avoid the lift station or the station will need to be relocated beyond the
proposed right of way line. Additional 8-inch gravity sewer lines are located on other portions of
NC 88 between Northwest Drive and US 221 Business. The gravity sewer lines are at depths
ranging from five to nine feet and can remain in place with the manhole tops being adjusted for
the proposed grade. The water and sewer schematics provided by the Town of Jefferson are
included in Appendix A.
Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation maintains aerial lines along both sides of NC 88,
underground lines near SR 1153, and operates an electrical sub-station at the intersection of
NC 88 and SR 1153 (Doggett Road). The sub-station was avoided and is not in conflict with the
proposed widening of NC 88. The power poles are in conflict with the widening and realignment
of NC 88 and right of way appears to be adequate for relocation of the poles.
The 6-inch gas line along NC 88 from Northwest Drive to McConnell Street is installed at a
depth of approximately three feet deep. The line can remain in place and be adjusted as
necessary.
Sprint/Centel maintains underground and aerial service along NC 88 and aerial fiber lines on the
Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation poles. The underground cable and fiber optic lines
can remain in place and be adjusted as necessary. The aerial lines will be relocated along with
the power lines.
Skyline Telephone has installed or intends to install underground and aerial fiber lines on
NC 88.
1.11 SCHOOL BUSES
Ashe County Public Schools operates five buses that serve this area and nine buses that travel
through this area on NC 88. The Ashe County Board of Education has indicated that the nine
buses passing through this area can be rerouted through West Jefferson if needed.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 SUMMARY STATEMENT
The purpose of this action is to improve safety on NC 88 and improve a link between NC 194
and the existing multilane section in the Town of Jefferson. The need is based upon correcting
a restricted cross section in mountainous terrain with poor horizontal and vertical alignment.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The four alternatives considered in this Environmental Assessment included the Transportation
System Management Alternative, the Public Transportation Alternative, the No-Build Alternative,
and the Build Alternative.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED
Ashe County does not operate public transportation systems. Privately-owned vehicles remain
the major form of transportation for area residents, commuters, vacationers, and other travelers
of NC 88. Based upon the project context, public transportation would not improve safety on
NC 88 and would not eliminate the need for widening the highway and improving the alignment.
Therefore, the Public Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this
project and was eliminated from further study.
6
Physical improvements such as new signs or signals, striping, medians, or access management
measures, and operational improvements such as traffic law enforcement, turning restrictions,
staggered work hours, or signal phasing would not improve the sight distance or the alignment
and safety on NC 88. Therefore, the Transportation System Management Alternative was
eliminated from further study.
3.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Of the four alternatives considered, the No-Build Alternative and various build alternatives were
retained and carried forward for further study for comparative purposes. The following is a
summary of each alternative.
The No-Build Alternative offers limited improvements to the project study area and assumes that
all other projects currently planned or programmed in the STIP will be constructed in the area as
proposed. Continued roadway maintenance and minor improvements on NC 88 would be the
extent of this alternative. Although the No-Build Alternative does not improve safety or increase
capacity and does not meet the purpose of or need for this project, it does provide a basis for
comparison with the build alternatives.
During their December 12, 2001 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options), the Merger
Process Team agreed to the following eight design options.
1. No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section with symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
5. 4-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
7. 5-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
8. 5-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
During the first meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward) held on May
18, 2004, the Merger Process Team added Design Option 9, 3-lane shoulder section, as a
practical expression of Design Option 2 since Design Option 2 included 3-lane portions and
tapers totaling 74% of the project. This brought the total number of design options to nine.
1. No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section with symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
5. 4-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
7. 5-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
8. 5-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
9. 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
During the second meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward) held on
March 15, 2005, the Merger Process Team eliminated several of the design options and agreed
to carry forward the following alternatives. It should be noted that the typical section for the rural
(western) portion of the project from NC 194 to Lawson Lane is identical for Build Alternates 1,
2, and 3.
No-Build / routine maintenance continues
Build Alternate 1: 3-lane shoulder section (entire project)
Build Alternate 2: 3-lane shoulder section (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb and gutter section (urban portion)
Build Alternate 3: 3-lane shoulder section (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb and gutter section (urban portion)
While studying the three build alternates carried forward, it was determined that they would
improve traffic safety through improvements to the road alignment, but were not warranted from
a capacity standpoint and would generate notable impacts to the human and natural
environment. Therefore, NCDOT subsequently added and studied Build Alternate 4, the Safety
Improvements Alternate. It should be noted that Build Alternate 4 was previously known as
Design Option 10 during the June 27, 2006 Effects Concurrence Meeting and in the
Concurrence Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, the State Historic
Preservation Office, and NCDOT.
Build Alternate 4 includes the following improvements to NC 88:
• Realignment of the intersection of NC 88 and NC 194
• Realignment of the S-curve between Locust Grove Drive and Lawson Lane
• Center turn lane between Lawson Lane and US 221 Business
• Upgrading the facility to current standards with 12-foot lanes
• Pedestrian crossing for McFarland Publishing Company
• Resurfacing the entire length of the project
3.4 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED BY NCDOT
NCDOT recommends Build Alternate 4 for the proposed improvements to this section of NC 88.
This alternate will satisfy the capacity requirement by operating at Level of Service D in the
2030 Design Year for the estimated 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. The purpose and need
of this project would also be satisfied by improving sight distance and the approach geometry at
8
the intersection of NC 88 and NC 194, improving the sight distance by flattening the S-curve
between Locust Grove Drive and Lawson Lane, providing a center turn lane for the portion
within the Town of Jefferson with the most driveways, intersections, and industrial traffic, and
widening the travel lanes to 12 feet. Build Alternate 4 impacts fewer residences and
businesses, causes less disruption to the community, impacts fewer jurisdictional areas, and
has the least impact to the Section 4(f) Resource, the Joseph Benjamin Neal House.
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
NCDOT proposes to improve approximately 1.6 miles of NC 88 from NC 194 to US 221
Business in the Town of Jefferson as presented in the 2007 - 2013 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Figures Al and A2 in Appendix A present the project vicinity and
location.
4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE & STATUS
This is a state and federally-funded road improvement project. The 2007 - 2013 STIP
established right of way and construction schedules for this project in federal fiscal year 2009
and 2011, respectively.
The Merger 01 Process integrates the activities required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The following chronology presents the completed milestones for the NEPA and
Merger processes:
? August 31, 2000
? November 16, 2000
? April 4, 2001
? December 12, 2001
? December 12, 2001
? August 27, 2002
? March 15, 2005
? June 27, 2006
Began Environmental Assessment
Scoping Meeting
Citizens Informational Workshop
Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose & Need)
Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives to be Studied in Detail)
USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward
& Bridging Decisions)
SHPO Effects Concurrence (Joseph Benjamin Neal House)
The following is a summary of the remaining milestones:
? Extension or update of the USAGE Jurisdictional Determination that expires on
August 27, 2007
? Merger 01 Process Application
9
? NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
? USACE Section 404 Permit
? Public Notice Review for EA document A Section 404 Permit Application
? Public Hearing
? Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA)
? Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance & Minimization)
? Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Report (anticipated)
? Concurrence Point 413 (30% Hydraulic Design)
? Concurrence Point 4C (Permit Drawings Review)
? Right of Way
? Construction Let
4.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THOROUGHFARE PLANS
This project is included in the Jefferson - West Jefferson Transportation Plan Report
(December 2002) and all alternates included in the plan were considered in this proposed
action. Build Alternates 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the thoroughfare plan, which classifies
NC 88 as a major thoroughfare and recommends major widening to improve safety and
increase capacity. Build Alternate 4 includes 3-lane widening for the urban (eastern) portion of
the project and traffic safety improvements at various locations. Although Build Alternate 4 is
not fully consistent with the thoroughfare plan, it does satisfy the purpose and need for this
project.
4.4 ALIGNMENT
The improvements to NC 88 will be on existing location with the exception of the north-to-south
and south-to-north widening transitions incorporated to minimize impacts to the human and
natural environment (the best-fit alignment). The horizontal and vertical alignments have been
designed to improve traffic safety by increasing sight distance at various locations on NC 88.
4.5 RIGHT OF WAY & TYPICAL SECTIONS
The proposed right of way width varies throughout the length of the project. It is dependent
upon the typical section, topography, and individual property constraints. The typical sections
for the build alternates are included in Appendix A.
4.6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, LEVELS OF SERVICE, & SPEED LIMITS
The Jefferson-West Jefferson area has been growing more slowly than originally anticipated
and has experienced about a four to five percent increase in population per year for past several
years. Therefore, the 2002 - 2025 traffic forecast projections were extrapolated to estimate the
2030 traffic volumes. Traffic projections for the 2030 design year range from 12,000 to 14,000
10
vpd. The proposed improvements will result in the facility operating at Level of Service D in the
design year based upon a design speed of 50 mph, a posted speed limit of 45 mph and six
percent truck traffic.
4.7 CULVERTS & BRIDGES
There are no existing bridges on NC 88 and none are proposed. The proposed culverts for the
three major stream crossings presented in Table 5 are based upon the preliminary hydraulic
design recommendations and bridging decisions agreed upon by the Merger Process Team at
its Concurrence Point 2A Meeting on March 15, 2005. The remaining culverts are roadway
culverts less than 72 inches in diameter and small-diameter driveway culverts. It should be
noted that Crossing No. 2, Little Buffalo Creek, would not need to be extended by Build
Alternate 4.
Table 5: Proposed Culverts
Crossing Stream Name Existing Proposed Comments
No. Culvert Culvert
1 - 60"
Tributary of Corrugated REPLACE
1 Naked Creek Steel Pipe
& 1 - 30" With
10' x 6' Concrete Bury invert 12" for fish passage.
(Naked UT-B) Corrugated Box Culvert
Steel Pipe
EXTEND
3 @ 11' x 7' Existing Culvert
With Sills or baffles in culvert
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete
3 @ 11 x Tx 60 extension to retain bed material
Box Culvert
Concrete and promote fish passage.
Box Culvert
Tributary of 2 - 60" REPLACE Intersection realignment will
3 Little Buffalo Creek Corrugated With
9' x 5' Concrete necessitate replacement of
existing culvert; bury invert 12"
(Little Buffalo UT-B) Steel Pipes Box Culvert for fish passage.
4.8 NOISE BARRIERS
Traffic noise abatement measures including buffers, berms, and walls were evaluated, but are
not proposed for this project. Refer to Section 7.14 of this report for a discussion on highway
traffic and construction noise analysis.
4.9 SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are not in use on NC 88. However, the Town of Jefferson is currently developing a
Pedestrian Plan that includes recommendations for sidewalk on one side of NC 88 within the
town limits. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division will continue coordination with the Town of
Jefferson regarding their Pedestrian Plan and sidewalks on NC 88.
11
The proposed curb and gutter sections provide an area behind the curb for sidewalk. NCDOT
will design and construct sidewalks if they are requested by and the funding is shared by the
municipality under agreement with NCDOT.
4.10 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
This section of NC 88 is not listed in the STIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
NC 88 is not included in a state-designated bicycle route system, nor is there any indication of
an unusual volume of bicycle travel on NC 88. Therefore, bicycle lanes are not proposed for
this project.
4.11 ESTIMATED COSTS
Table 6 presents the estimated costs for the build alternates based upon preliminary roadway
design plans.
Table 6: Estimated Costs
1 2 3 4
3-lane 3-lane
3-lane Shoulder Section Shoulder Section
Alternate
Shoulder Section (rural portion) (rural portion) Safety

(entire length) & & Improvements
3-lane C&G Section 5-lane C&G Section
urban portion) urban portion)
Right of Way $ 10,000,000 $ 10,900,000 $ 11,800,000 $ 4,600,000
Construction $ 9,100,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,900,000
Total $ 19,100,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 21,800,000 $ 8,500,000
5.0 RELATED PROJECTS
The following projects are directly related to or near the subject action and depicted on
FigureA1, the Project Vicinity Map, in Appendix A.
5.1 NC 194 BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS-0111 B)
NCDOT is studying the NC 194 Bypass from NC 88 to Mount Jefferson Road. The Feasibility
Studies Unit has conducted a preliminary field investigation and initiated a design study.
5.2 NC 16 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (R-2100)
NCDOT will be upgrading 10 miles of NC 16 from west of the Blue Ridge Parkway to east of
US 221- NC 16. Sections A and C are complete. The planning and design for Section B are in
12
progress. Right of way acquisition for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year
2008. The construction let date for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year 2010.
5.3 US 221 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (R-2310)
NCDOT will be upgrading 9.8 miles of US 221 from NC 16 to the Alleghany County Line. This is
a Strategic Highway Corridor Project. It is currently programmed for planning and
environmental studies only and those are currently in progress. The right of way acquisition and
construction let dates are currently scheduled to be after 2013.
5.4 US 221 WIDENING PROJECT (R-2915)
NCDOT will be widening 16.1 miles of US 221 to a 4-lane divided facility from US 421 in
Watauga County to US 221 Business-NC 88 in Jefferson. This is a Strategic Highway Corridor
Project in the planning and design phase. Portions of the project are funded. The right of way
and construction let dates for Section A are currently scheduled for federal fiscal year 2011 and
2013, respectively. The right of way for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year
2012 and the construction let date is currently scheduled to be after 2013. The remaining
sections are currently scheduled to be after federal fiscal year 2013. The northern terminus for
R-2915 is the eastern terminus for U-3812. The construction schedules and design plans for
R-2915 and U-3812 are being coordinated.
6.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS
6.1 ASHE COUNTY
Ashe County is located in the northwest corner of North Carolina. Ashe County is bounded by
three other counties in North Carolina (Alleghany, Wilkes, Watauga to the east, southeast, and
southwest, respectively), Virginia to the north, and Tennessee to the west.
There are no interstates in Ashe County. NC 88 and US 221 bisect the county in an east-west
direction and NC 16 bisects the county in a north-south direction. NC 88 and US 221 intersect
at the center of Ashe County in the Town of Jefferson, which is the county seat.
6.2 POPULATION BY RACE
The 2000 Census reported that the population of Ashe County is 24,384 persons, approximately
97% are of Caucasian descent, 2% are of Hispanic descent, and less than 1 % of African-
American descent. The demographic profile of the project study area is similar to that of the
county, but different from that of the state with respect to minority populations.. Minorities
'comprise 30% of North Carolina's overall population, but only 6% of the study area population
and only 4% of the county's population.
13
Table 7: Population by Race (2000)
Study Area Ashe County North Carolina
R
ace
Population % Population % Population %
Total Hispanic 260 4.0 590 2.4 378,963 4.7
White 6,173 95.5 23,691 97.2 5,804,656 72,1
Hispanic
(White) 102 1.6 251 1.0 157,501 2.0
Black 65 1.0 162 0.7 1,737,545 21.6
Hispanic
Black 2 0.0 7 0.0 14,244 0.2
American Indian 40 0.6 79 0.3 99,551 1.2
Hispanic
American Indian 31 0.5 39 0.2 4,218 A:1
Asian / Pacific Islander 29 0.4 59 0.2 117,672 1.5
Hispanic
Asian / Pacific Islander 2 0.0 2 0.0 2,091 0.0
Other 157 2.4 393 1.6 289,889 3.6
Totals 6,464 100 24,384 100 8,049,313 100
6.3 POPULATION BY AGE
The percentage of the 2000 population categorized as "18 years and under" was 19.7% in the
study area, slightly lower than the county (21.0%), and lower than the state (25.8%). The
population characterized as 19 to 64 years of age in the study area was very similar to the
county and state percentages. The population categorized as "65 years or above" was 21.4% in
the study area, slightly higher than the county (18.0%), and much higher than the state (12.0%).
Table 8: Population by Age (2000)
A Study Area . Ashe County North Carolina
ge Population % Population % Population %
18 years and under 1,273 19.7 5,116 21.0 2,073,849 25.8
19 to 64 3,807 58.9 14,891 61.1 5,006,416 62.2
65 or above 1,384 21.4 4,377 18.0 969,048 12.0
Totals 6,464 100 24,384 100 8,049,313 100
Median Age 43.1 42.1 35.3
The median age in the study area is 43.1 years as compared with the county at 42.1 years and
the state at 35.3 years. The higher median age in the study area and county might indicate the
presence of an older, retired population.
14
6.4 ECONOMIC STATUS
The median household income for Ashe County has been consistently lower than that of the
state. Data from the 1990 Census indicates that the study area had a median household
income of $19,877, slightly higher than the median in the county of $18,951, but much less than
the median in North Carolina at $26,647.
Table 9: Income & Poverty Status (1990)
Study Area Ashe County North Carolina
Criteria
Number % Number % Number %
Median HH Income $19,877 74.6 $18,951 71.1 $26,647 100
Per Capita Income $10,137 78.7 $9,545 74.1 $12,885 100
Persons below 1
007 17.7 4,040 18.4 829,855 13.0
Poverty Level ,
Persons below 281 4.9 1,118 5.1 332,966 5.2
50% Poverty Level
In 1990, the percentage of the population that lived below the poverty level in the study area
was 36% higher than the corresponding percentage in the state and similar to the percentage in
the county.
6.5 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
The 1990 median home value for the study area was 8% higher than the county average and
6% below the state average. The homeownership rate for the study area was 7%0 lower than
the county percentage and 8% above the state percentage. The median rental rate for the
study area was lower than the county and state rates. The home values and the homeowner
and rental rates are presented in Table 10.
Table 10: Housing Characteristics (1990)
Factor Study Area Ashe County North Carolina
Median Home Values $61,613 $57,200 $65,300
Homeownership Rates 75.6% 82.7% 68.0%
Median Rental Rates $253 $265 $382
6.6 BUSINESSES & EMPLOYMENT
Businesses in the Town of Jefferson include primarily retail and light industrial activities. Ashe
Memorial Hospital and the associated Long Term Skilled Nursing Home are located on NC 88
approximately 1 mile east of US 221 Business. The hospital primarily serves residents of
15
Jefferson and West Jefferson, but also serves the remainder of the county. The combined
employment for both facilities is 335 persons. Hospital employees, patients, guests, and
emergency services vehicles utilize NC 88 in daily operations.
Large portions of Ashe County remain agricultural in nature. Christmas trees are a dominant
crop throughout the county.
The most prominent business on NC 88 is McFarland Publishing Company. McFarland
employs approximately 35 persons in production and editing services and operates in national
and international markets. The company is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the
Jefferson Town Limit and housed in two buildings opposite one another on NC 88. Business
operations require pedestrian traffic to cross NC 88 on a daily basis.
6.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
6.7.1 Schools
There are six schools within 11 miles of the project, Ashe County Middle School and Blue Ridge
Elementary School in Warrensville, Mountain View Elementary School and Ashe County High
School in Jefferson, Fleetwood Elementary School in Fleetwood, and West Jefferson
Elementary School in West Jefferson. School buses, staff members, and parents from these
schools drive NC 88 regularly during the school season.
Wilkes Community College has one of its two satellite campuses in Jefferson. The college has
1,100 students and a faculty and staff of over 100 persons. Students and staff members drive
NC 88 throughout the year with increased usage during the afternoon and evening hours. The
college intends to increase the student population by 15 to 20 percent in the immediate future.
6.7.2 Hospitals
Ashe Memorial Hospital is located on NC 88. It is a 76-bed, full-service hospital with a 24-hour
emergency room. A 60-bed, long-term, skilled nursing home is located adjacent to the hospital.
Both facilities primarily serve the Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson, but also serve the
remainder of Ashe County as well as bordering counties in Tennessee and Virginia.
6.7.3 Churches
Four churches are located on NC 88 in the project study area, Mount Paddy Church, Kingdom
Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jefferson United Methodist Church, and Fletcher Memorial Baptist
Church.
6.7.4 Public Transportation Systems
Ashe County does not operate public transportation systems and none are planned for the near
future.
6.7.5 Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services
The project area is served by the Jefferson Fire Station, which is located approximately % mile
north of NC 88 on the western boundary of the Town of Jefferson. The Ashe County Sheriff's
16
Department serves the project area outside of the Jefferson Town Limits. The Jefferson Police
Department serves the project area with the town limits. Both law enforcement offices are
located in the Town of Jefferson. Blue Ridge Medical Transport provides emergency medical
services throughout Ashe County and transports patients to Ashe Memorial Hospital and other
hospitals and care facilities in the area.
7.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
7.1 LAND USE
The majority of land in the project study area is used for residential purposes. Ashe County
does not have a zoning ordinance and there are no formal plans for land development along this
section of NC 88. This project is not likely to affect the potential for or pace of either commercial
or residential development in the project vicinity, nor should it change the existing land use
patterns.
7.2 COMMUNITY STABILITY & NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION
The properties in the western (rural) portion of the project study area are occupied by older,
single-family dwellings with larger lots, a church, and scattered businesses. Some of these
properties will be reduced in size by adding lanes, correcting the road curvature, and improving
the side slopes. The rural community should remain relatively unchanged with the exception of
right of way acquisition adjacent to NC 88.
The properties in the eastern (urban) portion of the project area are occupied by a mix of single-
family dwellings, apartment buildings, and commercial businesses. Many of these properties
have little or no setback from the road. Dependent upon their distance from NC 88 and the
particular widening alternate selected, one or more of these properties will be impacted.
Driveways and parking areas will be altered or relocated. Specific residences and businesses
might need to be relocated to improve NC 88 in this area. This project will impact the residential
community within the town limits and possibly lead to replacement of these properties with
commercial uses.
17

Photo 3: Mixed Land Use in Jefferson
7.3 FARMLANDS & SOILS
Agricultural operations exist in the project region and vicinity, but properties in the project study
area are primarily used for residential purposes.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). These soils are delineated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based upon crop yield and level of input of economic resources.
Approximately 9,000 acres (3%) of Ashe County meet the requirements for prime farmland.
According to the list of soil types that are considered prime farmland within the USDA Soil
Survey of Ashe County (1985), none of the predominant soils in the project area are considered
prime farmland. Therefore, Form AD 1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) was not
processed through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for this project. Refer to
Section 8.3.2 of this report for a detailed description of the most-prevalent soil types within the
project study area.
7.4 CHANGE IN COMMUTING PATTERNS
This project will increase the capacity for eastbound and westbound travel between the Town of
Jefferson and NC 194 and improve congestion related to truck traffic. The proposed widening
should not cause major shifts in commuting patterns for the area because of the limited number
of households along the highway and the absence of parallel roads comparable to NC 88.
18
7.5 STREET & DRIVEWAY ACCESS
A majority of the project study area is rural. With the exception of one apartment complex and
single-family dwellings within the Town of Jefferson, residential development is sparse.
Commercial development is primarily located in the Town of Jefferson. Based upon the
demographic studies for the project region, the potential for development appears limited.
Therefore, street and driveway access will continue to be permitted in accordance with the
NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways (July 2003).
7.6 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE ACCESS
Sidewalks are not in use on NC 88. However, the Town of Jefferson is currently developing a
Pedestrian Plan that includes recommendations for sidewalk on one side of NC 88 within the
town limits. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division will continue coordination with the Town of
Jefferson regarding their Pedestrian Plan and sidewalks on NC 88.
The proposed curb and gutter sections provide an area behind the curb for sidewalk. NCDOT
will design and construct sidewalks if they are requested by and the funding is shared by the
municipality under agreement with NCDOT.
This section of NC 88 is not listed in the STIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
NC 88 is not included in a state-designated bicycle route system, nor is there any indication of
an unusual volume of bicycle travel on NC 88. Therefore, bicycle lanes are not proposed for
this project.
7.7 PARKING
Off-street parking is accommodated on private properties. On-street parking is not allowed on
NC 88, nor is it proposed by this action. Dependent upon the alternate selected and the
location of the right of way and the cut and fill slopes, parking spaces for some businesses
along NC 88 might be removed and relocated further away from the road.
7.8 PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES
The existing public facilities and services in the project study area include an electrical
substation, four churches, county offices, six schools, one community college, one hospital, one
nursing home, an emergency medical services transport company, the Jefferson Police
Department, and the Ashe County Sheriff's Department.
Although the northern boundary of the parcel occupied by the electrical substation might be
cleared and regraded, the substation itself will not be directly impacted by this road widening
project. The potential exists for one of the churches to be relocated, and the driveways, parking
spaces, or landscaping for the other churches to be altered, eliminated, or relocated by this
project. The proposed road improvements should decrease response times for the fire
department and emergency services, and commuting times for local residents and those
traveling through the area.
19
The proposed widening of NC 88 should not result in an increased demand for public facilities
and services within the project study area. Population-serving facilities such as parks, schools,
police substations, and day care centers would be more apt to locate within areas where
residential and commercial growth is taking place, which is not the case in the project study
area.
7.9 RELOCATIONS
The number of relocations was estimated based upon the preliminary roadway design plans. It
should be noted that the actual relocations will be based upon final roadway design plans and
the required right of way for the proposed widening and improvements. Table 11 is a summary
of the estimated relocations for the four build alternates.
Table 11: Estimated Relocations
Sector Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4
Owners 5 5 7 1.

id
R
ti
l Tenants 9 19 22 0
es
en
a Minorities 2 2 4 0
Total 14 24 29 1
Owners 3 3 4 1

B
i Tenants 1 1 2 0
us
nesses
Minorities
0
0
0
0
Total 4 4 6 1
Owners 0 0 0 0

F Tenants 0 0 0 0
arms
Minorities
0
0
0
0
Total 0 0 0 0
Owners 0 0 0 0

N
fit
P Tenants 1 1 1 0
ro
on- Minorities 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 1 0
Owners 8 8 11 2

T
l
t Tenants 11 21 25 0
o
a
s
Minorities
2
2
4
0
Total 19 29 36 2
20
NCDOT will provide assistance and counseling to those affected by transportation
improvements. The North Carolina Board of Transportation offers programs that address
relocation assistance, moving payments and replacement housing payments or rent subsidies
for residents and businesses that are impacted by transportation improvement projects. The
NCDOT Relocation Policies and Programs are presented in Appendix C for reference.
7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Federal programs, under the statutes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, have
requirements to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, age, sex, disability, and religion. Furthermore, Executive Order 12898 "directs that
programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effect on minority and low-income populations."
This project includes improvements to NC 88 on existing location. The alignment of the four
build alternates does not discriminate based upon race, religion, or creed. Minority populations
comprise approximately 6% of the project study area. Alternate 1 has 19 relocations including
two (10.5%) minorities. Alternate 2 has 29 relocations including two (6.9%) minorities.
Alternate 3 has 36 relocations including four (11.1 %) minorities. Alternate 4 has two relocations
including no minorities. Therefore, this project will not have a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on minorities.
The study area had a median household income of $19,877 in 1990, as compared to Ashe
County at $18,951 and the overall state at $26,647. Dependent upon the alternate selected,
two to 36 property owners are expected to be relocated, one of which earns an annual income
of $15,000 or less, four to nine of which earn incomes ranging from $15,000 to $25,000, and the
majority earns $25,000 or more. This project will not have a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on low-income populations.
NCDOT has solicited public involvement throughout this project with a public notice and a
citizens informational workshop. Based upon the demographic findings and public comments,
environmental justice issues have not been raised.
7.11 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND WATERSHEDS
Wild and scenic rivers are not located in the project vicinity. However, three of the four build
alternates under consideration for this project would impact a portion of Little Buffalo Creek,
which is a tributary of the New River. The New River is one of the few south-to-north flowing
rivers in the country and is a nationally-designated scenic river. The New River and its
watershed are included in the Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere Reserve.
The Little Buffalo Creek is one of 37 streams in the Upper New River Watershed and is the
uppermost watershed of the New River. Due to the pristine ranking of the Little Buffalo Creek
Watershed, utmost care should be taken during construction and stabilization activities to
protect the quality of this watershed and therefore protect the New River Watershed.
21
7.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES
7.12.1 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and regulations entitled, Protection of Historic Properties (36CFR Part
800), as implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 requires
federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and affords the Advisory Council an
opportunity to comment.
This action is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, as amended. Section 4(f) requires all departments of transportation to avoid
publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of a
historic site of national, state, or local significance. If a transportation program or project
requires the use of any of these publicly-owned lands, it must be demonstrated that there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to using them, and the program or project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to them resulting from such use.
NCDOT's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is documented in Sections
7.12.2 through 7.12.5 of this report.
7.12.2 Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT conducted an architectural survey in the Area of Potential Effects for structures listed in
the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for nomination to the National Register. The
findings are presented in the Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report - Final
Identification and Evaluation (July 2001). None of the properties in the area are listed in the
National Register. The survey included 12 buildings over 50 years of age. Eleven of those
properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
NCDOT concluded that one property, the Joseph Benjamin Neal House, is eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C (design/construction). The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that the Neal House is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C for Architecture as a rare surviving
dwelling constructed in Jefferson during the late nineteenth century. The SHPO also concurred
that the proposed boundary should be the entire parcel. A copy of their August 31, 2001
eligibility letter is included in Appendix D for reference. Refer to Sections 7.12.3 and 7.12.4 for
discussions on the Section 106 Assessment of Effects and the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for
the Joseph Benjamin Neal House.
7.12.3 Section 106 Assessment of Effects (Joseph Benjamin Neal House)
Representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office, the Federal Highway Administration
and NCDOT met on March 15, 2004, December 6, 2005, December 20, 2005, and June 27,
2006 to discuss the assessment of effects to the Joseph Benjamin Neal House from this
proposed action. The SHPO rendered the following decisions regarding the four build
alternates as documented in two Concurrence Forms for Assessment of Effects (December 20,
2005 and June 27, 2006), which are included in Appendix B of this report.
22
Build Alta 1 (3-lane shoulder section for entire project length) 4
Build Alt. 2
Build Alt. 3
Build Alt. 4
(3-lane shoulder section in rural portion
& 3-lane curb and gutter section in urban section) 4
(3-lane shoulder section in rural portion
& 5-lane curb and gutter section in urban section) 4
Safety Improvements
No Adverse Effect
No Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
4 No Adverse Effect
It should be noted that Build Alternate 4 was previously known as Design Option 10 or Study
Alternative 10 during the June 27, 2006 Effects Concurrence Meeting and in the Concurrence
Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, the State Historic Preservation Office, and
NCDOT.
As a condition of the No Adverse Effect calls for Build Alternates 1, 2, and 4, the existing
driveway will be realigned to maintain the existing character of the property.
In response to the assessment of effects, a Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared for the
Joseph Benjamin Neal House and is presented in Section 7.12.4 of this report.
7.12.4 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (Joseph Benjamin Neal House)
7.12.4.1 Proposed Action
NCDOT proposes to improve approximately 1.6 miles of NC 88 from NC 194 to US 221
Business in the Town of Jefferson as presented in the 2007 - 2013 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Figures Al and A2 in Appendix A present the project vicinity and
location.
The purpose of this action is to improve safety on NC 88 and improve a link between NC 194
and the existing multilane section in the Town of Jefferson. The need is based upon correcting
a restricted cross section in mountainous terrain with poor horizontal and vertical alignment.
This action proposes to widen existing NC 88 from a two-lane road to a three-lane road in the
vicinity of the Section 4(f) Resource, the Neal Property, by adding a center lane for left turns. In
order to avoid relocation of residences and businesses on the south side of NC 88, this action
proposes widening to the north on a vacant portion of the Neal Property.
7.12.4.2 Section 4(f) Property Description
The Section 4(f) resource, the Joseph Benjamin Neal House, is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion C (design/construction). It is one of the few
remaining examples of late-nineteenth century domestic architecture in the Town of Jefferson.
The house retains architectural integrity, integrity of setting, and is still occupied by a member of
the Neal Family. The Neal Property is located on the north side of NC 88 approximately 200
feet west of the intersection of NC 88 and US 221 Business. The house is situated on the west
side of the 10.325-acre property (Tax Parcel # 09263-001-060) currently owned by Sarah
Gordon Neal, the granddaughter of Joseph Benjamin Neal, and assumed to be used as a
single-family residence. The proposed National Register Boundary includes the entire 10.325-
acre parcel.
23
N Ashe County NC Tax Parcel Data
W+E Parcel: 09263-001-060 Account: 111,86 DB: 203 Pg: 2006 Yr: 1995
?Y/ Owner: NEAL, SARAH GORDON
s map, 2978.03 Block: 11 Lot: 5342
Figure 2: Neal Property Tax Parcel Map
24

Photo 4: Looking Northwest toward Neal Property
The circa 1893 Joseph Benjamin Neal House is a two-story, three-bay, center-hall, frame house
with white weatherboard siding, a red, standing-seam metal roof, and three brick chimneys.
Photo 5: Joseph Benjamin Neal House (south elevation)
25

Photo 6: Joseph Benjamin Neal House (north elevation)
7.12.4.3 Impacts on the Section 4(f) Property
All of the build alternates would impact the vacant frontage of the Neal Property. The frontage
is occupied by a roadside ditch, the driveway entrance, several living and dead trees, and scrub
growth including vines and weeds (Photo 4). This portion of the Section 4(f) Resource has not
been maintained and does not allow for an unobstructed view of the house and grounds.
Table 12 Impacts to Section 4(f) Resource from Build Alternates
Is Total Percentage

Alt.
Description
Avoidance Impact
of Section 4(f) Qualitative
Possible ? Acreage Property Impact

1 3-lane

shoulder section
No
1.0 ac
9.7%
Next to Greatest
2 3-lane
curb & gutter section No 0.8 ac 7.7% Next to Least
3 5-lane'
curb & gutter section No 1.1 ac 10.6% Greatest
4 Safety Improvements No 0.4 ac 3.9% Least
26
27
Figure 3: Relative Impacts to Section 4(f) Resource from Build Alternates
During the Assessment of Effects Meetings with the Federal Highway Administration and the
State Historic Preservation Office on December 20, 2005 and June 27, 2006, it was concluded
that Build Alternates 1, 2, and 4 would have no adverse effect on the resource and that Build
Alternate 3 would have an adverse effect. From a qualitative standpoint, Build Alternate 3
would have the greatest impact, followed by Build Alternates 1 and 2, and Build Alternate 4
would have the least impact.
During the June 27, 2006 Assessment of Effects Meeting, the State Historic Preservation Office
concluded that Build Alternate 4, the alternate recommended by NCDOT, would have minimal
impact on the property. Other than realignment of the driveway to maintain the character of the
property, there would be no appreciable reduction of historic vegetation since the roadside
frontage is largely scrub.
The anticipated impacts from this project to the vacant frontage of the Neal Property should not
diminish the resource and would probably improve the visual setting of the property. Noise level
increases of about three decibels are anticipated, but are not considered substantial increases
over the existing ambient traffic noise levels of 53 to 65 decibels. It can be reasonably
concluded that impacts from this project, and in particular Build Alternate 4, would not cause
substantial impairment and does not provide constructive use of the Section 4(f) Resource.
7.12.4.4 Avoidance Alternatives
Feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to widening on existing location are not apparent.
The proposed National Register Boundary for the Joseph Benjamin Neal Property is
coincidental with the right of way line for NC 88. Due to the close proximity of the Neal Property
to the intersection of NC 88 and US 221 Business, any widening of the road near that property
would necessarily involve acquisition of property frontage. Alternatives on new location to avoid
the Neal property would require additional clearing and cutting into the mountainous slope on
the south side of NC 88, realignment of the US 221 Business intersection, and relocation of
additional residences and businesses in the vicinity of the intersection.
7.12.4.5 Measures to Minimize Harm to Section 4(f) Property
Best-fit alignments were designed for all of the build alternates to minimize impacts to the Neal
Property and the other residences and businesses at the intersection of NC 88 and US 221
Business. Additional measures (reduced design speed, steeper side slopes, and/or retaining
walls) to minimize harm to the property will be considered after the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative is selected.
7.12.4.6 Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with the Federal Highway Administration and the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding National Register eligibility and effects determination for this
property. The SHPO rendered a call of No Adverse Effect for Alternate 1, Alternate 2, and
Alternate 4, but rendered an Adverse Effect call for Alternate 3.
After this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation has been circulated and reviewed, NCDOT will continue
consultation with the Federal Highway Administration and the State Historic Preservation Office,
and prepare a Final Section 4(f) Evaluation to present the conclusions regarding the Joseph
Benjamin Neal House.
28
7.12.5 Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office requested an archaeological survey to identify the
presence and significance of archeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by this
project. An archaeological survey was conducted on April 4-6, 2001 for the area of potential
effect as documented in the Archaeological Survey Report (May 2001). Most of the project area
held low potential for archaeological deposits except for three distinct locations. Subsurface
testing was conducted in those locations. One site (31Ah224/224**) was discovered during the
course of the investigation, but it did not yield archaeological deposits eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. The report concluded that no further archaeological
investigations are warranted prior to construction and a finding of "no historic properties
affected" is appropriate for this project. However, if construction staging is to take place outside
of the Area of Potential Effects, additional testing will be required.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the findings and recommendations from
the Archaeological Survey Report. They recommended no additional investigations since the
project will not affect significant archaeological resources. A copy of their July 10, 2001 letter is
included in Appendix D for reference.
7.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7.13.1 Purpose & Methodology
The Geotechnical Engineering Unit conducted a Geoenviron mental Impact Evaluation for this
project. The purpose was to identify properties within the project study area that have the
potential to be contaminated by hazardous materials and result in future environmental liability.
These hazards include underground storage tanks, hazardous waste, regulated landfills, and
unregulated dumpsites. A field reconnaissance was conducted and regulatory databases were
reviewed to identify sites listed in the study area.
7.13.2 Hazardous Waste Facilities, Superfund Sites, Landfills, and Dumpsites
Geoenvi ron mental personnel conducted database research and did not identify apparent
hazardous waste facilities, Superfund sites, landfills, or dumpsites within the project limits.
7.13.3 UST Sites
Geoenvironmental personnel discovered four regulated (commercial) sites which now or
formerly operated underground storage tanks (USTs) at the intersection of NC 88 and US 221
Business in the Town of Jefferson. The locations of the UST sites are shown on Figure A5 in
Appendix A. These sites have the potential to be contaminated and could be impacted by this
road widening project. The possibility also exists for unregulated USTs (farm tanks or home.
heating oil tanks) to be discovered and impacted by this project. The UST sites should be
identified by Right of Way personnel during initial contacts with the property owners. The
Geotechnical Engineering Unit should be notified prior to acquisition. The Geoenviron mental
Section will conduct additional geoenvironmental assessments, including geophysical surveys,
and make recommendations for tank removals and remediation, as warranted.
29
Table 13: UST Sites
Site
Number Site Name Address Property Owner
1 The Hair Station 101-A North Main Street Ronnie Cope
2 Northwest Emergency Vehicles 105 North Main Street (unknown)
3 Carolina Printing & Supply 102 South Main Street (unknown)
4 Central Cycle Sales Yamaha 102 North Main Street (unknown)
7.14 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
7.14.1 Purpose & Methodology
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the subject action on noise levels in the
project study area. It included an inventory of existing noise-sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine whether traffic noise impacts
would increase after NC 88 is widened and improved. Traffic noise impacts were determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise as
presented in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23CFR772). An
evaluation of noise abatement measures was conducted for the predicted traffic noise impacts.
7.14.2 Ambient Traffic' Noise Levels
Ambient (existing) traffic noise levels in the project study area at a distance of 50 feet from the
edge of pavement were measured at 53 to 65 decibels on the weighted-A decibel scale (dBA).
A background noise level of 45 dBA was measured when traffic noise was not the predominant
source. None of the receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria if NC 88 is not widened. However, the receptors could anticipate an
increase in exterior noise levels of approximately three dBA due to increases in traffic over time,
and that would not be considered a substantial increase in noise impacts.
7.14.3 Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project will be earth removal, hauling, grading, and
paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for
passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations.
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the general
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
7.14.4 Receptors
Nineteen receptors are predicted to be impacted by highway traffic noise if the road is not
widened and improved. Eighteen receptors are predicted to be impacted by increases in
highway traffic noise from the 3-lane alternates and twenty-one receptors from the 5-lane
30
alternate. Irrespective of the alternate selected for this widening project, the predicted noise
level increases range from zero to +7 dBA. The noise level increases anticipated by any of the
alternates or combination of alternates on this project are not considered substantial.
7.14.5 Abatement Measures
FHWA developed Noise Abatement Criteria and procedures to be used in the planning and
design of highways to determine whether noise levels are compatible with various land uses.
The following noise abatement measures were considered, but eliminated based upon their
impracticality or inconsistency with the project context.
? Alternative highway alignments
? Reduction of the posted speed limit
? Acquisition of property for buffer zones
? Berms or walls
An alternative highway alignment is not a viable alternative for this project due to the purpose of
and need for this project and the limitations of the mountainous topography.
Reducing the posted speed limit was considered as a potential noise abatement measure.
However, unless the speed limit is reduced by more than 10 mph, the reduction in traffic noise
would only be approximately 1 to 2 dBA and the capacity of the facility would be reduced to a
posted speed limit of 35 mph.
Acquisition of property for buffer zones was also considered, but deemed infeasible since it
would require a vegetative barrier 100 feet in width to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels.
This would require massive cuts and fills and relocation of the property owners that would
benefit from the buffer. The cost of the additional right of way and sufficient vegetation is
estimated to exceed the abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor.
Each property owner will necessarily have direct access to NC 88 in accordance with the
NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways (July 2003).
Physical noise abatement measures such as berms and walls were also considered, but
determined to be inappropriate based upon the context of the area and access to NC 88. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet
long. An access opening of 40 feet (10% of the area) would limit noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA. Based upon the mountainous topography, the required distance from the
road, and the need for regular access openings, the effectiveness and practicality of a berm or
wall would be greatly reduced and would preclude their use as a noise abatement measure on
this project.
7.15 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
This project is located in Ashe County, which has been determined to comply with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Parts
51 and 93 are not applicable. This proposed action is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
31
7.15.1 Purpose & Methodology
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide (SOA and lead (Pb) in order of decreasing emission rates. Automobiles
are considered the major source of CO in the project study area. This air quality analysis was
conducted primarily to determine the expected CO levels from vehicle emissions. The local CO
concentration was determined using line source computer modeling and the background
component from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR). Once the two concentration components were determined, they were added'
together to determine the ambient carbon monoxide (CO) concentration for the project study
area and compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This analysis
satisfies the assessment requirements for air quality included in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA Process.
7.15.2 Traffic Volumes
The traffic volumes used in this analysis were based on the annual average daily traffic
projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2005,
2010, and 2025.
7.15.3 Background CO Concentration
The background CO concentration for the project study area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
million (ppm), which is acceptable for most suburban and rural areas.
7.15.4 Predicted CO Concentrations
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be at the intersection of NC 88 and
US 221 Business. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the years 2005, 2010,
and 2025 are 6.8, 6.9, and 7.1 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO
concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm;
8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
7.15.5 Hydrocarbons & Nitrogen Oxides
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NO).
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where
they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these
technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the roads.
7.15.6 Particulates & Sulfur Dioxide
Automobiles are not significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Highway
sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2
percent of sulfur dioxide emissions nationwide. Particulate emissions are predominantly the
result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because
emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, additional
traffic generated by this project is not expected to increase concentrations of sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter beyond the NAAQS.
32
7.15.7 Lead
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead emits lead as it is burned. Lead was added by the refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of
leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Therefore, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
7.15.8 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
7.15.8.1 General
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from. human-made
sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air
Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment.
Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates
or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete
combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from
engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control .
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce
on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph.
33
Figure 4: U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
VS.
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VW
(trillions/year)
6
DPN+L16?G (-w%
3
Fomatle" K6%,
?D?laDtVde Wx)
1,3-Biladine Ghc;
Am* It ($3%
0
2000
100,000
Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion
of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant.
VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM +
DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from
diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards
were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority
of CAA Section 202(1) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21
and the primary six MSATs.
7.15.8.2 Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However,
available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the
emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the
following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b))
regarding incomplete or unavailable information.
7.15.8.3 Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project
would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order
to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling
in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final
determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is
encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete
determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
Emissions
(tonslyear)
200,000
34
2005 2010 2015 2020
• Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has
limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model. Emission
factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles and on average speeds for this
typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission
factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time.
Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and
levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot
adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the
model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission
rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE
6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity
rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative
analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT
emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and
performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not
sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to
predict emissions near specific roadside locations.
Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's
current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated
more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon
monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion
models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some
time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to
predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations
across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting
research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the
analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of
documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the
general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also
faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific
MSAT background concentrations.
Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations
of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for
exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful
conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult
because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near
roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to
those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year
cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be
made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects
emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties
associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs because of
factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to
the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in
health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
35
associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments
would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information
against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
7.15.8.4 Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts
of MSATs
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are
a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health
outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to
large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency
conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates
of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of
or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate
the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health
effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS
database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six
prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization
summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the
Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or
mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data
are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure.
• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans,
and sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the
combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary
noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function
and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure
relationships have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways.
The Health Effects Institute, anon-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has
undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
36
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of
the series is not expected for several years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs,
instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot
evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that
would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.
' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000);
Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship
between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air
Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health
studies cited therein.
7.15.8.5 Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably
Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of
impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted
in the scientific community
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic
emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools
do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger
projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT
concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with
enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current
emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller
projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant
adverse impacts on the human environment."
For each alternative in this EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for
each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase
in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes.
The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased
speeds. According to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs
except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these
speed-related emissions decrease will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be
reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is expected
there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various
alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than
present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT
growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected
37
reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study
area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lane contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of
moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses. Therefore, under each
alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be
higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. However, as discussed
above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build
alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In
sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level
of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative,
but this could be offset due to reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT
emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover,
will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide
MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
7.16 VISUAL IMPACTS
NC 88 is a two-lane road winding through mountainous terrain. The aesthetics along this
section of NC 88 will change as a result of reducing the curvature and widening the road in
particular locations. The sight distance will be increased and a dedicated turn lane will be
provided in those locations. Curb and gutter will provide defined driveways for properties in the
Town of Jefferson.
8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
8.1 PURPOSE
A study including the following tasks was conducted to document the existing natural resources
in the project study area.
? Assessment of biological features including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands, and water quality issues
? Mapping of specific resources including plant community distribution, jurisdictional
surface waters and wetlands, and potential habitat for endangered species
? Evaluation of potential impacts resulting from this project
? Determination of permitting needs
8.2 METHODOLOGY
The following sources provided resource data reviewed during this study.
38
? Braddock-Urban land complex: This is a non-hydric soil comprised of areas of Braddock
soils and areas of urban land on slopes of 2 to 15%. The seasonal high water table is
below six feet and permeability is moderate. This soil is strongly acid to very strongly
acid throughout. The erosion hazard is severe on exposed areas.
? Clifton loam: This is a non-hydric, well-drained soil found on upper side slopes of 8 to
25% at elevations of 2,800 to 3,200 feet. The seasonal high water table is below six feet
and permeability is moderate. This soil is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout.
The erosion hazard is severe on exposed areas.
? Porters stony loam: This is a non-hydric, well-drained soil found on the 25 to 60% side
slopes bordering drainage patterns in the higher mountains. The seasonal high water
table is below six feet and permeability is moderately rapid. This soil is medium acid to
strongly acid throughout.
? Toxaway loam: This is a hydric, nearly level, poorly-drained to very-poorly-drained soil
found along the major streams in the county. The soil is subject to frequent flooding for
brief periods from November to March and has a seasonal high water table at or near
the surface from November to April. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow
to ponded.
? Watauga loam: This is a non-hydric, well-drained, micaceous soil found on 25 to 45%
side slopes bordering drainage patterns. The seasonal high water table is below six feet
and permeability is moderate. This soil is medium acid to strongly acid. The erosion
hazard is severe on exposed areas.
8.3.3 Water Resources
Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources. Surface water
resources and impact minimization methods are also discussed. This project is located within
the New River Basin, USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001, and DWQ's 05-07-01 (South Fork New
River) and 05-07-02 (North Fork New River) sub-basins.
8.3.3.1 Surface Water Characteristics
Little Buffalo Creek, one pond, and seven unnamed tributaries are located within the project
study area. Little Buffalo Creek and five of the unnamed tributaries are perennial waters. The
remaining two tributaries are intermittent. Stream classification determinations were made
according to the January 16, 2003 revision of DWQ's Internal Policy. This revision states that a
numerical cutoff of 30 points on the DWQ Stream Classification Form is adequate for perennial
stream determination. The previously approved policy of 19 as the numerical cutoff for
intermittent classification has been used to differentiate between intermittent and ephemeral
streams. In cases where the numerical value for perennial was not met, biological indicators
such as presence of fish, crayfish, amphibians, or benthic macroinvertebrates were used in the
determination. Specific stream characteristics are listed in Table 14.
40
L
V
L
V
L
et
T
O
R
F-
f?
C
tf)
?-
O
N
N
G c M N N N M
C
O
+?' m ? m m ? m m m
v c c c c c c
O E N N ? N O N
N N
a ? N
a N
a N N N
a N
a.
?a
V
o-0
C
C ti o O
z
p
m U.
m
Y

O 0 O -0 - O - O
-
0
O _
O
O _
O -0
O

W ? Y
w, 'p ??c/c? O N cn

L
O
co S
cn

H

? a
?'
N
O
O

U
O

a
N

co > m
U a) a>
U
U
0 U U m

t
d Q. W

j3 Z N
N N
= N
r M M
d L (?
r C I
? ? N N
Q (Q v

3?w
O M N 14

aa) Q Q m U
FL ?L FL FL <
O 0 0 o O o
`
.r
U) ?
m 0
m 0
m ?
m 0
m 0
m CD CD
ai o a, 0 0 0
w
z
cu
z

J J J J J J

Three unnamed perennial tributaries (Little Buffalo UT-A1, Little Buffalo UT-B, and UT-D) and
two unnamed intermittent tributaries (Little Buffalo UT-A and Little Buffalo UT-C) are located in
the western portion of the project study area. Both discharge into Little Buffalo Creek (DWQ
Stream Index # 10-2-20-1), which flows to the North Fork New River approximately 4 miles
downstream. Little Buffalo Creek is described in the July 2000 New River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan as "biologically impaired" and is currently rated as "partially supporting." Sources
of pollution are both point-source, from the West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
non-point-source from extensive loss of riparian vegetation and urban runoff/storm sewers from
the Town of West Jefferson. Riparian buffer zones have been eliminated in many locations,
while only grass exists in others.

Photo 7 : Little Buffalo Creek Parallel to NC 88
Little Buffalo Creek begins on the east side of the Town of West Jefferson and flows northerly
from that point towards NC 88. The stream flows through a triple barrel, 11' x 7' concrete box
culvert under NC 88 approximately 1,300 feet east of NC 194. Little Buffalo Creek flows north
under NC 88 and then flows westerly parallel to NC 88 before turning northwest and flowing
parallel to NC 194. During the site visit, the stream flow was 10 to 12 feet wide and 6 to 12
inches deep. The substrate consists of mostly gravel, sand, and silt. South of NC 88, the
stream flows between a forested area and a small agricultural field. North of NC 88, the stream
parallels the roadway and the riparian zone is comprised of a maintained yard.
42

Photo 8: Little Buffalo Creek at NC 88
( Triple Barrel 11' x 7' Concrete Box Culvert )
Little Buffalo UT-A is a small intermittent stream on the west side of NC 194 at the intersection
with NC 88. It flows eastward through a residential yard and then into a small pipe culvert under
NC 194. The stream has been channelized into an 18-inch-wide concrete trough through the
yard. During the site visit, the stream had a very low flow and the water was clear. Some small
cobbles, gravel, and sand have accumulated in the trough. A small spring on the south side of
the yard has been piped to the stream just above the road culvert. A roadside ditch also enters
the stream channel from the south.
Approximately 300 feet east of NC 194, Little Buffalo UT-B crosses through two, 42-inch
reinforced concrete pipe culverts under NC 88 and flows into Little Buffalo Creek from the south.
The tributary is a small perennial stream, three-feet wide, with a clear flow two to four inches
deep during the site visit. South of NC 88, the stream flows beside a yard and has a substrate
of mostly cobbles and gravel. The culverts discharge several feet above the stream channel on
the north side of NC 88 and then into Little Buffalo Creek.
Little Buffalo UT-C is a small intermittent stream that begins from several seeps'on a steep
forested slope north of NC 88. The defined channel is not continuous as the flow goes
subsurface in several areas along the slope down through the project study area. An old spring
box was noted just above the project study area. The channel drops steeply into the roadside
ditch along NC 88 and then into an 18-inch diameter culvert under the road. South of NC 88,
the stream discharges from the culvert and into a second culvert under Doggett Road near
NC 88. South of Doggett Road, the stream flows through an open channel between pastures
before entering Little Buffalo Creek. The stream flow was clear and about six inches wide and
one inch deep during the site visit.
Little Buffalo UT-D is a small perennial stream that begins at a small pond 0.2 miles north of
NC 88 and flows southward through a 36-inch culvert under NC 88. The stream channel is
about 40 feet below the roadway elevation. The stream flow was clear, two feet wide, and one
to two inches deep during the site visit. The stream substrate consists of large cobbles, sand,
43
and silt. South of NC 88, the stream enters another culvert north of Doggett Road, flows under
a residential yard and a commercial site, and into Little Buffalo Creek south of the project study
area. The channel flows through a disturbed, forested riparian area within the project study
area.
Within the eastern portion of the project study area, there are two unnamed tributaries, Naked
UT-A and UT-B, and a small pond (Pond 100) that form the headwaters of Naked Creek (DWQ
Stream Index #10-1-32). Naked Creek flows eastward along NC 88 and enters the South Fork
New River approximately 4.5 miles below the project study area. Naked Creek is described in
the July, 2000 New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan as "not supporting" due to habitat
degradation, non- point source runoff from urban areas, and development in Jefferson as well as
excess nutrients below the Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Pond 100 is approximately 0.3 acres in size and is located along the south side of NC 88 near
the Jefferson Town Limit sign. During the July 2002 site visit, the pond depth appeared to be
down about two feet as compared with the level observed during the July 2003` site visit. Water
clarity in the pond was slightly cloudy on the day of the site visits. Wetland 200 is located at the
upper end of the pond. The wetland area is located below NC 88 at the base of a 20-foot fill
slope and receives stormwater from the roadway.
Naked UT-A is a small perennial stream that flows from a pond 0.2 miles north of NC 88 and
enters the project study area approximately 550 feet above its confluence with Naked UT-B.
Naked UT-A has been relocated into the roadside drainage along the north side of NC 88. As it
enters the project study area, Naked UT-A was four feet wide with a clear flow two to three
inches deep on the day of the site visit. The substrate in the stream is mostly small cobbles,
gravel, and sand. Naked UT-A flows along the north side of NC 88 and forms the south side of
Wetland 300 before entering Naked UT-B.
Naked UT-B is a perennial stream that flows from a pond 0.1 miles north of the project study
area and runs southward crossing NC 88 approximately 150 feet west of US 221 Business. The
stream flows behind a commercial area and beside a car wash business on the north side of
NC 88. Within the project study area, the riprap-lined stream channel has been degraded with
debris and trash. The channel flows through a 60-inch culvert under NC 88 and continues
southward under US 221 entering Naked Creek 0.1 miles south of the project area. During the
August 2002 site visit, the stream flow was clear; five to six feet wide, and three to six inches
deep. The stream substrate is comprised of cobbles, gravel, and sand. Some riparian
vegetation exists along the channel immediately north of NC 88. Shrubs and small trees have
grown up below NC 88 that provide shade to the channel.
8.3.3.2 DWQ Best Usage Classification and Wildlife Resources Commission Restrictions
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ, 2003). The classification of Naked Creek and its tributaries Naked UT-A and
Naked UT-B within the project study area is "C; +". Little Buffalo Creek and its tributaries Little
Buffalo UT-A, UT-B, UT-C and UT-D are classified as "C; Tr: + Class "C" refers to waters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class "C". Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on
watershed development activities. The supplemental classification of "Tr" denotes Trout
Waters. This classification is intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and
44
survival of stocked trout. This classification affects wastewater discharges, but there are no
watershed development restrictions outlined by the DWQ for "Tr" waters. However, stream
buffer zone requirements implemented by the NC Division of Land Resources would apply in
such cases. The "+" symbol identifies waters subject to a special management strategy in order
to protect downstream waters that are designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
one mile of the project study area.
Although Little Buffalo Creek and its tributaries are designated as Trout Waters, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has indicated that trout do not exist in the project study
area. Therefore, a moratorium on in-stream or land-disturbing activities is not required.
8.3.3.3 Water.Quality
DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. In support of this approach, DWQ collects biological, chemical, and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are
8.5 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis related to "Waters of the
United States."
8.5.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in*Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 328.3. Wetlands as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal circumstances, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). All
jurisdictional waters and wetlands were flagged and located by a Global Positioning System
(GPS). USACE issued a Jurisdictional Determination on August 27, 2002. The letter is
presented in Appendix D for reference.
8.5.1.1 Surface Waters
Jurisdictional surface waters identified within the project study area include Little Buffalo Creek
and five of its unnamed tributaries, a small pond, and two unnamed tributaries of Naked Creek.
All streams were evaluated using the DWQ Stream Classification Form and the USACE
Intermittent Channel Evaluation Form. All are considered perennial waters except for Little
Buffalo UT-A and Little Buffalo UT-C. Discussion of the biological, physical, and water quality
aspects of all surface waters in the project area are presented in Sections 8.3.3 and 8.4.2 of this
report.
8.5.1.2 Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were investigated following the 1987 USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The three-parameter approach was.
used. Hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and certain specific hydrologic characteristics must
all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. Jurisdictional wetlands were found at
three locations within the project study area.
Wetland 100 is a small emergent wetland dominated by sawgrass, bulrush, and soft rush. The
wetland is semipermanently saturated to flooded from runoff from NC 88 and adjacent fields and
yards. The fill from NC 88 and a residential driveway slows drainage from the wetland area.
Field investigation found the soils to be a black organic muck, saturated to the surface, over
rock 18 inches below the surface. The DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet yielded a score of 44.
Wetland 200 is a small emergent wetland located at the head of the small pond. The vegetation
is dominated by cattails, jewelweed, bulrush, and sedges. The wetland hydrology comes from
flooding from the pond as well as runoff from the highway. The wetland is semipermanently
saturated to flooded. Field investigation found the soils to be a dark mineral silty loam with
abundant mottles and oxidized root channels in the upper six inches. In August of 2002, under
very dry conditions, the soil Was saturated at 10 inches below the surface. In July of 2003, the
soil was saturated to the surface. The DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet yielded a score of 42.
54
Wetland 300 is the only true riverine wetland because it receives some overbank flooding from
Naked UT-A as well as drainage from an adjacent field. The vegetation is dominated by
wetland shrubs and herbs including American elderberry, silky dogwood, tag alder, swamp rose,
cattails, sedges, and bulrush. Field investigations found the soils to be a dark, mineral, silty
loam with abundant mottles above nine inches and gleyed below nine inches. Under very dry
conditions in August of 2002, the soil was saturated at nine inches below the surface. In July of
2003, the wetland soil was saturated to the surface. The DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet
yielded a score of 52.
8.5.1.3 Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
This project includes improvements to NC 88 on existing location using best-fit widening.
Jurisdictional areas and other physical features were located and documented on a map that
served as a basis for the project design constraints. The build alternates avoid or minimize impacts
to those features where practicable.
Little Buffalo UT-A1, Naked Creek UT-A, Wetland 200, and Wetland 300 are located immediately
adjacent to the existing road embankment. These features could not be avoided and minimization
efforts are limited by their proximity to the existing road. Little Buffalo Creek and Wetland 100 are
located on the north side of NC 88. The build alternates propose widening to the south, thereby
minimizing impacts to the creek and the wetland. Pond 100 could not be totally avoided, but
impacts from the build alternates are limited to the headwaters of the pond.
Impacts to jurisdictional areas were calculated based on the proposed cut and fill limits shown
on preliminary design sheets for the four build alternates. Figures A13 through A16 in Appendix
A and Table 16 present the impacts to jurisdictional areas within the project study area for each
build alternate.
55
Table 16: Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas

Jurisdictional Areas Build Alternates
1 2 3 4
Streams Linear Feet
Little Buffalo Creek 526 526 526 113
Little Buffalo UT-A 80 80 80 30
Little Buffalo UT-A1 70 70 70 70
Little Buffalo UT-B 163 163 163 140
Little Buffalo UT -C 197 197 197 0
Little Buffalo UT-D 290 290 290 0
Naked UT-A 582 604 630 477
Naked UT-B 125 136 154 88
Stream Totals 2035 2070 2115 920
Wetlands Acres
Wetland 100 0.05 0.05 0.05 0
Wetland 200 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Wetland 300 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.06
Wetland Totals 0.2 0.2 .0.2 0.1
Ponds Acres
Ponds 0.02 0.02 0.02 < 0.01
Pond Totals 0.02 0.02 0.02 < 0.01
Build Alternate 1: 3-lane shoulder section for entire project length
Build Alternate 2: 3-lane shoulder section in rural portion & 3-lane curb and gutter section in urban portion
Build Altemate 3: 3-lane shoulder section in rural portion & 5-lane curb and gutter section in urban portion
Build Alternate 4: Safety Improvements
Potential impacts to jurisdictional waters for the four build alternates range from 920 to 2115
linear feet of stream channel, less than 0.1 acres of ponds, and 0.1 to 0.2 acres of wetlands.
Build Alternate 4 has the least impact to jurisdictional areas.
8.6 PERMITTING
All of the proposed build alternates exceed minimum thresholds for notification to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
56
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit from USACE
is required for projects that discharge dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
An Individual Permit is likely to be applicable for impacts resulting from this project since all of
the build alternates appear to exceed the 300 linear foot maximum stream impact threshold
typically allowed under nationwide permitting. An individual permit would require the submission
of an application (USACE ENG Form 4345) and involves a public notice for comments as well
as coordination with other federal and state agencies.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. This certification is issued
for any activity, which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required
and may have additional conditions for the activity causing the discharge. Prior to issuance of
the Water Quality Certification, DWQ must determine that the project will not result in cumulative
impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards. Cumulative
impact is defined within North Carolina Administrative Code as those environmental impacts
resulting from incremental effects of an activity when added to past, present, and reasonably-
foreseeable future activities regardless of which entities undertake such actions. To evaluate
cumulative impacts, DWQ has identified three levels of cumulative analysis for public
transportation projects:
• Generic Description: This analysis is for small-scale widening projects, bridge
replacement projects, and intersection improvement projects that typically have a low
potential for stimulating growth and creating cumulative impacts.
• Qualitative Analysis: This analysis typically applies to widening projects with new
locations and projects that generally have a low potential for cumulative impacts since
these locations tend to be near existing roads and already developed areas.
• Quantitative Analysis: This analysis applies to new location projects that may have
growth-stimulating effects and may result in cumulative impacts to downstream water
quality. It involves a more-detailed analysis of whether growth is likely to be induced by
the project, if there are existing uses of water that may be impacted by growth, and
whether additional regulatory measures will be needed to regulate the growth.
8.7 MITIGATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality, a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of
this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
Council on Environmental Quality to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects ("avoidance," "minimization," and "compensatory mitigation") must be
considered sequentially. Planning and design efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional areas are presented in Section 8.5.1.3 of this report, Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas.
A preliminary discussion of mitigation for project impacts is presented in this section.
Under an Individual Permit, the USACE may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional
impacts to wetlands and perennial streambed or important intermittent streambed that result from
the project. Under an Individual Certification, DWQ compensatory mitigation requirements will
typically follow those of the USACE as long as the 1:1 restoration requirement is met.
57
The impacts, proposed to Little Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo UT-B, Little Buffalo UT-C, Little Buffalo
UT D, and/or Naked UT-A appear to exceed the 150 linear foot threshold at which compensatory
mitigation is typically required. Impacts to Little Buffalo UT-A and Little Buffalo UT-C may not
require compensatory mitigation because they are small intermittent streams. Compensatory
mitigation requirements for Little Buffalo Creek and Naked UT-A may be satisfied by using natural
channel design to relocate the parallel reaches of these streams outside the project fill limits.
Total wetland impacts for all of the build alternates are less than 1/3 acre and should not require
compensatory mitigation. Proposed impacts to the pond are less than 0.1 acre and may not
require compensatory mitigation.
As discussed above, compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream losses may be required
where avoidance and minimization of impact are not possible. Mitigation requirements will be
dependent upon final road plans.
8.8 PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of flora and fauna have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
8.8.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January
29, 2007, the USFWS lists seven federally-protected species for Ashe County (USFWS, 2003)
and the biological conclusion regarding potential project impacts to those species A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for these species are discussed in
the following sections.
Table 17: Federally - Protected Species in Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
bog turtle Clemmys muh/enbergii T (S/A) Not Required
Heller's blazing star Liatris helled Threatened No Effect

Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana
(Hedyotis purpurea
var. montana
Endangered'
No Effect
rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered No Effect
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened No Effect
58
"Endangered" - A taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" - A taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"T (S/A)" - Threatened due to similarity of appearance is a taxon that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Bog turtle (Clemmys muh/enbergii )
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Required
Within the project area, the emergent Wetland 100 near Little Buffalo Creek is the most likely
habitat for the bog turtle. The Wetland is open and sunny with a dense coverage of sawgrass,
rushes, and sedges. Wetlands 200 and 300 are probably less preferable habitats because of
shading, flooding from the adjacent pond and stream, and the density of shrubs surrounding the
wetlands. No bog turtles have been observed during project site visits on August 1, 2002,
June 4, 2003, and July 24, 2003. The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T S/A) to another rare species that is listed for protection. T S/A species are not
subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
Hellees blazing star (Liatris helleri)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Heller's blazing star does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, well below the elevations preferred by this
species. There are no rocky outcrops in the project study area. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003) did not list occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. This project will not impact Heller's blazing star.
Roan Mountain bluet (Houstonia montana)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Roan Mountain bluet does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the
project study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation
for suitable habitat. There are no high elevation cliffs or rocky outcrops in the project study'
area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003) did not
list occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact the Roan
Mountain bluet.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for rock gnome lichen does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation for
suitable habitat in Ashe County. There are no high elevation cliffs or deep gorges in the project
study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003)
did not list occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact the
rock gnome lichen.
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Spreading avens does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation for
suitable habitat. There are no high elevation cliffs or rocky outcrops in the project study area.
59
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003) did not list
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact spreading
avens.
Swamp pink (Helonias bullata)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Although the ideal habitat for swamp pink does not appear to exist in the project study area, the
wetlands and stream edges may provide potential habitat. A thorough search of the streamside
habitats, wetlands, and low areas within the project corridor on June 4, 2003 found no
specimens of swamp pink. Five man-hours were spent surveying approximately three acres of
potential habitat. Most of the riparian areas and wetlands are densely vegetated and/or within
maintained/disturbed areas, and not suitable for typical swamp pink habitat. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (March 31, 2005) did not list occurrences of this
species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact Swamp pink.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Potential habitat for Virginia spiraea is located in the project study area along the stream
margins (particularly Little Buffalo Creek). A thorough survey of the stream banks and riparian
areas out to 100 to 150 feet on either side of the existing right-of-way (in some cases outside
the proposed project limits) was conducted on August 1, 2002 and June 4, 2003 to determine
the presence or absence of Virginia spiraea. Approximately four man-hours were spent
surveying two to three acres of potential habitat. Much of the riparian zones along the larger
streams is maintained as residential yards or disturbed by periodic mowing. No specimens
were found during the survey. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database (May 12, 2003) did not list occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This
project will not impact Virginia spiraea.
8.8.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally listed
or proposed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change, and therefore should be included for consideration. A Federal Species of Concern
(FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing but there is insufficient
information to support listing. In addition, organisms, which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered
Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
There are 18 Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Ashe County. Although a
formal survey for these species was not conducted during the site visit, none were observed.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database (2003) of rare species and unique
habitats did not list any federal species of concern within the project vicinity.
60
Table 18: Federal Species of Concern in Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscufus SR Yes
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus E* Yes
Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus Sc Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subviddus E No
Pygmy snaketail Ophiogomphus howei SR Yes
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana SR Yes
Regal fritillary butterfly Speyeria idalia SR* Yes
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle Stenelmis gammon' SR* No
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii SR-L Yes
Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen Cladonia psoromica C No
Tall larkspur Delphinium exa/tatum E-SC No
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea C Yes
Appalachian oak fem Gymnocarpium appalachianum E No
Butternut Juglans cinerea W5a No
Gray's lily Lilium grayi T-SC No
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena E Yes
Torrey's Mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei SR-T* No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana C Yes
"E" - An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component
of the state's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T" - A Threatened species is one that is likely to become an endangered species within
the near future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"-A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring, but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special
Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C" - A Candidate species is one that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with
1-20 populations in the state and generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation, or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different
part of the country or the world.
"SR" - A Significantly Rare species is one that is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state and generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation, or disease. The species is generally more
common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"Ma" - Watch Category 5a; Rare because of severe decline. Includes species which have
declined sharply in North Carolina, but do not yet appear to warrant site-specific monitoring.
"L" - Limited. The range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states
(endemic or near endemic). These species might have 20-50 populations
in North Carolina, but less than 50 populations range wide. The preponderance of
their distribution is in North Carolina and their fate depends largely on conservation
here. Also included are some species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina,
if they also have only 50-100 populations range wide and declining.
* - Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
61
9.0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
9.1 TRAVEL TIMES
A widened highway may reduce commuting distances and times for freight deliveries and
workers traveling to and from employment destinations. There are only a few small businesses
within the project study area. Most of the truck traffic is through-traffic from industries in the
area. Mobility (travel times) and access for the existing businesses along NC 88 may be
impacted temporarily during construction.
9.2 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Proximity to a major highway is generally a stronger catalyst for commercial development than
for residential development. However, widening the roadway should only have a slight impact
on business attraction and growth because there are limited destination points along the
corridor, a limited base of commercial development, and limited momentum for future growth
due to a lack of infrastructure.
Commercial land use including a Yamaha dealer, a Kwik Lube, real estate offices, law offices,
and other shops are located in the eastern portion of the project area within the Town of
Jefferson. Although not employing significant numbers, these businesses are providing
important services to the town and surrounding areas. The intersection of NC 88 and US 221
Business is the most-restrictive cross section because of the existing businesses on all four
corners of the intersection have little or no road setbacks. In order to provide a multilane
section and dedicated turn lanes, two or more of these businesses will be directly impacted by
this widening project and several businesses will be relocated to facilitate widening the road in
this area.
McFarland Publishing Company is a commercial and industrial activity located on NC 88.
Multilane widening b Alternates 1, 2, and 3 would require acquisition of a portion of the land
now occupied by their driveways and parking lots. Build Alternate would no impact eir
property.
9.3 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Six industrial plants located five to six miles north of the project in Lansing and Warrensville will
benefit from the improved capacity and safety of widening NC 88.
Gates produces industrial belts and hoses with 200 employees
South Devices produces electrical components with 775 employees
Ford Leviathan produces electrical components
Carbide produces a variety of chemicals and polymers for industrial customers
Thomasville produces lumber components and furniture
United Chemi-Con produces capacitors and components with 200 employees
62
9.4 PROPERTY VALUES
Relocations on NC 88 within the town limits might generate a conversion from residential to
commercial usage based upon increased land values.
10.0 INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
10.1 PURPOSE
An evaluation was conducted to determine the potential for indirect and cumulative impacts
(ICIs) because of the proposed improvements to NC 88. The following sections present the
findings of the ICI Evaluation for this project.
10.2 CHANGE IN RATE AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed improvements to NC 88 have the potential to positively effect future industrial
development activity. Multilane widening will improve traffic flow and safety, thereby increasing
accessibility to the northwestern portions of the county, to US 221, and possibly bordering
counties in Tennessee and Virginia. Ease of access through the project study area might have
the added benefit of improving accessibility to tracts of unused land such as the old county
offices.
Older residential homes with large lots will possibly become targets for commercial siting
because of lower land costs and proximity to the Town of Jefferson. This will possibly lead to
loss of residential housing stock and possible long-term improvements to the commercial-tax
base. This change in development might occur on the portion of the project within the town
limits where the residences have limited setbacks from the road.
10.3 CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Widening and improving NC 88 will effect the character of the residential community within the
Town of Jefferson. Installation of a curb and gutter system with defined driveways will produce
a more urbanized character within the town. The western portion of the project should retain its
rural residential character.
63
9.4 PROPERTY VALUES
Relocations on NC 88 within the town limits might generate a conversion from residential to
commercial usage based upon increased land values.
10.0 INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
10.1 PURPOSE
An evaluation was conducted to determine the potential for indirect and cumulative impacts
(ICIs) because of the proposed improvements to NC 88. The following sections present the
findings of the ICI Evaluation for this project.
10.2 CHANGE IN RATE AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed improvements to NC 88 have the potential to positively effect future industrial
development activity. Multilane widening will improve traffic flow and safety, thereby increasing
accessibility to the northwestern portions of the county, to US 221, and possibly bordering
counties in Tennessee and Virginia. Ease of access through the project study area might have
the added benefit of improving accessibility to tracts of unused land such as the old county
offices.
Older residential homes with large lots will possibly become targets for commercial siting
because of lower land costs and proximity to the Town of Jefferson. This will possibly lead to
loss of residential housing stock and possible long-term improvements to the commercial tax
base. This change in development might occur on the portion of the project within the town
limits where the residences have limited setbacks from the road.
10.3 CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Widening and improving NC 88 will effect the character of the residential community within the
Town of Jefferson. Installation of a curb and gutter system with defined driveways will produce
a more urbanized character within the town. The western portion of the project should retain its
rural residential character.
63
11.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & REGULATORY COORDINATION
11.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments have been received at various times during the project development process
including the 2001 Citizens Informational Workshop. Comments and questions were related to
the project status, existing drainage concerns, and property impacts. NCDOT responded as
requested by telephone or written correspondence.
11.2 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on April 4, 2001 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on the 3`d
floor of the Ashe County Courthouse at 150 Government Circle in Jefferson. The purpose of the
workshop was to present information, answer questions, and receive comments from citizens
regarding this project. Approximately 24 individuals including 16 citizens attended the
workshop. NCDOT presented a study area and typical sections for various build alternates
being studied. Workshop handouts including comment sheets were available to all in
attendance. Copies of the public notice and the workshop handout are included in Appendix B.
11.3 LOCAL, STATE, & FEDERAL AGENCIES
In addition to the North Carolina Board of Transportation and the various divisions, branches,
and units within NCDOT, this project has been coordinated with the following local, state, and
federal agencies and departments. Documentation of regulatory compliance is included in
Appendix B and correspondence from these agencies is included in Appendix D.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville Field Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration - NC Division
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of;Public Instruction
NC Department of'cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Intergovernmental Affairs
Division of Marine Fisheries
Winston-Salem Regional Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ashe County Administration
Ashe County Board of Education
Town of Jefferson Administration
High Country Rural Planning Organization
64
11.4 SECTION 404 NEPA MERGER PROCESS
The Merger Process Team concurred at the December 12, 2001 meeting that improving safety
and improving a link between NC 194 and the Town of Jefferson are the primary purpose and
need for this proposed action. During the same meeting, the Team concurred to study the
No-Build Alternative and seven Build Alternates.
The Merger Process Team met on May 18, 2004 and on March 15, 2005 to discuss the
alternatives under: consideration and the preliminary hydraulics design for the three major
stream crossings. The Team concurred to carry forward the following alternatives for this
proposed action and concurred on the bridging decisions presented in Table 19.
• No-Build / routine maintenance continues
• 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (entire project length)
• 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
• 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
Table 19: Bridging Decisions
Existing Proposed
No. Stream Name Drainage Culvert
Replacement or Comments
Structure Extension
1-60 REPLACE
Tributary of Corrugated With Bury invert 12" for fish passage; Detailed
1 Naked Creek Steel Pipe 10'x6' phase construction plan required to

(Naked UT-B) & 1 - ted
Corrugaate concrete maintain traffic during construction.
Steel Pipe Box Culvert

' EXTEND
Existing Culvert Detailed phase construction plan
3 @ 11
x T with required to maintain traffic during
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete 3 @ 11' it 7' x 60' construction; Sills or baffles in culvert
Box Culvert Concrete extension to retain bed material and
Box Culvert
promote fish passage.
Tributary of
" REPLACE Intersection realignment will necessitate
Little Buffalo Creek 2 - 60 with replacement of existing culvert; bury
"
3 Corrugated 9'x 5' for fish passage; Detailed
invert 12
(Little Buffalo UT-B) Steel Pipes Concrete phase construction plan required to
Box Culvert maintain traffic during construction.
11.5 PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing will be held for this project following the circulation of this document. More
detailed information about the proposed improvements will be available for review at the
hearing. The public will be invited to make comments or voice concerns regarding this project.
65
12.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report documents the activities conducted and presents the findings and recommendations
of the assessment along with a record of environmental approvals and consultation with other
agencies. Our findings do not indicate the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
be prepared and we anticipate that the environmental assessment process will be concluded
with a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The determination of the final documentation
needed for this project will be based upon comments received on this Environmental
Assessment Report.
13.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The following documents were prepared by various disciplines within NCDOT for this
environmental assessment. Data derived from these documents was used in the preparation of
this Environmental Assessment Report. These reference documents are hereby incorporated
as if included herein.
1. "Geoenvironmental Impact Evaluation Report (November 17, 2000)"
2. "Archaeological Survey Report (May 2001)"
3. "Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report (July 2001)"
4. "Air Quality Analysis Report (November 16, 2001)"
5. "Community Impact Assessment Report (May 31, 2002)"
6. "Traffic Forecast Report (August 8, 2002)"
7. "Preliminary Hydraulics Report (November 4, 2002)"
8. "Congestion Management Preliminary Report (February 21, 2003)"
9. "Noise Analysis Report (June 25, 2003)"
10. "Relocation Report (August 25, 2003)"
11. "Natural Resources Technical Report (December 2003)"
12. "Utility Analysis and Problem Identification for Alternatives Report (April 11, 2007)"
13. "Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report (July 16, 2007)"
66

_ - ? ,
-}
_

i.
.
{
\S

;?

r

u
i
i
1
1
1
1
J ?
j
i
i
3
1= i
-110
?s 4?? VS
W (q;JON
}i W
CO
ILw
?y •? N
L ?
V W N
.Qjeej?
Lr
v
d
o
a
c
W
? Lar°
c?
C 1
an?aQ JSaM4,ON
'O
o fie
?!y
H VIr
L
E 2.0.0
LL peon II!H tic
d y..
s
Q
ao
ao ,

T
iv
LU O
CL

d
3

d
0
a
c
m
ao ?
aor,
451'41?
OWN
lJard
C° ad 0

nell or
M,Con ° a
a L
L t J
aai;S
} 0
0
? W f
A
3
11ONaW

m
. j

................. ._.. _.._ i
uosaa: uar
d
0

0

N
7
J
i
? Road
?

i
o

w
E

2?
do

E

m
"s e021 Lioinyz)

N
N
Q.
G CD
C ?
NQ O r
O ? II
L V
O O r
t J
L v 4)
0..
v
N
.60
a
r- ? C
00 r -
C? O O
O
oQ
U
Z
Town C,
uosaauar
1A 53
S
Pe0O .10 Jh
M1

00
•r ?' ? . ?'• ?, ?G '1 • r t ai6uejpeno uos.1a}}a?
J/ al6ueipent) 011insuaaJeM
t
v ,t
R @Y4
N s l ?+ r r
a' Note: Locations of parcel lines are approximate.
- 88 r-? y + a s" r? 4 ?
194 i F F ,Y '
i
k , p xypl'" 4 h ?f J i, ?1 y 4 t
t
ie fr'?V '( 3r k _E ! 4°
`' S4. ,Q ! Y.51{ ' r x
_4 j ;
Maranatha r••'? 1 t t% ?• .? . ?u a i t r;'r
f t
d
rr
p Church $ oad { q t }k r 'V -S ?, t^
Be in Project``. ';
4-7
r tX•a , Ef ai q .?'... x k ?? ?? 'a vatrr ,nzC + d' A'•_+'a
%
`ia„r m ! ?.. y ? I t f ?`t: ::g F ' i.•' `s F.. > ?. ti.}l?„v s ?,
41 V-
i lk4
ku"
y? ` FA ?Y. '7 yr krre j t
4 f
t F Wetland
goo'.. ?.,
r
4)
n e
lG ? ? / t p `r `?, ? ?s*
'? 1y^!{l?,?' ? ?. '•,??Irtl@BUff /.!.. ?? r _ Y 4? ,e''L sF.??,,,,'Fk F L,+ `?^C ?.r?K?s}-?L•' , f.i ? !?i•'?',aG d
?.....alo creek ?
'
s'
M,A2.. Z ?..?..._...i• :-? e ? '`. 4 s +lfc }?'? { ';?" ',
r ?Y f i :t( F` ...
F
888
r ,
r0 r
VV `.b a?- r?? YCy# a
"f ay'4
E i+ . '`••? .?? vF. Yom} aria r{? ?'?arl d r Y { .rat °r
'?.', a .. r g?.. a ?..«?,^, r ` r; 4 : i.? '?•./?0? '?. t "?q .'%`wFS i,TyF y5 yy ? ?€'. & y ?' ?? ?? t
Paddy Mountain Lumber
(?' ??'.._ 1,?4? .2?'? ,'` 3^ ?',_? .?J ?p ?.? .1Y' f•??' } ,y,?r W ?f ?•: ?,.1- ? `?a ,,:? u?v,1,?7pq
0
Wn QJ` a
T. It'
.., I'F_Y{,;?t ?tXS`•', ?Y, t• t l?t' aP ? A? ? 1 ?'?t?& ? ?
r d., 4 f r F?a , K f., + ,t y ASY 4 Blue Ridge Electric L - lx
Membership . 4 y 4
t Substation ? _ ae,'
11t 'i.:
?!y /• `M f.'„
+, ,M.i j. _ Y dlin t " •V+ ( •R` ! t
?} !Y!'' i + ?? "1i* M ya 4`:f ?v t ,i<{ iY Tz ff
f 1f tr f a (. t u: rsr
?,. "194
< 40
?,? c c f'? ?•,., ffF
• y.^x WI T' YF ? ? ? k? ? 6 ? t: ? ? ?' 1 ? ?' ?!?? ? 'i ? ! ? i 1iE?°' i^ ?' ,. ?. P '.' ?+, s ?
.;`. w td?",yR 4.rr J'.
Gt
?"??; G x x. V r w .._}
U-3812 Figure A5
Aerial Mosaic
{ ?;< NC 88 Widening Project
T,.
v?; •? , ? Sheet 1 of 3
qfi? t;E Ashe County, NC
,(Z w Scale: 1 200
k a
rJtr i
Note
W r Locations of parcel lines are appr
S ,t ji t ( r'`?' y i r i
gyn. ?,w t - - r -7M, !„ - • ??{ ? { b ( ? t}?? ?.
x. 4'. 5,. w f k'. sekyF6i ?y,_. `4' • - ?'
l$1. ; a?
?? rx k. , ,n ;;,• at'?HO ?I'X+??:'', k°
h y j 11 '?fJ?@ w
,l? 5 i ?" $ ? 1'?.?: x 9 yy ??- ?1 bbJ .?.?J : ?J $ "i 1 T :; ? n ? ? ? ?: . ? ? ay` 4'. i?i'
kt
00
a.
41
?.. ?V rsr ?.,4 -At. • T? ?IZ *Y t ?kA :f T A, `.(' :? ::?f h ?' c :1' r ( ?. t, t , ??' 1P ..
i
., A
fi
? V
..? t
, ?Mi.
0
? ? yy
/ ??
-? `` G o e - Dr??e?
}, r, ,•;, 4 r ""y G ffr ='E? 1?? . r 1'C ',,.
%
4 so
M
r r?111?1Ir11/1 • ,p s
v fd.
,,
M? fk' ? ,, rr ?; ? t; rf ? nrnrur?Ir
f
C/rl
o.
400
r°, ?'? kYF1Ci+\ l / rS Y't 'd+?'rnwn'?
j r sow Wetland 200
9g? I ?F Ir r ,a t'F ° r ?r J, r
Ido
`qj {E h fit. ' ?! f, #rPuand Mount Paddy Christian Union Church ing to$ VO
ny ??.,,, ?r1 1 rl
Ilk
(Q rz 4, V < . t. « 1
k? iNyd`
k `' 5 3 "F • 1a'i r f 4t
T_ Z
?11?1j 1 i g#p ? p ?. r' s'.
?'Q /? .1 1 ?1j,1j ... ? :?: ?,. 'y1! ? d ??t;j, 08 ..• ''? ? 11 f}d y-". 1 .t. .?
4• ?. a`? 1 F i1 ?1, ? d x
d ",,' .,1j,11 ,a11 11 l' Pond 100
x 1 _
kr'
A..
McFarland Publishing Compan
9x
• y
P
a, Ey?s,t ?y 1 t" 7Y,
1
?r r . t v _
n
,1?
A
IIr11f ? < t`F
'X.. 1 , } IIr11r11r? $"..:° S ..r n 1 "'", ?y . 5c r t?+ t' F f k ?. C
_ft 4
?:?
+ 1'r'4rfn'
y
1 J
01
tr ?' r t? f? j, .; a& 'Fi 'any 1jfJp'?? I i h a Y r` y '" E ., 4= ..c - f
it
! T # K ?',. F" `sttt xa 7 ;,fit !' 1 a
?' a r X'JI }j^?fYi n 4
'vv
U-3812 Figure A5
Aerial Mosaic
r E t e a %' , 1' 4 NC 88 Widening Project
r o „?.r Sheet 2 of 3
Ashe County, NC „ _
?. Scale, 1 - 200,
N 4
rte'` _ } v'
W Levton.' Note: Locations of parcel lines are approximate.
Jefferson
S Plant
? Wa"rid6 } a 3? :y 4 S 'r. $ cy. k+'.T?,'.?Il7?,
E 8. i- ?, F[ad. ; e. P 9 !? 1 ate, f ?. - r t ; x g
d f orphe ??
w Lane,
M i1
o t x, g xY °f" 4 A
g
$ri - ti rf iff ff?iff it f ?A.? j..I 4 [, a r k: ,< +.5 F I z A `.':. rival ?N v
> - ;•
t
1f ?£ ?r e
P 1 tft Leviton Parking Lot
14
Alrl
U i?'
r #' +t. ?? 4 ?? I I' I y t "4? h ?_. iiiFFF444 ,,' °f r e _ V r?/ay'fi?'.,,F g td ,k.? a ,• A g }?x
N .?.. ! p? ?/ w ,z Y: N y. Pp fI ffis d' UST Site 26
•.
§ OYi
M•• Northwest
x Aulo Express ? r ? ° ? F r x 3 r a c r- t C5 <- ?., ? ? ? v r? a+?
I A._ I a a N Emergency
? w' rr" ? a -
33 ,? Section 4(f) Resource vehicles 4.
y'
0 Kingdom Half
N Z (Joseph Benjamin Neal House) r
AA,
k
of Jehovah's
k
Witnesses ou Sheet
C
l
' Blue Ride
Mt I:? - Medical Transport UST Site 1
Ap,
?i ??-' Wetland 300
y The Hair Salon
??` Jefferson Jefferson United
` e r Car Wash Methodist Church
U) - 4W, W F
x pp >,'??
r , ! 4 x`: ri I 1
Ir AAR4 _
End Project
A , ,. f E ° * ark<' ..
`a?? .?' r?'i,?,, • Jefferson
?-?
•_ ., .i Apartments o x f F` f 3,q ax ¢,`. Mss G>
r - s
t- ?i - 0,"
Q r, r New River Behavioral Healthcare Foundation CO
S r
h- f r t ..,° ?it UST Site 3
e Carolina
- f t rF : UST Site 4 Printing Supply '
', ?f •? 0 central Cycle
rPt 9:,a ? r? t R, Sales Yamaha
R
ax ," - South ;Street
Rural Urban
t. 7 °k Town of Jefferson Cemetery i +? ;finEl
Portion Port c
{[+ , ? r* ?„'+? Herman Tree Farms
C• 1 .1? +.? ??!.d 7Cl1 yQE.' JOS. r
Woe
?' E g
?. ?• ?r? ? ,' "' k f '", F ?' f?j c7 ., i "? ? „..,,a ¢ g?? .:??`. ??`? `#? l= 1- 1 ?-- t' 4, ,?? ?".:?, i'f. ? ; L BUS
-? "'Z°.k? ?.??. rr?g,":+? + ?• 'sue`--...? _ ?.?? .? ?? -`qN "Sv - lvi t+?y,'?r. a e+rr ''? ?r fia" 221
!' a -`!!.i ' ???e Y A Shell
Gas
,,?y/?.. fE ?ayi`[}t s: «F Station
4" I(All
N v' 'N - t? I?r r f F t r ., S
nr: 1
AS
d, .. Figure
U-3812 x: yz. ??? t r `A P N Aerial Mosaic
C 88 Widening Project
Sheet 3 of 3
Pr Ashe County NC
?? Scale: 1" = 200'

ZZ

HO
Woe
C7
r.

N ^'
`O K

3
• ? o
co
Ln
?o

N ?- 01

I II H W

J
i
I
%o
z
4d --`O -N M
(
l
O O
I?
. H ?

ta Q
Q
il
II N
N Elm* NI
OJ
d
. ?o
00
0
zo

y
Oo
ZZ

HO
U3 ix
c9
T
L
a
00
0
Cl)
-
C¦
H
a
a?
Lon
LL
zz

N O
j( OC
LLLLJJ (?
O
h?

W
y

ENO#
IZ
W
1Y
J a
z
I

I c? N

;D
M L Z

P
I N

O
W

N
I
I

r
U.
0?

N r
a
1
ev

z z
P
NO
X ?
W OOMN%
? 0.1001
?
p
LL
N
I
I
Z ?
I
o
I

N I
i
NI
OJ
v p

0
0

4ma
4)
00
Cl)
r
?O
¦ r
L
O
a
-
L
oC
N
i
-
¦ O
c?
H
iTL
¦
L
?o
ZZ
vii O -

Z 0
t9
01
y
3

y r
r
BD
14
I I

W II
II z z
J Q ? u
? 0? II
r- w
0 -4
? ??
?T u
a
u r
I I O
Z O
?'

II
W W

II N
MEN*
o?
r
Z01
ri
io

u
ZZ
t~i0
oe
Lu 0
?\
a
O
¦ _
4-6
L
O
CL
L
D
I
N
4)
t?
L
_4)
O
._
U)
CL
L
CY)
¦
EL
zz

F?
N
0
x_
W GC
0

41 'o

y s
3
. o1
eo In
?9L
U.

N MOM* C
I
I
I
I W
?
i Z
1 I I
? I
I z
`
' f`') -N N
O
V OZ I
W
?o II W
II N
II

0J
N II

¦ N
? G
zo U.
0

N
r r
.p
d'

z z
H
?
6
N
X&
W
/NW#4
c
O
.?
401
L
O
o
cc
L
0
oC
M
4-1
cc
i
4)
00
0
4mJ
U)
c?
CL
¦
IL
ZZ
11"
ZO
f
3
N
?l 4?
J U W?
I LL ?o
0- CL
Cp•--u polma-
a
'"I ONE*
^I ONE*
LT
N1
OIIII
II
II
?i
II
_II
II
II
NI
OJ
0
y
00
ZZ
vii 0
is 0
Z
c<W
N
a ?
z o
W
N
W
C4 I
O
¦
i
O
CL
L
D
M
4)
4ma
cc
i
4)
4-0
O
.?
4)
U)
¦
¦ ¦
r
Q
4)
L
LL
z
z
zz

NO
? oe
t9
0
y?

y toC

w 1.01
r
w

U.

z
J

H
( ?
- 10 M
V H
W

OIL Q
C

N
col

A

z
z

n0
X
W ?

N

?
o
1
N
r
_
QZ
0
N
r
o?
N
W
0

IL
4ma
r„
O
0
L
0
-
L
I
L
-
a
O
c?
¦
a
L
¦
C7 ?
ZZ
D
H
O
W oc
ZO

y
;o co
o
00
N
O
N
o
I W
I
W
II
>
Z
J Q ?z II
? II

o
w,
_ 0
C
I
z =
? ^ X
o

oc
II
II W

C

o

II N
?
II 0 ?

O I
E-
O N

OC
;0 00
?
> O
~
ZO
O

c? o
ZZ

HO
oc
WO
O
¦?
mw
L
O
CL
L
D
L
a
O
R?
V
U)
CL
F-
m ¦
N
r
Q
L
cm
iTL
J 88
194 Proposed Slope Stake Line
plus 25 feet (typical)
r 1 Proposed Slope Stake Line for
3-lane Shoulder Section (typical)
I X01 ???
Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet 1 Sheet 2 Sheet 3 Totals
Wetlands 0.05 ac 0.05 ac 0.10 ac 0.2 ac
Streams 157 ft 120 ft 0 280 ft
(intermittent)
Streams 759 It 290 ft 707 It 1755 ft
(perennial)
Ponds 0 0.02 ac 0 0.02 ac
? Christmas Tree 51 ac
2 0
04 ac 0 2.6 ac
Plantation . .
Montane Oak - 4.14 ac 2
64 ac 1.20 ac 8
0 ac
Hickory Forest . .
Maintained-
?
Disturbed 8.35 ac 7.91 ac 8.80 ac 25.0 ac
Existing Triple 11' x 7'
1 Concrete Box Culvert 'Estimated impacts are based upon land disturbance between the
1 1 existing roadway and the proposed slope stake line plus 25 feet.
m to be extended southward
I

t
0
I °? I
1
Wetland 100
Little Buffalo UT-A ` Maintained - Disturbed 0.05 ac
Intermittent - 80 ft
I 1.23 ac
I ® Maintained - Disturbed
Little Buffalo Creek 0.20 ac ?- - \
I I Perennial - 371 ft
Little Buffalo UT-A1
Perennial - 70 ft
? to
0.23 ac
? t
2.13 ac
88
3.31 ac I
1 .99 ac
F.?
0.60 a(. (13

I
\
_ Little Buffalo UT-C I %.
0
Intermittent - 77 ft 1

?
2.51 ac
.
I
I
w

1 / Begm Existing Roadway X38 y

ff
alo UT-B
Little Bu 0.
'
Perennial -163 ft Little Buffalo Creek o
Q!
4 g9
194 Perennial -155 ft ?
d
•?
a

// V

0
w
,7
t***/
Proposed Slope Stake Line for
3-lane Shoulder Section (typical)
00
\0\-00,
F Buffalo UT D
nial 290 ft
2
a
® Montane Oak -
? L
0 Hickory Forest
0.02 ac
0.76 ac,
3.46 ac
?? --''-- 88
it
Christmas Tree Plantation
0.04 ac
Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet1 Sheet2 Sheet3 Totals
Wetlands 0.05 ac 0.05 ac 0.10 ac 0.2 ac
Streams 157 ft 120 ft 0 280 ft
(intermittent)
Streams 759 ft 290 ft 707 ft 1755 ft
(perennial)
Ponds 0 0.02 ac 0 0.02 ac
Christmas Tree 51 ac
2 04 ac
0 0 2.6 ac
Plantation . .
? Montane Oak - 4.14 ac 2.66 ac 1
20 ac 8.0 ac
Hickory Forest .
? Maintained - 8.35 ac 7.91 ac 8
80 ac 25.0 ac
Disturbed .
Existing Roadway
* Estimated impacts are based upon land disturbance between the
existing roadway and the proposed slope stake line plus 25 feet.
H Road
cNeill
? M
T 4-
4?3 t ?t 0.15 ac 0
` M
0.50 ac ? -
0.23 ac
0.60 ac Cl)
0.72 ac
0.77 ac
--- V)
Wetland 200 %49 Pond 100 C
1.79 ac 0.05 ac , 0.02 ac I
Naked Creek
Proposed Slope Stake Line
plus 25 feet (typical)
N
W + E
S
4- N
0 co
N
U)
N _
d
C
J
0.35 ac
0.62 ac
Proposed Slope Stake Line
plus 25 feet (typical)
Morphew
<d?
0.18 ac
® -
$$ --_-----/1.20 ac J
0.29 ac
Proposed Slope Stake Line for
3-Lane Shoulder Section (typical)
-.Y
1.81 ac
053 ac,

,:o:177,?,

Wetland 300
0.10 ac
Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet 1 Sheet 2 Sheet 3 Totals
Wetlands 0.05 ac 0.05 ac 0.10 ac 0.2 ac
Streams 157 ft 120 ft 0 280 fl
(Intermittent)
Streams 759 ft 290 ft 707 ft 1755 ft
(perennial)
. Ponds 0 0.02 ac 0 0.02 ac
® Christmas Tree
51 ac
2
0
04 ac
0
2.6 ac
Plantation . .
? Montane Oak - 4
14 ac 2.66 ac 1.20 ac 8.0 ac
Hickory Forest .
Maintained - 8
35 ac 7.91 ac 8.80 ac 25.0 ac
Disturbed .
Estimated impacts are based upon land disturbance between the
existing roadway and the proposed slope stake line plus 25 feet.
I
I I
0.80 ac t t 0.35 ac
1 t
f I
I t
Montane Oak -
I t Court Street
Hickory Forest
0.48 ac
I I
I
? l \
0.90 ac
FOUR-LANE CURB AND GUTTER
TYPICAL SECTION
Right of Way
100'
gutter
FIVE-LANE CURB AND GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION
Right of Way
100' - --
60'
Two-way
Left-Turn Lane
Typ.
curb or
gutter
Figure 2
NC 88
Wate
WBS Element 34977
Federal Project Number STP-88(2)
S.T.I.P. Project Number U-3812
Administrative Action
From NC 194 to US 221 Business in Jefferson
Ashe County
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
9
yP??04 NORTH L,4 O?v
m =
O
9? ?P
O
OF TRAMP
Approved:
r?
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(C)
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, NCDOT - PDEA
4
aw0 ff
r
Date ohn F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator, USDOT - FHWA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Environmental Assessment & Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report was prepared by
the following personnel in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The 6-inch gas line along NC 88 from Northwest Drive to McConnell Street is installed at a
depth of approximately three feet deep. The line can remain in place and be adjusted as
necessary.
Sprint/Centel maintains underground and aerial service along NC 88 and aerial fiber lines on the
Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation poles. The underground cable and fiber optic lines
can remain in place and be adjusted as necessary. The aerial lines will be relocated along with
the power lines.
Skyline Telephone has installed or intends to install underground and aerial fiber lines on
NC 88.
1.11 SCHOOL BUSES
Ashe County Public Schools operates five buses that serve this area and nine buses that travel
through this area on NC 88. The Ashe County Board of Education has indicated that the nine
buses passing through this area can be rerouted through West Jefferson if needed.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 SUMMARY STATEMENT
The purpose of this action is to improve safety on NC 88 and improve a link between NC 194
and the existing multilane section in the Town of Jefferson. The need is based upon correcting
a restricted cross section in mountainous terrain with poor horizontal and vertical alignment.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The four alternatives considered in this Environmental Assessment included the Transportation
System Management Alternative, the Public Transportation Alternative, the No-Build Alternative,
and the Build Alternative.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED
Ashe County does not operate public transportation systems. Privately-owned vehicles remain
the major form of transportation for area residents, commuters, vacationers, and other travelers
of NC 88. Based upon the project context, public transportation would not improve safety on
NC 88 and would not eliminate the need for widening the highway and improving the alignment.
Therefore, the Public Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this
project and was eliminated from further study.
6
Physical improvements such as new signs or signals, striping, medians, or access management
measures, and operational improvements such as traffic law enforcement, turning restrictions,
staggered work hours, or signal phasing would not improve the sight distance or the alignment
and safety on NC 88. Therefore, the Transportation System Management Alternative was
eliminated from further study.
3.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Of the four alternatives considered, the No-Build Alternative and various build alternatives were
retained and carried forward for further study for comparative purposes. The following is a
summary of each alternative.
The No-Build Alternative offers limited improvements to the project study area and assumes that
all other projects currently planned or programmed in the STIP will be constructed in the area as
proposed. Continued roadway maintenance and minor improvements on NC 88 would be the
extent of this alternative. Although the No-Build Alternative does not improve safety or increase
capacity and does not meet the purpose of or need for this project, it does provide a basis for
comparison with the build alternatives.
During their December 12, 2001 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options), the Merger
Process Team agreed to the following eight design options.
1. No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section with symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
5. 4-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
7. 5-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
8. 5-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
During the first meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward) held on May
18, 2004, the Merger Process Team added Design Option 9, 3-lane shoulder section, as a
practical expression of Design Option 2 since Design Option 2 included 3-lane portions and
tapers totaling 74% of the project. This brought the total number of design options to nine.
1. No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section with symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
5. 4-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
7
7. 5-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening
8. 5-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening
9. 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
During the second meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward) held on
March 15, 2005, the Merger Process Team eliminated several of the design options and agreed
to carry forward the following alternatives. It should be noted that the typical section for the rural
(western) portion of the project from NC 194 to Lawson Lane is identical for Build Alternates 1,
2, and 3.
No-Build / routine maintenance continues
Build Alternate 1: 3-lane shoulder section (entire project)
Build Alternate 2: 3-lane shoulder section (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb and gutter section (urban portion)
Build Alternate 3: 3-lane shoulder section (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb and gutter section (urban portion)
While studying the three build alternates carried forward, it was determined that they would
improve traffic safety through improvements to the road alignment, but were not warranted from
a capacity standpoint and would generate notable impacts to the human and natural
environment. Therefore, NCDOT subsequently added and studied Build Alternate 4, the Safety
Improvements Alternate. It should be noted that Build Alternate 4 was previously known as
Design Option 10 during the June 27, 2006 Effects Concurrence Meeting and in the
Concurrence Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, the State Historic
Preservation Office, and NCDOT.
Build Alternate 4 includes the following improvements to NC 88:
• Realignment of the intersection of NC 88 and NC 194
• Realignment of the S-curve between Locust Grove Drive and Lawson Lane
• Center turn lane between Lawson Lane and US 221 Business
• Upgrading the facility to current standards with 12-foot lanes
• Pedestrian crossing for McFarland Publishing Company
• Resurfacing the entire length of the project
3.4 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED BY NCDOT
NCDOT recommends Build Alternate 4 for the proposed improvements to this section of NC 88.
This alternate will satisfy the capacity requirement by operating at Level of Service D in the
2030 Design Year for the estimated 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. The purpose and need
of this project would also be satisfied by improving sight distance and the approach geometry at
8
the intersection of NC 88 and NC 194, improving the sight distance by flattening the S-curve
between Locust Grove Drive and Lawson Lane, providing a center turn lane for the portion
within the Town of Jefferson with the most driveways, intersections, and industrial traffic, and
widening the travel lanes to 12 feet. Build Alternate 4 impacts fewer residences and
businesses, causes less disruption to the community, impacts fewer jurisdictional areas, and
has the least impact to the Section 4(f) Resource, the Joseph Benjamin Neal House.
4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
NCDOT proposes to improve approximately 1.6 miles of NC 88 from NC 194 to US 221
Business in the Town of Jefferson as presented in the 2007 - 2013 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Figures Al and A2 in Appendix A present the project vicinity and
location.
4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE & STATUS
This is a state and federally-funded road improvement project. The 2007 - 2013 STIP
established right of way and construction schedules for this project in federal fiscal year 2009
and 2011, respectively.
The Merger 01 Process integrates the activities required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The following chronology presents the completed milestones for the NEPA and
Merger processes:
? August 31, 2000
? November 16, 2000
? April 4, 2001
? December 12, 2001
? December 12, 2001
? August 27, 2002
? March 15, 2005
? June 27, 2006
Began Environmental Assessment
Scoping Meeting
Citizens Informational Workshop
Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose & Need)
Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives to be Studied in Detail)
USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Concurrence Point 2A (Alternatives to Carry Forward
& Bridging Decisions)
SHPO Effects Concurrence (Joseph Benjamin Neal House)
The following is a summary of the remaining milestones:
? Extension or update of the USACE Jurisdictional Determination that expires on
August 27, 2007
? Merger 01 Process Application
9
? NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification
? USACE Section 404 Permit
? Public Notice Review for EA documentA Section 404 Permit Application
? Public Hearing
? Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA)
? Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance & Minimization)
? Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Report (anticipated)
? Concurrence Point 4B (30% Hydraulic Design)
? Concurrence Point 4C (Permit Drawings Review)
? Right of Way
? Construction Let
4.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THOROUGHFARE PLANS
This project is included in the Jefferson - West Jefferson Transportation Plan Report
(December 2002) and all alternates included in the plan were considered in this proposed
action. Build Alternates 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with the thoroughfare plan, which classifies
NC 88 as a major thoroughfare and recommends major widening to improve safety and
increase capacity. Build Alternate 4 includes 3-lane widening for the urban (eastern) portion of
the project and traffic safety improvements at various locations. Although Build Alternate 4 is
not fully consistent with the thoroughfare plan, it does satisfy the purpose and need for this
project.
4.4 ALIGNMENT
The improvements to NC 88 will be on existing location with the exception of the north-to-south
and south-to-north widening transitions incorporated to minimize impacts to the human and
natural environment (the best-fit alignment). The horizontal and vertical alignments have been
designed to improve traffic safety by increasing sight distance at various locations on NC 88.
4.5 RIGHT OF WAY & TYPICAL SECTIONS
The proposed right of way width varies throughout the length of the project. It is dependent
upon the typical section, topography, and individual property constraints. The typical sections
for the build alternates are included in Appendix A.
4.6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES, LEVELS OF SERVICE, & SPEED LIMITS
The Jefferson-West Jefferson area has been growing more slowly than originally anticipated
and has experienced about a four to five percent increase in population per year for past several
years. Therefore, the 2002 - 2025 traffic forecast projections were extrapolated to estimate the
2030 traffic volumes. Traffic projections for the 2030 design year range from 12,000 to 14,000
10
vpd. The proposed improvements will result in the facility operating at Level of Service D in the
design year based upon a design speed of 50 mph, a posted speed limit of 45 mph and six
percent truck traffic.
4.7 CULVERTS & BRIDGES
There are no existing bridges on NC 88 and none are proposed. The proposed culverts for the
three major stream crossings presented in Table 5 are based upon the preliminary hydraulic
design recommendations and bridging decisions agreed upon by the Merger Process Team at
its Concurrence Point 2A Meeting on March 15, 2005. The remaining culverts are roadway
culverts less than 72 inches in diameter and small-diameter driveway culverts. It should be
noted that Crossing No. 2, Little Buffalo Creek, would not need to be extended by Build
Alternate 4.
Table 5: Proposed Culverts
Crossing Stream Name Existing Proposed Comments
No. Culvert Culvert
1 - 60"
Tributary of Corrugated REPLACE

1
Naked Creek Steel Pipe
& 1 - 30" With
10' x 6' Concrete
Bury invert 12" for fish passage.
(Naked UT-B) Corrugated Box Culvert
Steel Pipe
EXTEND
3 @ 11' x 7' Existing Culvert
With Sills or baffles in culvert
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete
3 @ 11 x Tx 60 extension to retain bed material
Box Culvert
Concrete and promote fish passage.
Box Culvert
Tributary of 2 - 60" REPLACE Intersection realignment will
With necessitate replacement of
3 Little Buffalo Creek Corrugated 9' x 5' Concrete existing culvert; bury invert 12"
(Little Buffalo UT-B) Steel Pipes
1 Box Culvert for fish passage.
4.8 NOISE BARRIERS
Traffic noise abatement measures including buffers, berms, and walls were evaluated, but are
not proposed for this project. Refer to Section 7.14 of this report for a discussion on highway
traffic and construction noise analysis.
4.9 SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are not in use on NC 88. However, the Town of Jefferson is currently developing a
Pedestrian Plan that includes recommendations for sidewalk on one side of NC 88 within the
town limits. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division will continue coordination with the Town of
Jefferson regarding their Pedestrian Plan and sidewalks on NC 88.
11
The proposed curb and gutter sections provide an area behind the curb for sidewalk. NCDOT
will design and construct sidewalks if they are requested by and the funding is shared by the -
municipality under agreement with NCDOT.
4.10 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
This section of NC 88 is not listed in the STIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
NC 88 is not included in a state-designated bicycle route system, nor is there any indication of
an unusual volume of bicycle travel on NC 88. Therefore, bicycle lanes are not proposed for
this project.
4.11 ESTIMATED COSTS
Table 6 presents the estimated costs for the build alternates based upon preliminary roadway
design plans.
Table 6: Estimated Costs
1 2 3 4
3-lane 3-lane
3-lane Shoulder Section Shoulder Section
Alternate Shoulder Section (rural portion) (rural portion) Safety
(entire length) & & Improvements
3-lane C&G Section 5-lane C&G Section
urban portion) urban portion)
Right of Way $ 10,000,000 $ 10,900,000 $ 11,800,000 $ 4,600,000
Construction $ 9,100,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,900,000
Total $ 19,100,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 21,800,000 $ 8,500,000
5.0 RELATED PROJECTS
progress. Right of way acquisition for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year
2008. The construction let date for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year 2010.
5.3 US 221 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (R-2310)
NCDOT will be upgrading 9.8 miles of US 221 from NC 16 to the Alleghany County Line. This is
a Strategic Highway Corridor Project. It is currently programmed for planning and
environmental studies only and those are currently in progress. The right of way acquisition and
construction let dates are currently scheduled to be after 2013.
5.4 US 221 WIDENING PROJECT (R-2915)
NCDOT will be widening 16.1 miles of US 221 to a 4-lane divided facility from US 421 in
Watauga County to US 221 Business-NC 88 in Jefferson. This is a Strategic Highway Corridor
Project in the planning and design phase. Portions of the project are funded. The right of way
and construction let dates for Section A are currently scheduled for federal fiscal year 2011 and
2013, respectively. The right of way for Section B is currently scheduled for federal fiscal year
2012 and the construction let date is currently scheduled to be after 2013. The remaining
sections are currently scheduled to be after federal fiscal year 2013. The northern terminus for
R-2915 is the eastern terminus for U-3812. The construction schedules and design plans for
R-2915 and U-3812 are being coordinated.
6.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS
6.1 ASHE COUNTY
Ashe County is located in the northwest corner of North Carolina. Ashe County is bounded by
three other counties in North Carolina (Allegheny, Wilkes, Watauga to the east, southeast, and
southwest, respectively), Virginia to the north, and Tennessee to the west.
There are no interstates in Ashe County. NC 88 and US 221 bisect the county in an east-west
direction and NC 16 bisects the county in a north-south direction. NC 88 and US 221 intersect
at the center of Ashe County in the Town of Jefferson, which is the county seat.
6.2 POPULATION BY RACE
The 2000 Census reported that the population of Ashe County is 24,384 persons, approximately
97% are of Caucasian descent, 2% are of Hispanic descent, and less than 1 % of African-
American descent. The demographic profile of the project study area is similar to that of the
county, but different from that of the state with respect to minority populations. Minorities
comprise 30% of North Carolina's overall population, but only 6% of the study area population
and only 4% of the county's population.
13
Table 7: Population by Race (2000)
Study Area Ashe County North Carolina
R
ace
Population % Population % Population %
Total Hispanic 260 4.0 590 2.4 378,963 4.7
White 6,173 95.5 23,691 97.2 5,804,656 72.1
Hispanic
(White) 102 1.6 251 1.0 157,501 2.0
Black 65 1.0 162 0.7 1,737,545 21.6
Hispanic
Black 2 0.0 7 0.0 14,244 0.2
American Indian 40 0.6 79 0.3 99,551 1.2
Hispanic
American Indian 31 0.5 39 0.2 4,218 0.1
Asian / Pacific Islander 29 0.4 59 0.2 117,672 1.5
Hispanic
Asian / Pacific Islander 2 0.0 2 0.0 2,091 0.0
Other 157 2.4 393 1.6 289,889 3.6
Totals 6,464 100 24,384 100 8,049,313 100
6.3 POPULATION BY AGE
The percentage of the 2000 population categorized as "18 years and under" was 19.7% in the
study area, slightly lower than the county (21.0%), and lower than the state (25.8%). The
population characterized as 19 to 64 years of age in the study area was very similar to the
county and state percentages. The population categorized as "65 years or above" was 21.4% in
the study area, slightly higher than the county (18.0%), and much higher than the state (12.0%).
Table 8: Population by Age (2000)
A Study Area Ashe County North Carolina
ge Population % Population % Population %
18 years and under 1,273 19.7 5,116 21.0 2,073,849 25.8
19 to 64 3,807 58.9 14,891 61.1 5,006,416 62.2
65 or above 1,384 21.4 4,377 18.0 969,048 12.0
Totals 6,464 100 24,384 100 8,049,313 100
Median Age 43.1 42.1 35.3
The median age in the study area is 43.1 years as compared with the county at 42.1 years and
the state at 35.3 years. The higher median age in the study area and county might indicate the
presence of an older, retired population.
I
1
14
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit from USACE
is required for projects that discharge dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
An Individual Permit is likely to be applicable for impacts resulting from this project since all of
the build alternates appear to exceed the 300 linear foot maximum stream impact threshold
typically allowed under nationwide permitting. An individual permit would require the submission
of an application (USACE ENG Form 4345) and involves a public notice for comments as well
as coordination with other federal and state agencies.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. This certification is issued
for any activity, which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required
and may have additional conditions for the activity causing the discharge. Prior to issuance of
the Water Quality Certification, DWQ must determine that the project will not result in cumulative
impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards. Cumulative
impact is defined within North Carolina Administrative Code as those environmental impacts
resulting from incremental effects of an activity when added to past, present, and reasonably-
foreseeable future activities regardless of which entities undertake such actions. To evaluate
cumulative impacts, DWQ has identified three levels of cumulative analysis for public
transportation projects:
• Generic Description: This analysis is for small-scale widening projects, bridge
replacement projects, and intersection improvement projects that typically have a low
potential for stimulating growth and creating cumulative impacts.
• Qualitative Analysis: This analysis typically applies to widening projects with new
locations and projects that generally have a low potential for cumulative impacts since
these locations tend to be near existing roads and already developed areas.
• Quantitative Analysis: This analysis applies to new location projects that may have
growth-stimulating effects and may result in cumulative impacts to downstream water
quality. It involves a more-detailed analysis of whether growth is likely to be induced by
the project, if there are existing uses of water that may be impacted by growth, and
whether additional regulatory measures will be needed to regulate the growth.
8.7 MITIGATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality, a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of
this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
Council on Environmental Quality to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects ("avoidance," "minimization," and "compensatory mitigation") must be
considered sequentially. Planning and design efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional areas are presented in Section 8.5.1.3 of this report, Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas.
A preliminary discussion of mitigation for project impacts is presented in this section.
Under an Individual Permit, the USACE may require compensation for all cumulative jurisdictional
impacts to wetlands and perennial streambed or important intermittent streambed that result from
the project. Under an Individual Certification, DWQ compensatory mitigation requirements will
typically follow those of the USACE as long as the 1:1 restoration requirement is met.
57
The impacts proposed to Little Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo UT-B, Little Buffalo UT-C, Little Buffalo
UT-D, and/or Naked UT-A appear to exceed the 150 linear foot threshold at which compensatory
mitigation is typically required. Impacts to Little Buffalo UT-A and Little Buffalo UT-C may not
require compensatory mitigation because they are small intermittent streams. Compensatory
mitigation requirements for Little Buffalo Creek and Naked UT-A may be satisfied by using natural
channel design to relocate the parallel reaches of these streams outside the project fill limits.
Total wetland impacts for all of the build alternates are less than 1/3 acre and should not require
compensatory mitigation. Proposed impacts to the pond are less than 0.1 acre and may not
require compensatory mitigation.
As discussed above, compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream losses may be required
where avoidance and minimization. of impact are not possible. Mitigation requirements will be
dependent upon final road plans.
8.8 PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of flora and fauna have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
8.8.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January
29, 2007, the USFWS lists seven federally-protected species for Ashe County (USFWS, 2003)
and the biological conclusion regarding potential project impacts to those species. A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for these species are discussed in
the following sections.
Table 17: Federally - Protected Species in Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) Not Required
Heller's blazing star Liatris helled Threatened No Effect

Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana
(Hedyotis purpurea
var. montana
Endangered
No Effect
rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered No Effect
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened No Effect
58
"Endangered" - A taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" - A taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"T (S/A)" - Threatened due to similarity of appearance is a taxon that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Required
Within the project area, the emergent Wetland 100 near Little Buffalo Creek is the most likely
habitat for the bog turtle. The Wetland is open and sunny with a dense coverage of sawgrass,
rushes, and sedges. Wetlands 200 and 300 are probably less preferable habitats because of
shading, flooding from the adjacent pond and stream, and the density of shrubs surrounding the
wetlands. No bog turtles have been observed during project site visits on August 1, 2002,
June 4, 2003, and July 24, 2003. The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T S/A) to another rare species that is listed for protection. T S/A species are not
subject to Section 7 constaltation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Heller's blazing star does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, well below the elevations preferred by this
species. There are no rocky outcrops in the project study area. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003) did not list occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. This project will not impact Heller's blazing star.
Roan Mountain bluet (Houstonia montana)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Roan Mountain bluet does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the
project study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation
for suitable habitat. There are no high elevation cliffs or rocky outcrops in the project study
area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003) did not
list occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact the Roan
Mountain bluet.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for rock gnome lichen does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation for
suitable habitat in Ashe County. There are no high elevation cliffs or deep gorges in the project
study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (May 12, 2003)
did not list occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not impact the
rock gnome lichen.
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Habitat for Spreading avens does not exist in the project study area. Elevations in the project
study area range from 2,840 feet to 3,040 above msl, which is well below the elevation for
suitable habitat. There are no high elevation cliffs or rocky outcrops in the project study area.
59
012.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report documents.the activities conducted and presents the findings and recommendations
of the assessment along with a record of environmental approvals and consultation with other
agencies. Our findings do not indicate the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
be prepared and we anticipate that the environmental assessment process will be concluded
with a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The determination of the final documentation
needed for this project will be based upon comments received on this Environmental
Assessment Report.
13.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The following documents were prepared by various disciplines within NCDOT for this
environmental assessment. Data derived from these documents was used in the preparation of
this Environmental Assessment Report. These reference documents are hereby incorporated
as if included herein.
1. "Geoenvironmental Impact Evaluation Report (November 17, 2000)"
2. "Archaeological Survey Report (May 2001)"
3. "Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report (July 2001)"
4. "Air Quality Analysis Report (November 16, 2001)"
5. "Community Impact Assessment Report (May 31, 2002)"
6. "Traffic Forecast Report (August 8, 2002)"
7. "Preliminary Hydraulics Report (November 4, 2002)"
8. "Congestion Management Preliminary Report (February 21, 2003)"
9. "Noise Analysis Report (June 25, 2003)"
10. "Relocation Report (August 25, 2003)"
11. "Natural Resources Technical Report (December 2003)"
12. "Utility Analysis and Problem Identification for Alternatives Report (April 11, 2007)"
13. "Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Strip Analysis Report (July 16, 2007)"
66
4.
oll

.. ,

_,
?-
y

v
N
++ C
1
i
i
1
i
1
U 1
.? 1
i
i
3
I.O t i ?4?

T
tV O
W Q

`?
G)
3 E
0
(n
AoIr?s? o w
S 4??? S
( 4VoN
1 .?
C4
'o
a` •_
V
W
* L.ar?
Q
O
1
a??aa ;saM4,0N
.d
o e
IoG ?a
1!y
w
d
'o
a
c
m.
E
H
ii geom Im ti<
r
Q
?o
Z
O
N
N
y?
s
ard
C°ly b
t onnell ° L
(L
? a?+ J
W H 3
a
c
Wm
............... *
uos iver
d
0
0
IL^
V
i N
7
? J
Road

?
OO a
L
12
d
ac
9
0.

co
°
' o
-
w s,
ms
a? y

m
?s #om yoinyZ)
/1aes aidwal

C.
?o
=o
N O r
a •v n
7 O r
pf J
LL 4)
a?
•L- Z
0. a?
04
00 c
M O O
N
t
oQ
CU
Z
*NC7
?._.._.._.._.._ ._
uowemer? ?s
1153 dM
S
0000
ppodl ?a4?h
fl- 41
CL CD
? LV r r Q C
¦ ¦ c ai
..., i*9
$ W cn
?. a
O-u
r + ¦f G. Z
\ ? i • a? s N= C
• ? ? ¦ co 7
to 0
}} a a -? ?
?? fa? ¦ + ? ? G1
r ? t
¦ • co N
,r r a .? 00 Q
U
a * r w Z
r t ?
Ov.
/ ?,, ¦ ¦
an
Yr
? 4'32 _ti} }'? '?,' ? ? t?fc, ? '
r
• ? 'o /fir `"'.-?„ .
f -? 0. 'Ica ?'? "s
c l? ? , I1
m s ff * O?¦
i ¦
Mr
QJ IM,
• ,`r • r is alBueapentj uosiamer
• f cT O a t
r - ?• w
air + J ? r-D • r~ rf.:
• ?_r, ?^?` alBueapenrjac1insuaJJBM
W
r
? I
N ti t, t, v N€•..° $ 4?.f
'1. , r t r 4 y!`r '['t?ef$ X !?$,"'_?:'€ raft', y? "P4EE.'v r .,?P?P . ;F: jyg
n `qA?. ,_k ?"?' tY i. t. !{,?,qa ti+'i +•F ?`? { t+ : t,.' i. v`k,
F .y n,;• c, ?f.7q? + ti , # Note: Locations of parcel lines are approximate
6: +r,., t =;qe ?- ',r ,t " +g,re"r r't > k - e4
S e 1. 1 ?* x x rs
%
q'? ,'•it_ s ks Ij k: tr v
88
t k
194
e.
Fc V
aj}'= - wt l : R ?' '. - ?? - S 9 .{ CAF x d ?tir4 A
^
i a } 'gy1p
k+f 4.i. P` `` a' - '"• , s f ?' g 't ti X
- " fz
Maranatha
3 r .. Church n ti}• } n
-42
v `.. 7¢1'? t• V} 1' 4?F' ,,Y 9 r ? .. ,?_'. it ?( '+' Y?,(? ? ?sE" ?p ? S
gl. ¢.; ti F ??t'{! 'I:? 'f,V 5, 1 f'?P 5.5??€.5{.l. 7?? ?'-?f, ?E? F',V` 4Yyb?`M ? ????•Y?, k '"''IA? :{?..
ae ? , j ?;' ,¢Kl ? M 6:I ? £ "h? . ?'4` f 8 F'L ?' 3ti? S -. ` ? - 'S,A •r
Begin Project r E ', AD''F''
A ,? ?.. r q ? t ?. ? q ? ?5'w?rr t`; ,??," prM• ? ya *' t x '
a•:.q f F.?` (' ?' ''f ?+ ?,,; ... 1 tP. ??' ,Ai9 ?i- ? qt+t? ??,i. r` m'??? b?4` r•.> ''-u '.4 .??.? c? /?
.ryF-
IIIIWI V-
40
® ?`>?, *.? .• .> ,? Wetland' rr
t,?,
1(]? k y r t a w,?`r `. ; -. t • + i
e' w F '
r x
/:?i'" ±. 1 € Y(. y 1•
?lttle 8u " r;d
??
alo Creek ,. ,,
88
$. W
zwo L9
Paddy Mountain Lumber t '' t r? .y ,, ` 5 n f
j ! e 4 I 4 Yffi:.' es. y ++4 y?
?'- . ' ?, ? ? ? F k Ar. ?Yk• Q
ff 7
w i` Blue Ridge Electric
I If,
d 9 .fi
1
? YR 1
i /rya i? ? k )
F Y ?' F
Q
r is r' 4? t :ti. ?F , Membership
f F #?'• r ?'??tv? t?`r i Substation
0#0 0 ? e £lr. .? i

3

? i
.

? r.§ r a a
4
I t ' Yf tt
.117
Y
z ac
1
4 4 a y
4 aY? r t?'z ref .
p Ch
?P..

Proposed Slope Stake Line for
3-lane Shoulder Section from
NC 194 to Lawson Lane &
M 5-1ane Curb-and-Gutter Section from
Lawson Lane to US 221 Business Estimated impacts are based upon land disturbance between the
0 existing roadway and the proposed slope stake line plus 25 feet
0.48 ac \I
? t
i
0
0.88 ac
v '
D.2.
0
Little Buffalo UT-C
Intermittent -120 ft
Oo
9y
X17
°0
01
? ill H?Il Road
boa cN
M
3 tt et 0.15 ac 0
\ ? M
0.50 ac y
2 0.23 ac
' 0.60 ac
? Existing Roadway 0.72 ac Cl)
L Montane Oak - CD
i 0.77 ac
0 Hickory Forest
u 0.02 ac
0.76 acs
?' - ' Wetland 200 ? Pond 100
? 0.02 ac
-'
\ - 1.79 ac ° J
3.46 ac , - °
v 88
- - - Rf
? Naked Creek
Christmas Tree Plantation Proposed Slope Stake Line
0.04 ac plus 25 feet (typical)
Little Buffalo UT-D
Perennial - 290 ft
Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet1 Sheet2 Sheet3 Totals
Wetlands 0.05 ac 0.05 ac 0.12 ac 0.2 ac
Streams 157 ft 120 ft 0 280 ft
(intermittent)
Streams 759 ft 290 ft 784 ft 1835 ft
(Perennial)
® Ponds 0 0.02 ac 0 0.02 ac
® Christmas Tree 51 ac
2 04 ac
0 0 2.6 ac
Plantation . .
? Montane Oak - 4.14 ac 2.66 ac 1
64 ac 8.4 ac
Hickory Forest .
El Maintained - 8
35 ac 7.91 ac 9
38 ac 25.6 ac
Disturbed . .
4I
.
r, .
88
194
Proposed Slope Stake Line
plus 25 feet (typical)
Proposed Slope Stake Line for
1 _ Safety Improvements Alternate (typical)
0.44 ac
Little Buffalo UT-A
Intermittent - 30 ft
Little Buffalo UT-A1
Perennial - 70 ft
0.21 ac
0.14 ac
194
1.88 ac \

Maintained - Disturbed
0.24 ac
Little Buffalo Creek
Perennial -113 ft
i
1110

J Begin Project
Little Buffalo UT-B
Perennial -140 ft
. Wetland 100
? ? 1
#j?
/J.
4
r?
0
ti

Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet1 Sheet2 Sheet3 Totals

Wetlands 0 0.05 ac 0.06 ac 0.1 ac
Streams

(intermittent) 30 ft 0 0 30 ft
Streams
323 ft
0
565 ft
890 ft
(perennial)
. Ponds 0 < 0 01 ac 0 < 0.01 ac
¦ Christmas Tree 0 0 0 0
Plantation
? Montane Oak - 0 0
82 1.12 ac 1
9 ac
Hickory Forest . .
Maintained -
?

Disturbed 2.97 ac 1.99 ac 512 ac 101
ac
Estimated impacts are based upon land disturbance between the
existing roadway and the proposed slope stake line plus 25 feet.
N
w E
S
Natural Resources Impact Summary
Resource Sheet 1 Sheet 2 Sheet 3 Totals
Wetlands 0 0.05 ac 0.06 ac 0.1 ac
Streams 30 ft

(intermittent)
0
0 30 ft

N i-;
4+ ?
C C
•-? ? 'cp
bA V 2
Z N
Or N 04
d ?
3: ¢ - - T - - Q
Lc) Lf)
0 0
12 pM X55
(2,1)
N
Lf)

Lr) ?- M
Lo
00 r
r Im
_-=
Q
O
N
an
0
a? v
LO U)

12 pM OW. 60 rM
12 -?60
(2.1) (2,1)
10 CD
0) LO
Z N ?-- ? ?
? -?
??
co
-?'
r- Z
r
Z
co ?

--?

Lc)

Q
W
H
Q
L
r
W
Lf)
N
O
N
O

$ O
O
? N O

z

O V 00

A ?
ai
? O
:C

W 0
L L.
3
w S ? A

00 ?

w
U ?

M

C sN ? ?

a 3a
U
A a
H

G7
0 0?
z °> w

p1y; 96
p
a>Ewc..
Z ?S

w
O
F
it 5
Aazx o
i Fe
v
>w .a .. a. ..

?rwFa.O
> aaxwdlw-- F
?r
v0
CA z
W
rap?wQ n
5g6zot
s pE..xOU F
c3
y
>w ozMe
u
°•w
o
"?d
> ?
!
?
GxaC a?
w
aak A ap oG'°

s
r
I
N 00 U) C
O C o O

d Z ? ?
0 0

L
? 00
?? ..
00 CID r O
12- b55 12 pM X55 ?p
<2 1) M (41) o W A

(n

M n M
M M

?- N CD

C*4

U5

06
00

M c
l,' ffi

4
M n

?--

m U

z d N

0

U"
qt w
r"

cc CN
04

(J)

O

r`

co
N -?
N

i?

D
ti

O
=
ell
'D N Z

'
M fh Qr

co co
12 PM X55
(2.1)
rn
N N ? ++
?N
* ? o
i -C U
?N
co co
6044 PM to
(4.3)
-0

d
OT
CIO
-?
Z
n
?
10
?
r 0

cc
U) cfl 4 ?,
?-
$ U)
Q - - - - - a
U

Z y

i-
Q
a
w
LO
N
O
N

0
?o
z it > w
d ? J o
r
y > a x ? fi
?... x
¢
t
amw
O
W
F
F
z
C
?
o
r
n .
,
Zia y xo?age
0
O
F
a
d
o
.

C "
ao C4CL'dF
F
?
W>
v,
rJ6 z
d g r
C F,
Z A
mW3 2
o
a
11aw-
w
d
i C Q Y a G
> a°
T 14
09
A
C6
uak

637
?280
ZONE AE

2a?4
C Q 50
$20
2
2822

824
2
2826 C-1
T
194

sa ZONE AE
30

-2832
834
2
ZONE X
8
?o
NE A
194
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
0 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ASHE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 78 OF 175
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 370008 0078 E
WEST JEFFERSON, MINN OF 370009 0078 E
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 370007 0078 E
PANEL LOCATION
MAP NUMBER:
3700900078 E
M N EFFECTIVE DATE:
m AUGUST 16,1988
?JI fix. ? y
Federal Emergency Management Agency
a
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 1
ZONE X
IE A
?O
??' 194
U 221

Federal Emergency Management Agency
94

_1
Town of Jefferson
370008
Naked Creek
221 88
ZONE A
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ASHE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 78 OF 175
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 370008 0078 E
WEST JEFFERSON, TOWN OF 370009 0078 E
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 370007 0078 E
PANEL LOCATION
MAP NUMBER:
3700900078 E
EFFECTIVE DATE:
AUGUST 16,1988
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at vwrw.msc.fema.gov
o .. v v+
? N
t 99 18 NIVY1 'N
<<
410
J
Y ?.
UOj
?JON
004
1? cry
1 (, ' • A
to
rJ?
j to
w
Lll u ' 0,?
- O
O lD
O.
U .Q,
N
99 Lc N1vw •N s ss?
w
_ a rn
Y
?C7 •?S?h11.1,?dON
...., I . ..,.. . .,... 1 .._. . ..... . , ..... . .....'
?? •'?
0 ow-11
V
N .
tL
• 1
o t4)
s
APPENDIX C : RELOCATION POLICIES & PROGRAMS
NCDOT will provide assistance and counseling to those affected by transportation
improvements. The North Carolina Board of Transportation offers programs that address
relocation assistance, moving payments and replacement housing payments or rent subsidies
for residents and businesses that are impacted by transportation improvement projects.
The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects
of displacement on families. The occupants of the affected residences may qualify for aid under
one or more of the relocation programs. It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted
projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to- minimize-the inconvenience-of-rntocatiom-
• Relocation Assistance Program
• Relocation Moving Payments Program
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist
displacees with information such as availability and prices of-homes, apartments, or businesses
for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs.
The Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or
rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants
who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for this proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
(Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer will be assigned
to this project.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing
which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be
offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities.
Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and
farm operations in their search for and move to replacement properties.
All displaced tenant and owner residential occupants will receive an explanation regarding all
available options such as,
(1) purchase of replacement housing, or
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible).
The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs
offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs
of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations-acquired for a highwayproject. Under the-Repiacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings
such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a
payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by NCDOT's construction projects
unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement.
No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of
any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available,
or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement
housing can be provided.

o

:.
- ?:
?.

feel
M$V1n:o
reauq
. v ",wnnn .
.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
January 17, 2002
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis'Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Ss
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary

Subject: Scoping - Proposed Widening of NC 88 from US 221 Business in Jefferson to NC 194
in Ashe County; TIP #U-3812
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 02-E-4220-0344. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 02/28/2002. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1302 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
y RALEIGH, NC 27699-1302
116 West Jones Street *-Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 *Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
o..
n nn.+) g
North Carolina
r
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson Secretary' r
March 1, 2002
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27.699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 02-E-4220-0344; Scoping Proposed Widening of NC 88 from US 221 Business in
Jefferson to NC 194 in Ashe County; TIP #U-3812
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Nt
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attaclunents
cc: Region D
r,
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
February 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ?JJc \ U t?
Deputy State Histo Preservation Officer
Re: Widen NC 88 from US 221 to NC 194,
TIP No. U-3812, Ashe County, ER 01-7665
We regret that April Montgomery of our staff was unable to attend the November 16, 2000, meeting
of the minds concerning the above project. Based upon our review of the information provided, we
offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in
over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be
keyed to a map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no building over fifty years old on or
adjacent to the project, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. The project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological
resources. Based on the topographic situation, the project area is considered to have a high
potential for the presence of archaeological resources. Several archaeological sites have been located
in similar settings, south of the project area.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed
by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section .106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
I
Page 2
William D. Gilmore
February 9, 2001
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom, Padgetts NCDOT
fi
It
10/13/2003 13:16
STRTE ARCHAEOLOGY DEPT + 97151522

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisboh C. Evans, Sttcretary
July 10, 2001
MMORANDUM
To:. Thou=,Padgem
NCDOT
NO. 23e G0
1
;:; jr?s p? vats ? /¢
U-381 2
Division of Archives and History
lefty I. Crow. Director
From: David Brook
Deputy State Histotic Preservation Officer
Re: NC 88 from US 221 Business to NC 194, U-3812, Ashe County, ER 01-7665
'T'hank you for your letter of May 21, 2001, transtnitting the archaeological survey report by Paul
Mohler., Megan O'Connel, and Brian Overton concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one archaeological site 31AH224/224**, was located within the
project area. The authors xecotxt mnd additional testing at the site, if construction staging is to take
place outside of the proposed area of potential effect.
Wig the current project area no Significant cultural deposits were located, and no additional
archaeological work is recomrntnded. We concur with these recommendations, since the project
will not affect significant archeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR'Part 800.
'hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
eornm=4 contact Renee Gledhill-Carley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
IDB:kgc
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
John Wadsworth, F I?w.A-"'?
be: Clam/Hall(2) ? .
County
Reading
Location Mailing Address Tetephonelfax
Administralloa 507 N. Blount St. Ralcigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733.86.'3
Reotorniion S 15 N. Blount $t, Ralcigh , NC 4613 Mail Sarvioo Canter, Raleigh 37699-4613 [phone].715-4901
Srrvey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4619 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699.4618 [phone] e7154801
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
4
?@ ww voa°?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
August 31, 2001 t .1 E D
MEMORANDUM
c?Q? s
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager v?9 Fi 2
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch c ;
_„ ? ?,
From: David Brook RR41??
Deputy State Histort reservation Officer ,,eO4,f?`EN'(A? AC's
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report for NC 88 Widening from US 221 Business to NC
194, Ashe Co., TIP No. U-3812, State Project 8.1711501, Federal Aid No. STP-88(2), ER 02-7229
Thank you for your letter of August 1, 2001, transmitting the survey report prepared by Heather
Fearnbach for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Joseph Benjamin Neal House is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C for Architecture as a rare surviving dwelling
constructed in Jefferson during the late nineteenth century. We concur with the
boundaries as noted on page 13 and delineated in figure 5 of the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800. -
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comments, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763.
cc: Nicholas Graf
Mary Pope Furr
N
Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone].715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 7334763 •715-4801
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director..
October 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM
A wn
NCDENR
To: William D-Gilmore?..P:E:, Manager;.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: ,l John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Cynthia F. Van Der WieleClKW
Subject: _ Scoping comments on the proposed widening of NC 88 from US 221 Bus. To
NC 194 in Ashe County, T.I.P. Project U-3812.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated September 26, 2000, in which you
requested scoping comments for the above project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals
that the proposed project could impact Naked Creek and Little Buffalo Creek in the New River
Basin. The DWQ index number for the streams are 10-1-32 and 10-2-20-1 and the stream are
classified as C + and C Trout + waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
I required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. Review of the project reveals that impacts to waters -classified as Class C Trout waters
could occur. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to
streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High
Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/11/00 _
Page 2
E. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
F. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
G. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
H. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a
culvert,.it should.be countersunk.to allow: unimpeded.fish and.other.aquatic..organisms
passage through the crossing.
1. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the..document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation
wilt be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. - While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you -for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
OF SAT ?RQG
? y
o ?
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
February 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Cvdw
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed widening of NC 88 from US 221 Bus. To NC
194.:in.Ashe•.Couuty,T.I.P..Pxojectd.I 3812.-State Clearinghouse No. 02E0344. .
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated January 9, 2002, in which you requested
scoping comments for the above project. Preliminary. analysis of the project reveals that the proposed
project could impact Naked Creek and Little Buffalo Creek in the New River Basin. The DWQ index
number for the streams are 10-1-32 and 10-2-20-1 and the stream are classified as C + and C Trout +
waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental
issues for the proposed project:
Environmental Documentation
1. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be
noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. The environmental documents should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
proposed project's impacts to wetlands and streams (i.e., storm water runoff, turbidity, etc.) with
corresponding mapping as well as the cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of
this project. There are several TIP projects in this area (e.g., NC 16, US 221); combined with this
project, there is the potential for increased impacts to resources.
Design & Construction
1. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) and Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) throughout design and construction of the project.

2. Within the New River Basin, habitat degradation is the main water quality issue, and includes
sedimentation (resulting primarily from land clearing activities, loss of riparian vegetation, rural
roads, and livestock grazing on streambanks) as well as impacts from urban runoff. NCDWQ
recommends the following Best Management Practices during construction:
? Using sediment basins and traps.
? Using phased grading/seeding plans.
? Limiting time of exposure.
? Planting temporary ground cover.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
According to DWQ's Basinwide Management Plan for New River Basin, it is recommended that
the Department of Transportation, as well as county highway departments, take special care when
constructing and maintaining (including mowing) roads along streams in the New River basin.
The lack of riparian vegetation and streambank erosion is well-documented and will lead to
increased instream habitat degradation if these problems remain unchecked. Vegetation along
streams should remain as undisturbed as possible when conducting these construction and
maintenance activities, keeping in mind that most of these streams are to be managed in a manner
similar to HQWs pursuant to Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0225 e(4). .
4. Storm water should be designed to be directed to buffer areas or retention basins rather than
routed directly into streams. Storm water should be designed to drain to a properly designed
stormwater detention facility/apparatus. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within
this basin, NCDOT is encouraged to retain vegetation as much as possible.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be
removed from any water pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the
stream.
6. Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, do
not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary. Especially avoid
removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut trees must be removed, then cut the
trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in place to minimize damage to stream banks.
7. Borrow/waste areas should not be.located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the
NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required for impacts
of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules t 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
9. Qualified personnel should perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
10. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters (i.e. trout
streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
11. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
File Copy

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
.Project Rev ew Coordinator
RE: OA-0344 Scoping Widening of NC 88, Ashe County
DATE: February 28, 2002
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental review.
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the environmental document, additional information is needed, the
applicant is encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
Attachments
RECEIVED
FEB 2 8 2002
1
N.C. STA rE CLEARINGHOUSE
r
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: 919=715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper.
•???/?? State of North Carolina
NGDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office:
WIT-0
Project Number. 0'24 O3V 21 Due Date: Z r ZO r o 2
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS

CA
dR-N
LIV
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(StatutoryTime Limit)
ermit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
I
lo, NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
1 f (? of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication.technical conference usually necessary, , 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days) j
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days '
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement (90 days)
l? to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.01 00,2 Q.0300, 2 H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.08C0
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973-must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 2D days
J days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
Ell The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C..with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
Oil Refining Facilities 90 -120 days
N/A (N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
wArFgo:., -
G
•G? r
4 ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COMMENTS
The Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) recommends that the applicant
coordinate a Pre-Application Meeting and Site Visit with the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine if a Section 404
Permit (USACE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ) will be required.
Even though a Section 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the EA/EIS
procedure is complete, proceeding with the pre-application and application process will
enable-the applicantFto' address, Water- Quality concern and, Regulations early- in the
project's development. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Avoidance and Minimization of surface water and riparian buffer impacts,
2. Stormwater Management requirements (as related to the 401 Program),
3. Compensatory Mitigation for streams, wetlands, and/or buffers (where
applicable),
4. Water Supply, Nutrient Sensitive, Trout, Outstanding Resource, and/or High
Quality Watershed concerns and requirements (where applicable),
5. Compliance with and protection of appropriate Water Quality Standards, on-
site as well as off-site, both during construction and after.
NPDES STORMWATER PERMITS COMMENTS
Any construction activity including clearing, grading, and excavation activities
resulting in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are required to obtain a
NPDES Stormwater Permit, NCG 010000, prior to beginning these activities.
Any facility that is defined as having stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity is required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit (varies) prior to
beginning operation.
STATE STORMWATER PERMIT COMMENTS
State Stormwater Permits may be required for development activities draining to
Outstanding Resources Waters or activities within one mile and draining to High Quality
Waters. These must also be obtained prior to development activities.
WSRO 10/01
ern
NCDENR
Customer Service
1 800 858-0368
Division of Water Quality. / Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: hftp://wq.ehnr.state.nc.us
C
1
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal BrocessTime
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of S5.000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any 10 days
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according (N/A)
to DENR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification N/A 55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development S250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development S50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
El Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A.Subchapter 200100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan' underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
* Other comme (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
77 - c/6av a Sr/a Z

w-
rte ° .?-
.

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C. 28801 Mooresville, N.C. 28115 Wilmington, N.C. 28405
-[phone] - -[phone] [phone]
1 .
? Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889.
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
02/,0412002 0§100 336=527-1548
NC 41LDLIFE RES ZOMM
PAGE 02
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 92
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
OfEce of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Proje Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ?
DATE: February 4, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
regarding fish and wildlife concerns for NC 88 Widening, from US 221 Business
in Jefferson to NC 194, Ashe County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-3812, F.A..
Project No. STP-88 (2), State Project No. S. 1171501, 02E # 0344
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the NCDOT
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject
project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain
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).
This project has the potential to impact streams in the New River Basin including Naked
Creek and Little Buffalo Creels. The streams are designated as part of a Proposed Critical
Habitat Area. In addition, Little Buffalo Creek flows into Buffalo Creek that supports hatchery
as well as native trout species. We would advise stringent erosion control measures and
stormwater management practices. We may also require a trout moratorium: Otherwise, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, we request that the following
information be provided:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated plant species can be
developed through consultation with the following programs:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
ZA
1Vt2iling Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Te{enhoner [phone] ext_ 281 • F2x_ [phone]
02/04/2002 0y: 00 36-527-1548 NC WILDLIFE RES COMM PAGE 03
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N.: C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include
the linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland
acreage should. include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change.asa.resulto£.ditching, other *:ainage,.or,.filling.for.profeet.construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4, Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the Mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of highway construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result
from secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of,this facility is to be coordinated' with other state, municipal-, -or
private development projects, a description of these projects should be included in
the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.

'T'hank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
Ashe -County Board of Education
Donnie & Johnson, Superintendent' • Charles L. Sing, Chairman • Charles B. Jones, Jr., Vice Chairman Dr. Lee Beckworth • Richard Blackburn • DorathY Witherep006
PO Box 604, 320 .South Street + Courier No. 15-65-01.o Jefferson, North Carofina 28640
[phone] • [phone] Fax
Ashe County Board of Education
bowie R Johnson, S'uperinttndtnr Charles L King, Chairman Charles B. Jones, Jr.i Vice Chairnwn = Dr. Lee Peckworth • Richard Blackburn • Dorothy Witherspoon
PO Box 604, 320 South.Street • Courier No. 15-65-01 • Jefferson; North:Carolina 28640
(336)246-717-5 [phone] Fax
Re:, TIP Project U-3812,1'14C' Impr6vements, Ashe County
Dear Mark:
On June 26, 2003, 1 met with the following local officials to provide information and receive
comments regarding the above-referenced project:
• Meredith Ballou, Manager, Town of Jefferson
• Kathryn Lawrence, Director, Ashe County Chamber of Commerce
• Dan McMillan, Ashe County Manager
• Dana Tugman, Mayor, Town of Jefferson
The group reviewed the preliminary plans for the project that you provided. I also briefly
described timeline for the project; rough estimates on required right-of-way; differences
between symmetrical and best-fit design options; and purpose and need for the project.
Also discussed at the meeting was the coordination of the U-3812 project and,TlP project
FS-0111 B (NC 194 Bypass). The NC 194 Bypass project, if constructed as planned, would
intersect NC 88 within the U-3812 project limits.
I informed. the group of local officials that NCDOT was considering eliminating the
symmetrical alternatives as feasible alternatives; was considering adding a 3-lane cross
section as a practical alternative; and was considering the inclusion of roundabouts in the
project at the NC 88/McConnell Street, and/or NC 88/Northwest Drive intersections.
I also relayed information on possible pedestrian crossing treatments gathered from a
discussion with Tom Norman of NCDOT's Bicycle and Pedestrian Division. The specific
pedestrian-crossing site discussed is located near Station 40 on the preliminary plans, where
McFarland Publishing has commercial operations on both sides of NC 88. Based on my
conversation with Tom Norman, it appears that signage, and a median refuge (if applicable,
based on cross-section), will be the most feasible pedestrian crossing treatments for the site.

Executive Ares Iiuildin'-,
: Y -
1'fu}fr 4
Based on our discussion, the following comments are offered:
1. The preferred cross-section is a combination of a five-lane curb and gutter section
from North Main Street west to Northwest Drive, and a four-lane divided section with
shoulders from Northwest Drive west to NC 194. The preferred cross-section is based on
current and anticipated development/traffic generation in the eastern portion of the project
area; anticipated traffic generation resulting from the proposed 194 Bypass project; and
anticipated safety benefits from a four-lane divided cross-section in the western portion of the
project area.
2. Any cross-section selected should have a dedicated left-turn lane, either through
continuous center lanes in a three-lane or five-lane cross-section, or through dedicated left-
turn lanes .at.intersections.ora-.a•two.,lan,sosfour4ane.-cross.-section..
3. A cross-section of at least four lanes will reflect the plans for the project as described
in the Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan, that has been adopted by the Town of
Jefferson, the Town of West Jefferson, and Ashe County.
4. Roundabouts do not seem appropriate for the project. This recommendation is based
on the amount of truck traffic on the facility, relatively high speeds along the facility, and
existing development at the NC 88/McConnell Street and NC 88/Northwest Drive
intersections.
5. Signage alerting traffic to pedestrians crossing the road is desired on either side of
the McFarland Publishing operations (Station 40). If and when the NC 194 Bypass is
constructed, a signalized pedestrian crossing should be incorporated into the NC 88/NC 194
Bypass intersection.
6. Project design should incorporate best management practices for access
management.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I look forward to working with you
and the local officials during the course of this project to coordinate local needs and desires
with NCDOT system goals and resources.
Sincerely,
4Phill WP
Transportation Planner
cc: Meredith Ballou, Manager, Town of Jefferson
Dan McMillan, Ashe County Manager

,?
.. .,

APPENDIX E : GLOSSARY
? Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such, measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Capacity is the maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated in reasonable safety
along a roadway within a specific time period. When traffic volumes approach or exceed the
capacity of the roadway, operating levels of service are diminished and congestion results.
Class C uses are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including
propagation and survival), and wildlife.
Class WS-IV waters are freshwaters previously used for drinking water supply purposes or
waters used by a supply source. WS-IV waters are suitable for all Class C uses.
Class WS-V waters are freshwaters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream
and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions on watershed development or
treated wastewater discharges are required, however, appropriate management requirements
might be deemed necessary for the protection of downstream receiving waters (15A NCAC 2B
.0203). WS-V waters are suitable for all Class C uses.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" might not be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States.
Cumulative impacts are the collective effects of multiple events and actions that may be
dependent or independent of those events or actions.
dBA is a measure the magnitude (sound pressure) of vehicle noise using the weighted-A
decibel logarithmic scale. This scale represents a frequency range of 1,000 to 6,000 Hertz to
which the human ear is most sensitive.
Federal Fiscal Year is the period from October 1st through September 30tH
Indirect impacts, which are the result of an event such as this proposed road widening project,
tend to occur over a longer period of time and can take place away from the immediate project
study area. A short-term example would be the development of a small subdivision along a new
or widened roadway that otherwise would not have occurred.
Level of Service is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions of a traffic
stream along a roadway or at an intersection of two roadways. Six levels of service are defined
from A to F, with Level of Service A representing the best and Level of Service F the worst
operational conditions.
Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through reduction of median widths, rights-of-way width, fill slopes,
and/or road shoulder widths.
Partial Control of Access is defined as one access point per parcel for road frontage of 2,000
feet or less, and two access points for road frontage greater than 2,000 feet. The right-of-way
will be fenced and the access points will be delineated openings in the fence that will be
recorded on property acquisition plats.
Project Study Area includes the proposed cut and fill limits shown on the design plans.
Project Vic.inWincludesan:-area7extending O.&mdesorraltsictes ofthe°Ptoject°Study Area.
Project Region includes an area represented on the United States Geological Survey
7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map centered on the Project Study Area.
Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with water on an infrequent
or incidental basis.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting
water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Listed waters must be.prioritized and a
management strategy or the Total Maximum Daily Load must subsequently be developed for all
listed waters.
Section 4(f) - Listed Properties are those specified in 23 CFR 771.135 for which the Federal
Highway Administration may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly-owned
public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site
unless a determination is made that: there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
land from the property; and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting
from such use.
Wetlands have been described as, "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient under normal circumstances to support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)]